Federal Register Vol. 83, No.73,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 73 (April 16, 2018)

Page Range16183-16765
FR Document

83_FR_73
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 16761 - Promoting Domestic Manufacturing and Job CreationPolicies and Procedures Relating to Implementation of Air Quality StandardsPDF
83 FR 16183 - Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust, 2018PDF
83 FR 16403 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 16401 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency MeetingPDF
83 FR 16422 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of DirectorsPDF
83 FR 16416 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 16346 - Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) For a Central Everglades Planning Project Post Authorization Change Report for the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir, FloridaPDF
83 FR 16402 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science BoardPDF
83 FR 16381 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 16198 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
83 FR 16262 - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) ProgramPDF
83 FR 16421 - Buy America Waiver NotificationPDF
83 FR 16276 - Air Plan Approval; GA; Permitting RevisionPDF
83 FR 16330 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management ProgramsPDF
83 FR 16381 - Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom; Supplemental Schedule for the Subject InvestigationsPDF
83 FR 16330 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Bremerton and Edmonds Ferry Terminals Dolphin Relocation Project in Washington StatePDF
83 FR 16200 - Tetraconazole; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 16357 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and Texas SO2PDF
83 FR 16345 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; List of Gear by Fisheries and Fishery Management CouncilPDF
83 FR 16329 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Reporting of Sea Turtle Incidental Take in Virginia Chesapeake Bay Pound Net OperationsPDF
83 FR 16329 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16355 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 16351 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 16347 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 16349 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 16354 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 16350 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 16431 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping RequirementsPDF
83 FR 16398 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Safe + Sound CampaignPDF
83 FR 16362 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16367 - Special Protocol Assessment; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 16344 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
83 FR 16380 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Student Transportation FormPDF
83 FR 16282 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 43PDF
83 FR 16267 - Safety Zone; Taylor Bayou Turning Basin, Port Arthur, TXPDF
83 FR 16399 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Furnishing Documents to the Secretary of Labor on Request Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 104(a)(6)PDF
83 FR 16347 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Privacy Act Request FormPDF
83 FR 16292 - Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC) Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 16378 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Initiative (National Institute of Mental Health)PDF
83 FR 16380 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Native Language Immersion GrantPDF
83 FR 16402 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 16286 - Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship MeetingPDF
83 FR 16319 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Final Affirmative Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
83 FR 16293 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From Switzerland: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 16298 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
83 FR 16296 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 16326 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From the Federal Republic of Germany: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 16322 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in PartPDF
83 FR 16289 - Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in PartPDF
83 FR 16421 - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 16423 - Small Shipyard Grant Program; Application DeadlinesPDF
83 FR 16426 - U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors MeetingPDF
83 FR 16436 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
83 FR 16362 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16436 - Multiemployer Pension Plan Application To Reduce BenefitsPDF
83 FR 16285 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kentucky Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 16382 - United States v. Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
83 FR 16404 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
83 FR 16403 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
83 FR 16369 - Highly Concentrated Caffeine in Dietary Supplements; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 16360 - Notice of Closed Meeting; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 16343 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21158-02PDF
83 FR 16206 - Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V001)PDF
83 FR 16397 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Second Amendment of Consent Decree Under The Clean Air ActPDF
83 FR 16396 - Civil Division; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; NewPDF
83 FR 16397 - Office of Justice Programs, SMART Office; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New CollectionPDF
83 FR 16430 - FCA US, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
83 FR 16426 - Forest River, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
83 FR 16428 - General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
83 FR 16432 - Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
83 FR 16265 - Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MDPDF
83 FR 16364 - Policy Clarification and Premarket Notification Submissions for Ultrasonic Diathermy Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 16376 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 16377 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 16377 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 16359 - Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 16358 - Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 16361 - Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 16360 - Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 16366 - Investigational In Vitro Diagnostics in Oncology Trials: Streamlined Submission Process for Study Risk Determination; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 16412 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on the Exchange's Equity Options PlatformPDF
83 FR 16405 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options Facility To Amend the Strategy QOO Order Fee CapPDF
83 FR 16417 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Transaction Fees for Use on Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.'s Equity PlatformPDF
83 FR 16407 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on the Exchange's Equity Options PlatformPDF
83 FR 16410 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7018(a)PDF
83 FR 16382 - Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and NorwayPDF
83 FR 16287 - In the Matter of: Peter Steve Plesinger, Inmate Number: 28514-408, FCI Terminal Island, P.O. Box 3007, San Pedro, CA 90733PDF
83 FR 16286 - In the Matter of: Stephen Edward Smith, Inmate Number: 30819-408, FCI LA Tuna, P.O. Box 3000, Anthony, NM 88021; Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
83 FR 16288 - In the Matter of: Earl Henry Richmond, 2731 E Eba Court, Green Valley, AZ 85614; Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
83 FR 16345 - Board of Visitors (BoV) of the U.S. Air Force Academy Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 16200 - Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Petition for ReconsiderationPDF
83 FR 16400 - FOIA Advisory Committee; Solicitation for Committee Member NominationsPDF
83 FR 16371 - Indian Health Professions Preparatory, Indian Health Professions Pre-Graduate and Indian; Health Professions Scholarship ProgramsPDF
83 FR 16285 - Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 16413 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16416 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16419 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16417 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16409 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16414 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16420 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16401 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS Inspire! Grants for Small Museums Notice of Funding OpportunityPDF
83 FR 16404 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16415 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16370 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
83 FR 16353 - Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators; Distributed Energy Resources-Technical Considerations for the Bulk Power System; Further Supplemental Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
83 FR 16351 - Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 16352 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
83 FR 16353 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 16402 - 60-Day Notice for the “Evaluation of the Our Town Program” Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 16361 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Subcommittee (STLT)PDF
83 FR 16358 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS)PDF
83 FR 16359 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH); Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
83 FR 16379 - Federal Interagency Collaborative on Environmental Modeling and MonitoringPDF
83 FR 16360 - Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee (MSHRAC)PDF
83 FR 16199 - Garnishment of Pay of Naval Military and Civilian Personnel for Collection of Child Support and AlimonyPDF
83 FR 16210 - Electronic Documents and SignaturesPDF
83 FR 16279 - Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery RequirementsPDF
83 FR 16356 - Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan for Ammonia and Ammonium Salts: Noncancer Assessment for Oral ExposurePDF
83 FR 16261 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lyons, KSPDF
83 FR 16251 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 16258 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Reedley, CAPDF
83 FR 16256 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Creswell, ORPDF
83 FR 16259 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Aberdeen, MDPDF
83 FR 16243 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 16245 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 16191 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. AirplanesPDF
83 FR 16194 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 16185 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 16188 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 16269 - Mandatory Deposit of Electronic-Only BooksPDF
83 FR 16228 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Black-Capped Vireo From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened WildlifePDF
83 FR 16440 - Medicare Program; Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and the PACE ProgramPDF
83 FR 16280 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly AnchoragesPDF
83 FR 16248 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF

Issue

83 73 Monday, April 16, 2018 Contents AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy, 16345-16346 2018-07800 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statements: United States v. Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, 16382-16396 2018-07840 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee, 16285-16286 2018-07796 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Charter Renewals: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 16359-16360 2018-07770 Meetings: Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—Health Disparities Subcommittee, 16358-16359 2018-07771 Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Subcommittee, 16361 2018-07772 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 16358-16361 2018-07816 2018-07817 2018-07818 2018-07813 2018-07814 2018-07815 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel; Correction, 16360-16361 2018-07835 Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, 16360 2018-07761 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and PACE Program, 16440-16757 2018-07179 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16362 2018-07872 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16362-16364 2018-07843 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Kentucky Advisory Committee, 16285 2018-07841 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD, 16265-16267 2018-07825 Taylor Bayou Turning Basin, Port Arthur, TX, 16267-16269 2018-07865 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress PROPOSED RULES Mandatory Deposit of Electronic-Only Books, 16269-16276 2018-07484 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 16286 2018-07855 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Privacy Act Request Form, 16347 2018-07862 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Central Everglades Planning Project Post Authorization Change Report for the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir, FL, 16346-16347 2018-07930 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Petition for Reconsideration, 16200 2018-07799 Pesticide Tolerances: Tetraconazole, 16200-16206 2018-07888 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Permitting Revision, 16276-16279 2018-07899 Tennessee; Revisions to Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements, 16279-16280 2018-07748 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and Texas SO2 Trading Programs (Renewal), 16357-16358 2018-07887 IRIS Assessment Plan for Ammonia and Ammonium Salts: Noncancer Assessment for Oral Exposure, 16356-16357 2018-07746 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes, 16191-16194 2018-07639 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 16185-16191, 16194-16198 2018-07629 2018-07630 2018-07638 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 16245-16256 2018-06591 2018-07647 2018-07656 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 16243-16245 2018-07648 Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace: Aberdeen, MD, 16259-16261 2018-07649 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Lyons, KS, 16261-16262 2018-07664 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Creswell, OR, 16256-16257 2018-07650 Reedley, CA, 16258-16259 2018-07652 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 16352-16353 2018-07779 Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP, 16351-16352 2018-07780 Combined Filings, 16347-16351, 16354-16356 2018-07876 2018-07878 2018-07879 2018-07880 2018-07881 2018-07882 2018-07883 Meetings: Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators; Distributed Energy Resources—Technical Considerations for the Bulk Power System; Technical Conference, 16353 2018-07781 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 16353-16354 2018-07778 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration PROPOSED RULES Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 16262-16265 2018-07906 NOTICES Buy American Waivers, 16421-16422 2018-07901 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Electronic Documents and Signatures, 16210-16228 2018-07749 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16422-16423 2018-07984 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Removing the Black-capped Vireo from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 16228-16242 2018-07350 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Highly Concentrated Caffeine in Dietary Supplements, 16369-16370 2018-07836 Investigational In Vitro Diagnostics in Oncology Trials: Streamlined Submission Process for Study Risk Determination, 16366-16367 2018-07812 Policy Clarification and Premarket Notification Submissions for Ultrasonic Diathermy Devices, 16364-16365 2018-07824 Special Protocol Assessment, 16367-16369 2018-07871 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Meetings: Federal Interagency Collaborative on Environmental Modeling and Monitoring, 16379 2018-07764 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Findings of Research Misconduct, 16370-16371 2018-07782
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Native Language Immersion Grant, 16380-16381 2018-07858 Student Transportation Form, 16380 2018-07869 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Indian Health Professions Preparatory, Indian Health Professions Pre-Graduate and Indian Health Professions Scholarship Programs, 16371-16376 2018-07797 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Export Privileges; Denials: Earl Henry Richmond, 16288-16289 2018-07801 Peter Steve Plesinger, 16287-16288 2018-07804 Stephen Edward Smith, 16286-16287 2018-07802 Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2019-2021 IMLS Inspire! Grants for Small Museums Notice of Funding Opportunity, 16401 2018-07785 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 16298-16319 2018-07852 Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from India, 16296-16298 2018-07851 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Italy, 16289-16292 2018-07848 Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Switzerland, 16293-16296 2018-07853 Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the Federal Republic of Germany, 16326-16328 2018-07850 Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the People's Republic of China, 16322-16326 2018-07849 Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the Republic of Korea, 16319-16322 2018-07854 Meetings: Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee, 16292-16293 2018-07861 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, 16381-16382 2018-07890 Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway, 16382 2018-07806 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16381 2018-07913 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Justice Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16396-16397 2018-07831 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 16397 2018-07832
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16397-16398 2018-07830 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Furnishing Documents to the Secretary of Labor on Request Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 16399-16400 2018-07863 Safe and Sound Campaign, 16398-16399 2018-07873 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Small Shipyard Grant Program; Application Deadlines, 16423-16426 2018-07846 Meetings: U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Board of Visitors Meeting, 16426 2018-07845 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See

Office of Government Information Services

National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16401 2018-07996 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of the Our Town Program, 16402 2018-07776 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 16280-16281 2018-07132 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements, 16431-16432 2018-07875 Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: FCA US, LLC, 16430-16431 2018-07829 Forest River, Inc., 16426-16428 2018-07828 General Motors, LLC, 16428-16430 2018-07827 Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc., 16432-16436 2018-07826 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Research Domain Criteria Initiative, 16378-16379 2018-07859 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 16376-16378 2018-07822 2018-07821 Meetings: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 16377 2018-07820 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 43, 16282-16284 2018-07866 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16329 2018-07884 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: List of Gear by Fisheries and Fishery Management Council, 16345 2018-07886 Reporting of Sea Turtle Incidental Take in Virginia Chesapeake Bay Pound Net Operations, 16329-16330 2018-07885 Applications for Exempted Fishing Permits, 16344-16345 2018-07870 Meetings: Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs, 16330 2018-07891 Permit Amendments: Marine Mammals; File No. 21158-02, 16343-16344 2018-07834 Takes of Marine Mammals: Incidental to Bremerton and Edmonds Ferry Terminals Dolphin Relocation Project in Washington State, 16330-16343 2018-07889 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Proposal Review Panel for Physics, 16402-16403 2018-07857 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16402 2018-07920 Navy Navy Department RULES Certifications and Exemptions Under International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 16198-16199 2018-07912 Garnishment of Pay of Naval Military and Civilian Personnel for Collection of Child Support and Alimony, 16199-16200 2018-07759 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16403 2018-07939 2018-08035 OGIS Office of Government Information Services NOTICES Requests for Nominations: FOIA Advisory Committee, 16400 2018-07798 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16403-16404 2018-07837 2018-07838 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust (Proc. 9724), 16183-16184 2018-08038 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Domestic Manufacturing and Job Creation, Promotion Efforts; Air Quality Standards, Implementation of Policies and Procedures (Memorandum o April 12, 2018), 16759-16765 2018-08094 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16404-16405, 16409, 16413-16417, 16419-16421 2018-07783 2018-07784 2018-07786 2018-07787 2018-07788 2018-07789 2018-07790 2018-07791 2018-07792 2018-07793 2018-07794 2018-07795 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16416 2018-07954 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 16405-16407 2018-07810 Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 16412-16413 2018-07811 Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., 16407-16409, 16417-16419 2018-07808 2018-07809 The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 16410-16411 2018-07807 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, 16421 2018-07847 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Multiemployer Pension Plan Application to Reduce Benefits, 16436 2018-07842 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles, 16206-16210 2018-07833 NOTICES Intents to Grant Exclusive Licenses, 16436-16437 2018-07844 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 16440-16757 2018-07179 Part III Presidential Documents, 16759-16765 2018-08094 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 73 Monday, April 16, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0769; Product Identifier 2017-NM-054-AD; Amendment 39-19249; AD 2018-07-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-19-12, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. AD 2015-19-12 required a general visual inspection of certain lap splices for missing fasteners, and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This AD retains the actions required by AD 2015-19-12 and revises the applicability by adding airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain fasteners were not installed in a certain stringer lap splice on certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 21, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 21, 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. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0769.

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-2017-0769; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3524; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-19-12, Amendment 39-18274 (80 FR 58346, September 29, 2015) (“AD 2015-19-12”). AD 2015-19-12 applied to certain the Boeing company Model 767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38634). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that certain fasteners were not installed in the stringer 37 (S-37L and S-37R) lap splice between body stations 428 and 431 on certain airplanes. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions required by AD 2015-19-12 and revise the applicability by adding airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing fasteners, which could result in cracks in the fuselage skin that could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

Boeing and FedEx Express concurred with the contents of the NPRM.

Request To Clarify Actions in the Service Information

United Airlines asked if Boeing was going to revise the Model 767 airworthiness limitation items to include exceptions for airplanes that have been repaired using the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017 (“SB 767-53A0251”). The commenter observed that note 1 to table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SB 767-53A0251, indicates that lap splice fastener installation and repairs will affect Structural Significant Items (SSIs) 53-10-I07C and 53-10-I07D, as listed in Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations—Structural Inspections, of the Model 767 maintenance planning document. The commenter stated that their understanding is that if a repair is accomplished it could potentially interfere with an operator's ability to do the inspections specified in the SSIs.

We do not agree that it is necessary to include exceptions in the Model 767 maintenance planning document for airplanes that have been repaired using the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 767-53A0251. SB 767-53A0251 requires repairs be accomplished in accordance with the structural repair manual (SRM). The SRM repairs for lap splices provide alternative inspection instructions to the SSI inspections in the area of the repair, such that exceptions to the SSI inspections in the above mentioned Airworthiness Limitations section is not necessary. Additionally, the SRM denotes that the SRM alternative inspections provided in the SRM have been approved as an AMOC to the SSI inspections required to be incorporated into an operator's maintenance or inspection program as required by AD 2014-14-04. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue.

Request To Identify Certain Actions in the Service Information as “RC” Exempt

United Airlines requested that certain actions in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017, be identified as “RC” exempt. The commenter noted that action 3.B.1.b, “Get internal access. Refer to PART 1—ACCESS as an accepted procedure,” and action 3.B.1.d, “Install equipment that was removed for internal access. Refer to PART 2—RESTORATION as an accepted procedure” are identified as “RC” items in the service information. The commenter stated that operators should be allowed to use alternate access and restoration procedures, therefore these steps should be denoted as “RC” exempt, or removed from the “RC” portion of the Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017.

We disagree with the commenter's request because the service information already provides operators with the opportunity to use an accepted alternative procedure if the work instructions use the words “refer to” when identifying procedures in other Boeing documents. Specifically, note 8 in section 3.A., “General Information” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017, states “These work instructions refer to procedures included in other Boeing documents. When the words `refer to' are used and the operator has an accepted alternative procedure, the accepted alternative procedure can be used.” More explicitly, accepted alternative procedures may be used for the RC actions in sections 3.B.1.b and 3.B.1.d of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions specified in the NPRM.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of certain S-37 lap splices for missing fasteners, and applicable on-condition actions. 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 398 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $33,830

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

    Estimated Costs for On-Condition Actions Action * Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections and fastener installation 13 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,105 (**) $1,105 * We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the repairs specified in this AD. ** All required parts are supplied by the operator. This cost is minimal, and we have no way to determine what an operator would pay for these parts.

    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 to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-19-12, Amendment 39-18274 (80 FR 58346, September 29, 2015), and adding the following new AD: 2018-07-18 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19249; Docket No. FAA-2017-0769; Product Identifier 2017-NM-054-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 21, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-19-12, Amendment 39-18274 (80 FR 58346, September 29, 2015) (“AD 2015-19-12”).

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE (rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/59027F43B9A7486E86257B1D006591EE?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01920se) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain fasteners were not installed in the stringer 37 (S-37L and S-37R) lap splice between body stations 428 and 431 on certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing fasteners, which could result in cracks in the fuselage skin that could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017.

    (h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017, uses the phrase “the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    For Group 1 airplanes as defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2017: This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, dated August 7, 2013.

    (j) 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 (k)(1) 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.

    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-19-12 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (5) Except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(5)(i) and (j)(5)(ii) of this AD apply.

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3524; email: [email protected]

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

    (l) 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 Service Bulletin 767-53A0251, Revision 1, dated March 7, 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 98198. 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 30, 2018. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07630 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0553; Product Identifier 2016-NM-208-AD; Amendment 39-19250; AD 2018-07-19] 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 all The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that the parking brake and alternate pitch trim module (PBM) may unintentionally disengage. This AD requires replacing the PBM and doing a PBM installation test. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 21, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 21, 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 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-2017-0553.

    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-2017-0553; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3547; 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 all The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2017 (82 FR 26872). The NPRM was prompted by a report that the PBM may unintentionally disengage, fail to set, fail to release, or become jammed. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the PBM and doing a PBM installation test.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent an unintended parking brake release, which could result in damage to the airplane and be a hazard to persons or property on the ground.

    Comments

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

    Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that information not related to the unsafe condition be removed. Boeing stated that the AD should specifically address the unintended release of the parking brake module. Boeing also stated that the additional information describes a reliability improvement that is not related to the unsafe condition of unintended parking brake release.

    We agree with the commenter's request to revise the description of the unsafe condition accordingly, for the reasons provided.

    Request To Revise the Applicability

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that no action be required for airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after the effective date of the AD. ANA commented that the applicability in the proposed AD would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. ANA stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is only for airplanes on which the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness was issued on or before the effective date of the AD. ANA also stated that the action that would be required for airplanes on which the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness will be issued after the effective date of this AD is uncertain.

    ANA stated that it has already prohibited installation of PBM part number (P/N) 4260-0037-3 and -4 on any airplane. ANA also stated that PBM P/N 4260-0037-5 is installed on the airplanes on which the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness will be issued after the effective date of this AD. ANA commented that therefore, it believes that no action is necessary for airplanes on which the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness will be issued after the effective date of this AD if installation of PBM P/N 4260-0037-3 and -4 is already prohibited before the effective date of this AD.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. We have determined that the affected parts are rotable parts such that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. Therefore, all The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes are subject to the requirements in paragraph (h) of this AD. We do concur with the commenter that paragraph (g) of this AD only applies to an airplane with a certificate of airworthiness or an original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD. We have not revised the AD in this regard.

    Request To Revise the Compliance Time

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) requested that the compliance time in the proposed AD be revised. ALPA stated that the compliance time of 60 months has been provided for both inspection and replacement of the affected parts. ALPA commented that the 60 months for inspection and corrective action is excessive. ALPA also stated that due to the unobtrusive nature of the inspection for the affected parts, the compliance time for the inspection should be re-evaluated and reduced to less than that of the compliance time for the corrective action.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. The compliance time in this AD is based on FAA analysis of safety risk factors including consideration of the rulemaking time, as well as the time required to rework each PBM to the part number 4260-0037-5 configuration. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

    Request To Revise “In Accordance With” Language in the Service Information

    American Airlines (AAL) requested that the “in accordance with” language in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320028-00, Issue 001, dated October 31, 2016, be revised. AAL stated that where the service information proposes accomplishing the actions “in accordance with” the airplane maintenance manual (AMM), “refer to” should be used instead so that compliance with paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD can be properly attained. AAL also stated that paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD does not require verification that the PBM was installed and the installation tested “in accordance with” 787 AMM 32-44-01.

    We agree with the commenter. We agree that the wording in Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320028-00, Issue 001, dated October 31, 2016, should specify “refer to” instead of “in accordance with” because it allows operators additional flexibility. For clarification, we have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to state: Where Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320028-00, Issue 001, dated October 31, 2016, specifies accomplishing an action “in accordance with 787 AMM 32-44-01,” for this AD “refer to 787 AMM 32-44-01” for that action. Because the corrective action is specified in the AMM and the AMM is no longer required by “in accordance with” text, we have removed the references to “applicable corrective actions” from the first two sentences of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD and added a new corrective action statement in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

    Request To Delete or Modify a Contradictory Sentence

    ANA requested that we delete or modify a contradictory sentence in the proposed AD. ANA stated that according to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, if the PBM is Rockwell Collins P/N 4260-0037-3 or -4, ANA has to install PBM P/N 4260-0037-5 within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, and in the last sentence of the paragraph, it says to do all applicable corrective actions “before further flight.” ANA stated that the two sentences are contradictory and that it is too hard to do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. ANA also commented that installing PBM P/N 4260-0037-5 “within 60 months” is acceptable.

    We agree to clarify the compliance time language. Paragraph (g)(2) of this AD requires installing the PBM, doing the installation test, and doing applicable corrective actions. Operators have the entire compliance time of “within 60 months after the effective date of this AD” to accomplish the PBM installation and the installation test. However, if the test fails, all applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight after the test. As stated previously, we have revised the corrective action statement in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to clarify the requirements.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320028-00, Issue 001, dated October 31, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the PBM and doing a PBM installation test. 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 68 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 Up to $85 Up to $5,780. PBM replacement and test 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $9,655 $9,995 $679,660.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-07-19 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19250; Docket No. FAA-2017-0553; Product Identifier 2016-NM-208-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 21, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the parking brake and alternate pitch trim module (PBM) may unintentionally disengage. We are issuing this AD to prevent an unintended parking brake release, which could result in damage to the airplane and be a hazard to persons or property on the ground.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Replacement

    For airplanes on which the original airworthiness certificate or the original export certificate of airworthiness was issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the PBM to determine the part number. A review of airplane maintenance or delivery records is acceptable in lieu of the inspection if the part number of the PBM can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (1) If the PBM is Rockwell Collins part number (P/N) 4260-0037-5: No further action is required by this paragraph.

    (2) If the PBM is Rockwell Collins P/N 4260-0037-3 or -4: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install PBM P/N 4260-0037-5 and do the PBM installation test, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320028-00, Issue 001, dated October 31, 2016. Where Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320028-00, Issue 001, dated October 31, 2016, specifies accomplishing an action “in accordance with 787 AMM 32-44-01,” for this AD “refer to 787 AMM 32-44-01” for that action. If the installation test fails, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions and repeat the test until the test is passed.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a PBM having Rockwell Collins P/N 4260-0037-3 or -4.

    (i) 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

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

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sean Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3547; email: [email protected]

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB320028-00, Issue 001, dated October 31, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Boeing 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 30, 2018. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07629 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0906; Product Identifier 2017-NM-039-AD; Amendment 39-19252; AD 2018-07-21] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-12-16, which applied to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. AD 2005-12-16 required an inspection to determine the part number of the passenger service unit (PSU) panels for the PSU modification status, and corrective actions if applicable. This new AD requires an inspection of the PSU panels and the PSU panel/airplane interface connectors for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also removes airplanes from the applicability. This AD was prompted by reports of smoke in the passenger compartment during ground operations and in-flight, and a determination that the modification actions required by AD 2005-12-16 might not have been implemented correctly. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is May 21, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 21, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of July 20, 2005 (70 FR 34642, June 15, 2005).

    ADDRESSES:

    For Fokker service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. For Grimes Aerospace service information identified in this final rule, contact Grimes Aerospace Company, Product Support Group, 240 Twain Avenue, Urbana, OH 43078; phone 513-653-5225; fax 513-652-2322. 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-2017-0906.

    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-2017-0906; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    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 to supersede AD 2005-12-16, Amendment 39-14132 (70 FR 34642, June 15, 2005) (“AD 2005-12-16”). AD 2005-12-16 applied to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2017 (82 FR 51172). The NPRM was prompted by reports of smoke in the passenger compartment during ground operations and in flight, and the determination that the modification actions required by AD 2005-12-16 might not have been implemented correctly. The NPRM proposed to continue to require an inspection to determine the part number of the PSU panels for the PSU modification status, and corrective actions if applicable. The NPRM also proposed to require an inspection of the PSU panels and the PSU panel/airplane interface connectors for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct overheating of the PSU panel due to moisture ingress, which could result in smoke or fire in the passenger cabin.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0043, dated March 6, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Reports were received of burning smell and smoke in the passenger compartment during flight as a result of overheating of passenger service units (PSU). These were attributed to moisture ingress into the interface electrical connectors of an unsealed PSU panel.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to further incidents of smoke in the passenger compartment, possibly resulting in injury to occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Grimes Aerospace Company, the PSU manufacturer (currently Honeywell) issued SB 10-1178-33-0040 and SB 10-1571-33-0041, and Fokker Services issued SBF100-25-097, to provide instructions for installation of improved sealing of the PSU and its interface electrical connectors. Subsequently, CAA-NL [Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands] issued AD (BLA) 2004-022 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2005-12-16] to require modification, cleaning and sealing of the affected PSU.

    Since that [CAA-NL] AD was issued, following a new occurrence of burning smell and smoke in the passenger compartment during disembarking of the passengers, the investigation revealed that, on several aeroplanes, the modification instructions of Honeywell and Fokker Services (SB listed above) were not, or not correctly, implemented. Prompted by these findings, Fokker Services published SBF100-25-128, providing inspection instructions to detect non-accomplishment and any discrepancy with the original modification instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirement of CAA-NL AD (BLA) 2004-022, which is superseded, and requires a one-time inspection [for discrepancies] of the PSU panels and their interface with the aeroplane, and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Discrepancies include incorrect application of the sealant on the PSU panels, uninstalled gaskets, inability to properly lock the connectors, and incorrectly applied sealant on the connectors. Corrective actions include restoring the sealing of the affected PSU panel, repairing the PSU panel, or installing a new PSU panel with a replaced receptacle, and installing gaskets; making sure the connecter can properly lock; and applying sealant on the connector.

    The MCAI also revised the applicability by specifying certain line numbers and excluding airplanes on which certain modifications were done. 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-2017-0906.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the available 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

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-128, dated July 21, 2016. This service information describes procedures for inspection of the PSU panels and the PSU panel/airplane interface connectors for discrepancies, and for incorrectly applied sealant on the connectors, and corrective actions.

    Grimes Aerospace has issued Service Bulletin 10-1178-33-0040, dated October 15, 1993; Service Bulletin 10-1178-33-0040, Revision 1, dated March 25, 1996; and Service Bulletin 10-1571-33-0041, dated October 15, 1993. This service information describes procedures for inspection of the PSU panels and the PSU panel/airplane interface connectors for discrepancies, and corrective actions. This service information is distinct since it applies to different part numbers.

    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 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2005-12-16, and retained in this AD take about 5 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $6 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2005-12-16 is $431 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 13 work-hours 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 this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,840, or $1,105 per product.

    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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-12-16, Amendment 39-14132 (70 FR 34642, June 15, 2005), and adding the following new AD: 2018-07-21 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-19252; Docket No. FAA-2017-0906; Product Identifier 2017-NM-039-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 21, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces 2005-12-16, Amendment 39-14132 (70 FR 34642, June 15, 2005) (“AD 2005-12-16”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 11244 through 11527 inclusive, except those airplanes modified in service as specified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-070, or Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-109, or Fokker Modification Report FS-N545 or FS-N571.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of smoke in the passenger compartment during ground operations and in flight, and a determination that the modification actions required by AD 2005-12-16 might not have been implemented correctly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct overheating of the passenger service unit (PSU) panel due to moisture ingress, which could result in smoke or fire in the passenger cabin.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Inspection and Corrective Actions, With Clarified Note

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2005-12-16, with clarified note. Within 36 months after July 20, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-12-16), inspect to determine if Grimes Aerospace PSU panels having part number (P/N) 10-1178-() or P/N 10-1571-() are installed and the PSU modification status if applicable, and do any corrective actions if applicable, by doing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-097, dated December 30, 2003.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Guidance on modifying the PSU panel can be found in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-097, dated December 30, 2003, which refers to Grimes Aerospace Service Bulletin 10-1178-33-0040, Revision 1, dated March 25, 1996 (for PSU panels having P/N 10-1178-()); and Grimes Aerospace Service Bulletin 10-1571-33-0041, dated October 15, 1993 (for PSU panels having P/N 10-1571-()).

    (h) Retained Parts Installation Limitation, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2005-12-16, with no changes. As of July 20, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-12-16), no person may install a PSU panel having P/N 10-1178-() or P/N 10-1571-() on any airplane, unless it has been inspected and any applicable corrective actions have been done in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) New Affected PSU Identification

    For the purpose of this AD, Grimes (Honeywell) PSUs having P/N 10-1178-() with a serial number below 4000, and PSUs having P/N 10-1571-() with a serial number below 1000, are referred to as affected PSUs in paragraphs (j) through (l) of this AD.

    (j) New Inspections

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the panel of each affected PSU for incorrect application of the sealant, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-097, dated December 30, 2003; and, as applicable, Grimes Aerospace Service Bulletin 10-1178-33-0040, dated October 15, 1993 (for PSUs having P/N 10-1178-()); Grimes Aerospace Service Bulletin 10-1178-33-0040, Revision 1, dated March 25, 1996 (for PSUs having P/N 10-1178-()); or Grimes Aerospace Service Bulletin 10-1571-33-0041, dated October 15, 1993 (for PSUs having P/N 10-1571-()).

    (2) Do a general visual inspection of the electrical connectors of each affected PSU panel for discrepancies; i.e., uninstalled gaskets, inability to properly lock the connectors, and incorrectly applied sealant on the connectors; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-128, dated July 21, 2016.

    (k) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, any discrepancy is found, before further flight, restore the sealing of the affected PSU panels and accomplish all applicable corrective actions to correct the PSU panel interface, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-128, dated July 21, 2016. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (l) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, an affected PSU panel may be installed on any airplane, provided that before further flight after installation, it has been inspected in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD and all applicable corrective actions have been done in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (i) 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.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2005-12-16 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0043, dated March 6, 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-2017-0906.

    (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.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 21, 2018.

    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-128, dated July 21, 2016.

    (ii) Grimes Aerospace Service Bulletin 10-1178-33-0040, dated October 15, 1993.

    (iii) Grimes Aerospace Service Bulletin 10-1178-33-0040, Revision 1, dated March 25, 1996.

    (iv) Grimes Aerospace Service Bulletin 10-1571-33-0041, dated October 15, 1993.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 20, 2005 (70 FR 34642, June 15, 2005).

    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-25-097, dated December 30, 2003.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (5) For Fokker service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. For Grimes Aerospace service information identified in this AD, contact Grimes Aerospace Company, Product Support Group, 240 Twain Avenue, Urbana, OH 43078; phone 513-653-5225; fax 513-652-2322.

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

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

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 30, 2018. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07639 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0770; Product Identifier 2017-NM-030-AD; Amendment 39-19251; AD 2018-07-20] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-03-07, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2014-03-07 required inspecting certain locations of the wire bundles of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for damage, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2014-03-07 also required installing nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel. This AD adds certain inspections and expands the applicability. This AD was prompted by the determination that it is necessary to require an inspection of the wire bundles for damage at certain center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations on certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 21, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 21, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March 26, 2014 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014).

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of February 4, 2010 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0770.

    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-2017-0770; 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:

    Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5262; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-07”). AD 2014-03-07 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39062). The NPRM was prompted by the determination that it is necessary to require an inspection of the wire bundles for damage at certain center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations on certain airplanes. The NPRM proposed to continue to require inspecting certain locations of the wire bundles of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for damage, and corrective action if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to continue to require installing nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel. The NPRM proposed to add certain inspections and expand the applicability. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    Comments

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

    Supportive Comments

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International and Boeing supported the content of the NPRM.

    Request To Clarify NPRM Requirements

    FedEx Express (FedEx) asked that the requirements in the NPRM relative to the referenced service information be clarified. FedEx stated that Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126 has been revised 6 times, and its related AD has been superseded twice; therefore, the NPRM requirements are confusing. FedEx added that the NPRM might need to be re-written completely to clearly state what the new requirements are, since some operators have accomplished either the original issue or one or more of Revisions 1 through 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126. FedEx stated that it has accomplished Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; and at the time those procedures were done, the FedEx fleet was classified as Group 1, Configuration 1, and Group 2, Configuration 1 airplanes because FedEx didn't accomplish prior revisions of the service information. FedEx noted that currently its airplanes are Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2, Configuration 2, because FedEx has accomplished prior revisions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126 on its airplanes.

    We acknowledge the commenter's request and agree to clarify. The new requirements of this AD apply only to certain airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016. As noted by the commenter, for a given airplane, the group and configuration might have changed between Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, and Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.

    Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, are defined as airplanes on which “prior issues of this service bulletin” have not been accomplished. If the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, have been done on one of these airplanes, this airplane becomes a Group 1 Configuration 2 airplane as defined in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, (airplanes on which “prior issues of this service bulletin” have been accomplished). Therefore, for this airplane, the inspections specified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, for its new configuration must be done.

    The inspections in paragraph (i) of this AD must be done for airplanes identified as Groups 1, 2, and 5, Configuration 2 airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016. For this configuration, Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, adds certain work instructions that were not in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 5, dated July 29, 2014. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Clarify New Inspection Requirements

    FedEx asked that the new inspection requirements specified in the proposed AD be clarified. FedEx stated that the proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2014-03-07, and would add inspection requirements for certain airplanes, as well as expanding the applicability. FedEx noted that Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, adds new inspection requirements but does not specify that the inspection be done at additional locations, as indicated in the proposed AD. FedEx added that the work instructions specified in Revisions 4 and 6 of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126 are for the same area, so it is not clear which additional locations are mandated by the proposed AD.

    We agree to clarify. Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, adds an inspection to determine if the wire bundles routed above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank between floor beams touch the upper surface of the tank for Groups 1, 2, and 5, Configuration 2 airplanes. We acknowledge that the phrase “additional locations” is unclear, and we have revised paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to state “Do a general visual inspection of the wire bundles at the applicable center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations . . .” Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, identifies the applicable inspection areas.

    Request To Specify Airplane Configuration

    FedEx asked that the airplane configurations specified in the proposed AD be clarified. FedEx stated that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD specifies the following: “For Groups 1, 2, and 5 Configuration 2 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.” FedEx added that, as defined in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, the FedEx fleet will be Group 1, Configuration 2 and Group 2, Configuration 2 airplanes because FedEx has accomplished a prior revision of this service information. FedEx believes its fleet should be in Group 1, Configuration 1, and Group 2, Configuration 1, but stated that it is not clear which airplanes are in which groups and configurations.

    We acknowledge the commenter's request and provide the following clarification. Paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity” of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, specifies that airplanes on which previous issues of the service information have been done are identified as Configuration 2 airplanes. Therefore, any airplanes on which any previous issue of the service information was accomplished would be classified as Configuration 2. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request for Credit for Previous Actions Accomplished

    FedEx and United Parcel Service (UPS) requested credit for previous accomplishment of the actions in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of the proposed AD using Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011.

    FedEx stated that new inspections and corrective actions as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of the proposed AD were already performed by FedEx per Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, and should not be performed again. FedEx believes the proposed AD should give credit for work accomplished under Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011.

    UPS stated that prior accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, for Groups 1 and 2, Configuration 1 freighter aircraft meets the requirements of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016. UPS stated that the additional steps added by Revisions 5 and 6 of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126 are not applicable to airplanes in freighter configurations or have already been accomplished using Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011. UPS added that no further actions should be required on those airplanes.

    We agree to clarify. As stated previously, Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, adds an inspection to determine if the wire bundles routed above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank between floor beams touch the upper surface of the tank for Groups 1, 2, and 5, Configuration 2 airplanes. This inspection was not included in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 5, dated July 29, 2014; nor any of the previous revisions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126. In addition, for compliance with this AD, this inspection must be done before the detailed inspection specified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, for Groups 1, 2, and 5, Configuration 2 airplanes. However, under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the actions would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    We also partially agree with the commenter. The new requirements in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, do not apply to certain freighter airplanes. Freighter airplanes are included in the procedures for Groups 1 and 5, Configuration 2 airplanes, but not for Group 2, Configuration 2 airplanes, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016. Only passenger airplanes are included in the procedures for Group 2, Configuration 2 airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016. Therefore, we have added “as applicable” to the introductory text to paragraph (i) of this AD to clarify that the actions in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD apply to Groups 1 and 5, Configuration 2 airplanes, and passenger airplanes in Group 2, Configuration 2.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments 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 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 Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016. This service information describes procedures for inspecting certain wire bundles of the center auxiliary fuel tank for damage, and repairing or replacing damaged wires. This service information also describes procedures for installing barrier/shield sleeving, clamping, and an extruded channel. 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 125 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection/installation [retained actions from AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009)] 168 to 182 work-hours × $85 per hour = $14,280 to $15,470 per inspection cycle $15,708 to $28,005 $29,988 to
  • $43,475 per inspection cycle
  • $3,748,500 to
  • $5,434,375 per inspection cycle.
  • Inspection/installation for Groups 1, 2, and 5, all Configuration 2 airplanes (retained actions from AD 2014-03-07) Up to 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 $6,166 Up to $6,931 Up to $866,375. Inspection/installation for Groups 1, 2, and 5, all Configuration 2 airplanes (new action) Up to 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 Up to $340 Up to $42,500. Inspection/installation for Line Number 579 (new action) 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $28,005 $340 $28,345.

    We have received no definitive data that enables 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 and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2018-07-20 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19251; Docket No. FAA-2017-0770; Product Identifier 2017-NM-030-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 21, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014) (“AD 2014-03-07”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer that indicated the need to inspect wire bundles at certain locations of the center upper auxiliary fuel tanks in addition to inspection locations required by AD 2014-03-07. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Inspection and Corrective Action, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-03-07, with revised service information. For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009: Within 60 months after February 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009)), do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009; Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; or Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the wire bundles between Stations 1238.950 and 1361.000 to determine if wires touch the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank, and mark the location, as applicable.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection for splices and damage of all wire bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank between Stations 1218.950 and 1381.000.

    (3) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) of the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank.

    (4) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) on the fuel vapor barrier seal.

    (5) Install a nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel.

    (h) Retained Additional Inspections and Corrective Action, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-03-07, with revised service information. For airplanes in Group 1, Configuration 2; Group 2, Configuration 2; and Group 5, Configuration 2; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011: Within 60 months after March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), do a detailed inspection of wire bundles for splices and damage (chafing, arcing, and broken insulation) and damage (burn marks) on the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and fuel vapor barrier seal; install barrier/shield sleeving and clamping; and do all applicable corrective actions at the applicable locations specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, may be used to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations 1238.950 and 1381.000, Stations 1238.950 and 1256.000, and Stations 1238.950 and 1256.800, depending on passenger or freighter configuration.

    (2) For Group 2, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations 1238.950 and 1275.250, and Stations 1238.950 and 1275.250, passenger configuration only.

    (3) For Group 5, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations 1381.000 and 1238.950.

    (i) New Inspections and Corrective Actions for Certain Airplanes

    For Groups 1, 2, and 5 Configuration 2 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.

    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the wire bundles at the applicable center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations to determine if wires touch the upper surface of the fuel tank, and mark the location as applicable.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the wire bundles for splices and damage on the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and fuel vapor barrier seal; install barrier/shield sleeving, clamping, and extruded channels, as applicable; and do all applicable corrective actions before further flight; except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (j) New Requirements for Line Number 579

    For airplane Line Number 579: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016, except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (k) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009; Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; specifies to contact The Boeing Company for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the auxiliary fuel tank using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), using the service information specified in paragraph (l)(1)(i) or (l)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 2, dated November 18, 2010.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 3, dated June 3, 2011.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), using Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 3, dated June 3, 2011.

    (m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-03-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5262; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(6) and (o)(7) of this AD.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 21, 2018.

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 26, 2014 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014).

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 4, 2010 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009).

    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

    (7) 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.

    (8) 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 29, 2018. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07638 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS WICHITA (LCS 13) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective April 16, 2018 and is applicable beginning April 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone number: 202-685-5040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS WICHITA(LCS 13) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the height of the forward masthead light above the hull and Annex I; and paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead light. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

    Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table One, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS WICHITA (LCS 13); and b. In Table Five, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS WICHITA (LCS 13).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy Under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table One Vessel Number Distance in meters of
  • forward masthead
  • light below minimum
  • required height.
  • § 2(a)}{i} Annex I
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS WICHITA LCS 13 6.0 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Five Vessel Number Masthead
  • lights not
  • over all other
  • lights and
  • obstructions.
  • annex I,
  • sec. 2(f)
  • Forward
  • masthead light
  • not in forward
  • quarter of
  • ship. annex I,
  • sec. 3(a)
  • After mast-
  • head light
  • less than 1/2
  • ship's length
  • aft of forward
  • masthead
  • light. annex
  • I, sec. 3(a)
  • Percentage
  • horizontal
  • separation
  • attained
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS WICHITA LCS 13 X X 23 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Approved: April 3, 2018. C.J. Spain, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Acting. Dated: April 6, 2018. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07912 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 734 [Docket ID: USN-2017-HQ-0007] RIN 0703-AA97 Garnishment of Pay of Naval Military and Civilian Personnel for Collection of Child Support and Alimony AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes the DoD's regulation concerning garnishment of pay of Naval military and civilian personnel and collection of child support and alimony. It has been determined that this rule is duplicative of 5 CFR part 581, “Processing Garnishment Orders for Child Support and/or Alimony.” Therefore, this rule can be removed from the CFR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on April 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CDR Amanda Myers, 703-697-1311.

    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 is based on removing a duplicative CFR part.

    Both 5 CFR part 581 and 32 CFR part 734 derive their authority from 42 U.S.C. 659, and 5 CFR part 581 encompasses entirely the language found in 32 CFR part 734. Furthermore, 5 CFR part 581 is a more thorough regulation; for example, 5 CFR part 581 contains a definitions section and a provision identifying which moneys are subject to garnishment.

    Garnishment operations and their underlying processes will remain unaffected by this regulatory action. In addition, no requirement for paperwork or procedures are set forth in 32 CFR part 734 that are not covered in 5 CFR part 581.

    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 734

    Alimony, Child support, Claims, Military personnel, Wages.

    PART 734—[REMOVED] Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 734 is removed. Dated: April 6, 2018. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07759 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0520; EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0129; FRL-9976-64—Region 6] Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Petition for Reconsideration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of action denying petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of its response to a petition for reconsideration of a rule published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2017 addressing Clean Air Act regional haze planning requirements for the State of Louisiana. The petition, submitted on February 20, 2018, on behalf of the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) asked EPA to reconsider its final action which determined that Louisiana has satisfied the Clean Air Act's reasonable progress and long-term strategy requirements. EPA has denied the petition by action signed April 9, 2018, for reasons that EPA explains in the document denying the petition.

    DATES:

    Petitions for review must be filed by June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0520 for non-electric generating units and Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129 for electric generating units (EGUs). All documents in the dockets are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Huser, [email protected], 214-665-7347 or Adaobi Nwankwo, [email protected], 214-665-8197.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This action pertains to facilities in Louisiana, and is not based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Thus, under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, any petitions for review of EPA's action denying the Sierra Club and the NPCA petition for reconsideration must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on or before June 15, 2018.

    Dated: April 9, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07799 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0573; FRL-9975-07] Tetraconazole; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of tetraconazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Isagro S.p.A (d/b/a Isagro USA, Inc.) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective April 16, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 15, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0573, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0573 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 15, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0573, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92758) (FRL-9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F8507) by Isagro S.p.A (d/b/a Isagro USA, Inc.), 430 Davis Drive, Suite 240, Morrisville, NC 27560. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.557 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide tetraconazole, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-3-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)propyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on barley at 0.3 parts per million (ppm); crop group 16, forage, fodder, and straw of cereal grains group (except corn) at 8.0 ppm; dried shelled pea and bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C, hay at 8.0 ppm; dried shelled pea and bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C, seed at 0.15 ppm; dried shelled pea and bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C, vine at 2.0 ppm; rapeseed crop subgroup 20A at 0.9 ppm; and wheat at 0.1 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Isagro S.p.A (d/b/a Isagro USA, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing tolerances that vary slightly from what the petitioner requested. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for tetraconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with tetraconazole follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    The liver and kidney are the primary target organs of tetraconazole in all species in oral toxicity studies of subchronic and chronic durations. Following long-term oral exposure, tetraconazole caused liver tumors in mice in both sexes. In the acute neurotoxicity study, loss of motor activity in both sexes, and clinical signs including hunched posture, decreased defecation, and/or red or yellow material on various body surfaces were observed in females. There was no evidence of immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity following subchronic exposure. There were no systemic effects observed in the 21-day dermal toxicity study up to the highest dose tested. Tetraconazole did not show evidence of mutagenicity in in vitro or in vivo studies.

    Oral rat and rabbit prenatal developmental studies showed no evidence for increased quantitative susceptibility in utero. Developmental effects (increased incidences of supernumerary ribs, and hydroureter and hydronephrosis) were seen in the presence of maternal effects in rats (decreased body weight gain, and food consumption and increased water intake, and increased liver and kidney weights), while no developmental effects were seen in rabbits. A 2-generation rat reproduction study also revealed no evidence for increased quantitative susceptibility in offspring. Decreased litter and mean pup weights and increased liver weights were noted in offspring at a dose higher than that which caused mortality in adult females. Effects in parental animals that survived the duration of the study were consistent with other studies in the database. In contrast to the oral studies where the most sensitive effects were in the liver and kidney, inhalation exposure of tetraconazole to rats resulted in portal-of-entry effects, including squamous cell metaplasia of the laryngeal mucous, mono-nuclear cell infiltration, goblet cell hyperplasia, hypertrophy of the nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal duct, and follicular hypertrophy of the thyroid in males. At the highest concentration tested, there were treatment-related increases in absolute lung weights in both sexes.

    Although liver tumors were observed in mice in both sexes in a mouse carcinogenicity study, the agency has classified tetraconazole as “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at levels that do not cause increased cell proliferation in the liver.” This classification is supported by an in vivo cancer mode-of-action study in mice, demonstrating that cancer risk is linked to increased cell proliferation in the liver. Because the current reference dose (RfD) of 0.0073 mg/kg/day is below the level at which increased cell proliferation occurs in the liver, it would be protective of any liver effects caused by tetraconazole in the mouse carcinogenicity or MoA studies at higher doses. Quantification of carcinogenic potential is not required.

    Tetraconazole was categorized as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes (Toxicity Categories III-IV). It is not a dermal irritant or a dermal sensitizer. It is considered a slight eye irritant.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by tetraconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Human Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration for Application to add Crop Group 6C, Dried Shelled Pea and Bean (except Soybean) Subgroup, Barley, Canola, Wheat, and Crop Group 16, Forage Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains Group (except corn)” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0573.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tetraconazole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of January 10, 2017 (82 FR 2900) (FRL-9955-74).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to tetraconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing tetraconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.557. EPA assessed dietary exposures from tetraconazole in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for tetraconazole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the 2003-2008 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) estimates.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA (2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA utilized residue data from field trials and feeding studies to obtain average residues and assumed the PCT estimates provided in Unit III.C.1.iv. Empirically derived processing factors were used in these assessments when available.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that tetraconazole has been classified as “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at levels that do not cause increased cell proliferation in the liver.” Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    For the chronic dietary exposure assessment, the Agency used the following PCT estimates for existing uses as follows: Corn, 1%; grapes, 5%; peanuts, 1%; strawberries, 2.5%; sugar beet, 25%; and soybean, 2.5%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 2.5% or 1%. In those cases, the Agency uses 2.5% or 1%, respectively, as the average PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, unless the maximum PCT value is estimated at less than 2.5%, in which case the Agency uses 2.5% as the maximum PCT value in the analysis.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which tetraconazole may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for tetraconazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of tetraconazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of tetraconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 11 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 120 ppb for ground water. The estimated EDWCs of tetraconazole for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 5.5 ppb for surface water and 118 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 120 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 118 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Tetraconazole is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    Tetraconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    Tetraconazole, as a triazole-derived pesticide, is one of a class of compounds that can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, including tetraconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and nondietary exposures). In addition to the 10X interspecies factor and the 10X intraspecies factor, the Agency retained a 3X for the LOAEL to NOAEL safety factor when the reproduction study was used. In addition, the Agency retained a 10X for the lack of studies including a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov/, Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497.

    An updated dietary exposure and risk analysis for the common triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA), triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP) was completed on July 18, 2017, in association with registration requests for tetraconazole and difenoconazole fungicides. The requested new uses of tetraconazole did not significantly change the dietary exposure estimates for free triazole or conjugated triazoles. Therefore, an updated dietary exposure analysis was not conducted. The July 18, 2017 update for triazoles may be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0573.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There are no residual uncertainties for pre- and post-natal toxicity. There was no evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero exposures to tetraconazole. However, there was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility of fetuses in the rat prenatal developmental toxicity study where there were increased incidences of supernumerary ribs, and hydroureter and hydronephrosis were seen in fetuses at the same dose that caused maternal toxicity (decreased body weight gain, and food consumption and increased water intake, and increased liver and kidney weights). In addition, there was also no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to offspring in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for tetraconazole is complete.

    ii. Although there were effects indicative of neurotoxicity in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, there were no such effects noted in the subchronic neurotoxicity study or any other studies in the database. The fact that a clear NOAEL was established for the neurotoxicity effects observed and the selected endpoints are protective of those effects, which were observed at doses 2- to 100-fold higher than the most sensitive effects in the database (liver and kidney). Therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there is no evidence that tetraconazole results in increased quantitative susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. There is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility to fetuses in the rat prenatal developmental toxicity study (increased incidences of supernumerary ribs, and hydroureter and hydronephrosis). The level of concern (LOC) is low because: (1) The fetal effects were seen at the same dose as the maternal effects; (2) a clear NOAEL was established; (3) the developmental NOAEL from a study in rats is being used as the POD for the acute dietary endpoint (females 13-49 years of age) and are protected for; and (4) there were no developmental effects in the rabbit study. There is also no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to offspring in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues, and modeled water estimates. Therefore, the acute analysis is highly conservative. The chronic dietary exposure analysis utilized modeled drinking water estimates, empirical processing factors, average field trial residues, average residues from the feeding studies, PCT, and modeled drinking water estimates. Therefore, the chronic risk estimates provided in this document are unlikely to underestimate the risks posed by tetraconazole. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to tetraconazole in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by tetraconazole.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to tetraconazole will occupy 4.8% of the aPAD for all infants (<1 year old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to tetraconazole from food and water will utilize 91% of the cPAD for all infants (<1 year old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for tetraconazole.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, tetraconazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for tetraconazole.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, tetraconazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for tetraconazole.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that tetraconazole is “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at levels that do not cause increased cell proliferation in the liver.” Because the chronic endpoint is protective of cell proliferation in the liver, there is not likely to be a cancer risk from exposure to tetraconazole.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to tetraconazole residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate analytical methods are available to enforce the established/recommended tetraconazole plant and livestock tolerances (D280006, W. Donovan, 10-Jan-2002, D267481, 12-Oct-2000; D278236, W. Donovan, 22-Oct-2001). Isagro has also submitted adequate method validation and independent laboratory validation (ILV) data that indicates that the QuEChERS multi-residue method L00.00-115 (48135104.der) is capable of quantifying tetraconazole residues in/on a variety of fruit, cereal grain, root, oilseed, and livestock commodities.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established MRLs for tetraconazole.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Some of the terminology the petitioner used to describe requested tolerances is not the standard terminology the Agency uses for establishing tolerances. Tolerances requested for “dried shelled pea and bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C” and “crop group 16, forage, fodder, and straw of cereal grains group” are being issued for “pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C” and “grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16”, respectively. The subgroup 6C includes all edible pods and the dried and succulent seed forms of the commodities in the subgroup; the Agency does not specifically used the term “seed” in the naming of this subgroup, consistent with its food and feed commodity vocabulary. The petitioner also requested tolerances for hay and vine commodities in subgroup 6C. Hay and vine are plant parts of legume vegetables, which are covered under crop subgroup 7A. Therefore, the Agency is establishing this requested tolerance as “vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A”.

    Additionally, the Agency has determined that some of the field trials were replicates, which lead to the agency recommending for different tolerance levels than that proposed. EPA added significant figures for the tolerance values to be consistent with its practice.

    Although the petitioner requested tolerances for residues of tetraconazole in or on commodities in group 16 except corn, the tolerances for corn, field, forage and corn, field, stover as well as corn, pop, stover are superseded by the new group 16 tolerances. Based on cereal grain processing data, which indicate that tetraconazole residues concentrate in the processed commodities of barley and wheat, the Agency is establishing tolerances for residues in or on the flour and bran commodities of barley and the flour, bran, and germ commodities of wheat. In addition, because residue data indicate that there will be increased residues in aspirated grain fractions as a result of the use of tetraconazole on cereal grains, the Agency is modifying the existing tolerance for aspirated grain fractions, in accordance with the provisions at 40 CFR 180.40(f)(1)(i)(B).

    Finally, because the established tolerances will increase the ruminant dietary burdens, the Agency is increasing existing milk and meat tolerance levels as well, pursuant to 40 CFR 180.6(b).

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of tetraconazole, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-3-(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethoxy)propyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on pea and bean, dried shelled (except soybean) subgroup 6C at 0.09 ppm; vegetable, foliage of legume (except soybeans) subgroup 7A at 8.0 ppm; barley, grain at 0.30 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.90 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; wheat, germ at 0.50 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16 at 7.0 ppm; barley, bran at 1.0 ppm; barley, flour at 0.50 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.15 ppm; wheat, flour at 0.08 ppm. In addition, EPA is revising existing tolerances for grain, aspirated fractions to 4.0 ppm; milk to 0.06 ppm; cattle, meat to 0.02 ppm; goat, meat to 0.02 ppm; horse, meat to 0.02 ppm; and sheep, meat to 0.02 ppm. Additionally, the existing tolerances for corn, field, forage; corn, field, stover; and corn, pop, stover are being removed since they are superseded by this action.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 4, 2018. Donna Davis, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Program.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.557; in the table to paragraph (a): a. Remove the entry for “Aspirated grain fractions”; b. Add alphabetically entries for “Barley, bran”; “Barley, flour”; and “Barley, grain”; c. Revise the entry for “Cattle, meat”; d. Remove the entries for “Corn, field, forage”; “Corn, field, stover”; and “Corn, pop, stover”; e. Add alphabetically entries for “Grain, aspirated fractions”; “Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16”; f. Revise the entries for “Goat, meat”; “Horse, meat”; “Milk”; g. Add alphabetically entries for “Pea and bean, dried shelled (except soybean) subgroup 6C”; “Rapeseed subgroup 20A”; h. Revise the entry for “Sheep, meat”; and i. Add alphabetically entries for “Vegetable, foliage of legume (except soybeans) subgroup 7A”; “Wheat, bran”; “Wheat, flour”; “Wheat, germ”; and “Wheat, grain”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 180.557 Tetraconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Barley, bran 1.0 Barley, flour 0.50 Barley, grain 0.30 *    *    *    *    * Cattle, meat 0.02 *    *    *    *    * Goat, meat 0.02 Grain, aspirated fractions 4.0 Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16 7.0 *    *    *    *    * Horse, meat 0.02 *    *    *    *    * Milk 0.06 *    *    *    *    * Pea and bean, dried shelled (except soybean) subgroup 6C 0.09 *    *    *    *    * Rapeseed subgroup 20A 0.90 *    *    *    *    * Sheep, meat 0.02 *    *    *    *    * Vegetable, foliage of legume (except soybeans) subgroup 7A 8.0 *    *    *    *    * Wheat, bran 0.15 Wheat, flour 0.08 Wheat, germ 0.50 Wheat, grain 0.05
    [FR Doc. 2018-07888 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 48 CFR Parts 801, 802, 803, 812, 814, 822, and 852 RIN 2900-AP50 Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V001) AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in this final rule amends six clauses or provisions and removes one clause which duplicates current FAR coverage and is not needed, provides updated policy on variations, tolerances and exemptions regarding overtime in contracts providing nursing home care for veterans, removes an information collection burden on an outdated practice of using bid envelopes; clarifies language regarding the prohibition of contractors from making reference in their commercial advertising, and revises definitions relating to D&S Committee, Debarring Official and Suspending Official currently contained in the VAAR. This document adopts as a final rule, with three technical non-substantive changes, the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2017.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on May 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Ricky Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services, 003A2A, 425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 632-5276. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 17, 2017, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 22635), which announced VA`s intent to amend regulations for VAAR Case 2014-V001. In addition to the revisions outlined in the summary, this final rule also updates the policy governing improper business practices and personal conflicts of interests, and provides the agency's procedures on due process rights and who in VA determines whether or not a violation of the Gratuities clause has occurred. The rule adds clarifying information on sealed bidding including preparation of invitations for bids and other general rules for solicitation of bids. VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on July 17, 2017 and VA received no comments. The proposed rule is being adopted as final, with three technical non-substantive changes and minor stylistic and grammatical edits.

    Technical Non-Substantive Changes to the Proposed Rule

    The final rule makes administrative changes to two of the authorities for the parts on the recommendation of counsel, specifically the removal of 38 U.S.C. 501, and the addition of 41 U.S.C. 1702 which addresses overall direction of procurement policy, acquisition planning and management responsibilities of Chief Acquisition Officers and Senior Procurement Executives, including implementation of unique procurement policies, regulations, and standards of the agency. 38 U.S.C. 501 is a more general authority of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to prescribe all rules and regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the laws administered by the Department. The Title 41 authority is the more appropriate authority to cite when publishing the VA Acquisition Regulation.

    The final rule, in section 802.101, will remove definitions and titles relating to D&S Committee, Debarring official, and Suspending official and replaces them with two definitions/titles and the acronyms now in use in the agency: Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO) and Suspension and Debarment Committee (S&D Committee). These were properly updated via VAAR Class Deviation issued on June 2, 2017, after the proposed rule was published for public comment.

    This final rule has Federal Register administrative format changes in the amendatory text which makes no substantive text changes at the affected sections.

    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

    Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information at 48 CFR 814.201-6(a) and 852.214-70, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are associated with this final rule. The information collection requirements for 48 CFR 814.201-6(a) and 852.214-70 are currently approved by OMB, have been assigned OMB control number 2900-0593, and are being removed and discontinued. This results in a removal of 2 estimated annual burden hours to respondents.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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. The rule text does not change VA's policy regarding small businesses. Therefore, the rule does not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities. There are no increased and/or decreased costs to small entities. The overall impact of this final rule will be of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual business resulting from these rule updates. On this basis, 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. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 13771

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

    VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

    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 Fiscal Year to Date.

    List of Subjects 48 CFR Part 801

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    48 CFR Parts 802, 812 and 814

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 803

    Antitrust, Conflict of interest, Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 822

    Government procurement, Labor.

    48 CFR Part 852

    Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    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. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 23, 2018, for publication.

    Dated: March 13, 2018. Consuela Benjamin, Regulations Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 48 CFR parts 801, 802, 803, 812, 814, 822, and 852 as follows:

    PART 801—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 801 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    801.106 [Amended]
    2. In section 801.106, table columns titled “48 CFR part or section where identified and described” and “Current OMB Control Number,” are amended to remove the references to section 852.214-70 and the corresponding OMB Control Number 2900-0593. PART 802—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 3. The authority citation for part 802 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    4. Section 802.101 is amended to remove definitions of “D&S Committee,” “Debarring Official,” and “Suspending official,” and to add definitions of “Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO)” and “Suspension and Debarment Committee (S&D Committee)” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    802.101 Definitions.

    Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO) means the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) or Deputy Senior Procurement Executive (DSPE) if further delegated in writing by the SPE.

    Suspension and Debarment Committee (S&D Committee) means a committee authorized by the SDO to assist the SDO with suspension and debarment related matters.

    PART 803—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 5. The authority citation for part 803 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C.1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    Subpart 803.1 [Removed and reserved] 6. Subpart 803.1 is removed and reserved. 7. Section 803.204 is revised to read as follows:

    In providing the notice and hearing required by FAR 3.204, the following applies—

    803.204 Treatment of violations.

    (a) The SDO shall determine whether or not a violation of the Gratuities clause, 52.203-3 has occurred and what action will be taken under FAR 3.204(c).

    (c) When the SDO determines that a violation has occurred and that debarment is being considered, he or she shall follow procedures at 809.406-3.

    Subpart 803.3 [Removed and reserved] 8. Subpart 803.3 is removed and reserved. Subpart 803.4 [Removed and reserved] 9. Subpart 803.4 is removed and reserved.
    803.502 [Removed]
    10. Section 803.502 is removed. 11. Section 803.570-1 is revised to read as follows:
    803.570-1 Policy.

    VA policy prohibits contractors from making references in its commercial advertising to VA contracts in a manner that states or implies the Government approves or endorses the product or service or considers it superior to other products or services. The intent of this policy is to preclude the appearance of bias toward any product or service.

    Subpart 803.6 [Removed and reserved] 12. Subpart 803.6 is removed and reserved. Subpart 803.7 [Removed and reserved] 13. Subpart 803.7 is removed and reserved. Subpart 803.8 [Removed and reserved] 14. Subpart 803.8 is removed and reserved. 15. Subpart 803.11 is added to read as follows: Subpart 803.11—Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions
    803.1103 Procedures.

    (a) By use of the contract clause at 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, the contracting officer shall require each contractor whose employees perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently Governmental functions to obtain from each covered employee a signed non-disclosure agreement to prohibit disclosure of non-public information accessed through performance of a Government contract. See FAR 3.1103(a)(2)(iii).

    Subpart 803.70 [Removed and reserved] 16. Subpart 803.70 is removed and reserved. PART 812—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS 17. The authority citation for part 812 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    18. Section 812.301 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(13) to read as follows:
    812.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

    (b) * * *

    (13) 852.214-74, Marking of Bid Samples.

    PART 814—SEALED BIDDING 19. The authority citation for part 814 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    Subpart 814.1 [Removed and reserved] 20. Subpart 814.1 is removed and reserved. 21. Section 814.201 is revised to read as follows:
    814.201 Preparation of invitations for bids.
    22. Section 814.201-2 is added to read as follows:
    814.201-2 Part I—The Schedule.

    (b) Section B, Supplies or services and prices.

    (1) When the contracting officer determines that it will be to the Government's advantage to make an award on the basis of a summary bid, the IFB shall include the following statement in Part I—The Schedule, Section B:

    The award will be made on either the bid price for individual items or the summary bid price summary for all items, whichever results in the lowest price to the Government. Therefore, to assure proper evaluation of all bids, a bidder quoting a summary bid price must also quote a price on each individual item included in the summary bid price.

    (2) When a contracting officer determines that it will be to the Government's advantage to make an award by group or groups of items, the IFB shall include the following statement in Part I—The Schedule, Section B:

    Award shall be made on the basis of the bid price for each identified group of items. The individual price of each line item in the group does not have to be the lowest bid received for that item. This may apply when the items in the group or groups are readily available from sources to be solicited; and one of the following applies:

    (i) Furniture or fixtures are required for a single project and uniformity of design is desirable.

    (ii) The articles required will be assembled and used as a unit.

    23. Section 814.201-6 is revised to read as follows:
    814.201-6 Solicitation provisions.

    (a) In an invitation for bid for supplies, equipment, or services (other than construction), the contracting officer shall define the extent to which VA will authorize and consider alternate bids.

    (1) The contracting officer shall include the provision at 852.214-71, Restrictions on Alternate Item(s), in the invitation when VA will consider an alternate item only where acceptable bids on a desired item are not received or the bids do not satisfy the total requirement. (For construction projects, VA will consider for acceptance an alternate specified only as a part of the basic item.)

    (2) The contracting officer shall include the provision at 852.214-72, Alternate Item(s), in the invitation, when VA will consider an alternate item on an equal basis with the item specified. (For construction projects, VA will consider for acceptance an alternate specified only as a part of the basic item.)

    (3) In addition to either of the provisions referenced in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the contracting officer shall include the provision at 852.214-73, Alternate Packaging and Packing, in the invitation when bids will be allowed based on different packaging, unit designation, etc.

    (b) The contracting officer shall include the provision at 852.214-74, Marking of Bid Samples, in the invitation, along with the provision at FAR 52.214-20, Bid Samples, when the contracting officer determines that samples are necessary to the proper awarding of a contract.

    24. Sections 814.202 and 814.202-4 are added to read as follows:
    814.202 General rules for solicitation of bids.
    814.202-4 Bid samples.

    (a) Policy. When bid samples are required, the contracting officer shall include a notice in the contract Schedule that requires bidders to submit samples produced by the manufacturer whose products will be supplied under the contract.

    (g) Handling bid samples.

    (1) Samples from successful bids shall be retained for the period of contract performance.

    (2) If the contracting officer anticipates a claim regarding the contract, the contracting officer shall require that the bid samples be retained until the claim is resolved. If there are no outstanding claims regarding the contract, the contracting officer may authorize disposal of the samples at the end of the contract term in accordance with the bidder's instructions.

    (3) The contracting officer shall require that samples from unsuccessful bids be retained until award. After award, these samples may be disposed of in accordance with the bidder's instructions.

    814.203 and 814.203-1 [Removed]
    25. Sections 814.203 and 814.203-1 are removed.
    814.204 [Removed]
    26. Section 814.204 is removed.
    814.208 [Removed]
    27. Section 814.208 is removed.
    814.301 [Removed]
    28. Section 814.301 is removed.
    814.302 [Removed]
    29. Section 814.302 is removed. 30. Section 814.304 is revised to read as follows:
    814.304 Submission, modification, and withdrawal of bids.

    (f) A notification to late bidders shall specify the final date by which VA must receive evidence of timeliness. This date shall be within five calendar days of the date an electronic notice is sent to the bidder, or within ten calendar days of receipt by the bidder of a notice sent by other than electronic means.

    Subpart 814.4 [Removed and reserved] 31. Subpart 814.4 is removed and reserved. PART 822—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS 32. The authority citation for part 822 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 29 CFR 5.15(d); 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    33. Section 822.304 is revised to read as follows:
    822.304 Variations, tolerances, and exemptions.

    For contracts providing nursing home care for veterans, the Secretary of Labor has allowed a variation to the requirements of Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards (the statute) (40 U.S.C. 3701, et seq.) regarding the payment of overtime (see 29 CFR 5.15(d)(2)). The variation provides that overtime may be calculated on a basis other than a 40 hour workweek (as an alternate work period) when—

    (a) Due to operational necessity or convenience a work period of 14 consecutive days may be accepted in lieu of the workweek of 7 consecutive days for the purpose of computing overtime compensation, pursuant to an agreement or understanding arrived at between the contractor and the contractors' employees before performance of the work; and

    (b) If The contractor's employees receive compensation for employment in excess of 8 hours in any workday and in excess of 80 hours in such 14-day period at a rate not less than 11/2 times the regular rate at which the individual is employed, computed in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

    34. Section 822.305 is revised to read as follows:
    822.305 Contract clause.

    The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.222-70, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards—Nursing Home Care for Veterans, in solicitations and contracts for nursing home care for veterans. The contractor shall flow down this clause and insert in all subcontracts, at any tier.

    Subpart 822.4 [Removed and reserved]. 35. Subpart 822.4 is removed and reserved. PART 852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 36. The authority citation for part 852 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 8127-8128, and 8151-8153; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1121(c)(3); 41 U.S.C. 1702; and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    Subpart 852.2—Texts of Provisions and Clauses 37. Section 852.203-70 is revised to read as follows:
    852.203-70 Commercial advertising.

    As prescribed in 803.570-2, insert the following clause:

    Commercial Advertising (May 2018)

    The Contractor shall not make reference in its commercial advertising to Department of Veterans Affairs contracts in a manner that states or implies the Department of Veterans Affairs approves or endorses the Contractor's products or services or considers the Contractor's products or services superior to other products or services.

    (End of clause)
    852.203-71 [Removed and reserved]
    38. Section 852.203-71 is removed and reserved.
    852.214-70 [Removed and reserved].
    39. Section 852.214-70 is removed and reserved. 40. Section 852.214-71 is revised to read as follows:
    852.214-71 Restrictions on alternate item(s).

    As prescribed in 814.201-6(a)(1), insert the following provision:

    Restrictions on Alternate Item(s) (May 2018)

    Bids on [ ]* will be considered only if acceptable bids on [ ]** are not received or do not satisfy the total requirement.

    *Contracting Officer will insert an alternate item that is considered acceptable.

    **Contracting Officer will insert the required item and item number.

    (End of provision)
    41. Section 852.214-72 is revised to read as follows:
    852.214-72 Alternate item(s).

    As prescribed in 814.201-6(a)(2), insert the following provision:

    Alternate Item(s) (May 2018)

    Bids on [ ]* will be given equal consideration along with bids on [ ]** and any such bids received may be accepted if to the advantage of the Government. Tie bids will be decided in favor of [ ].**

    *Contracting Officer will insert an alternate item that is considered acceptable.

    **Contracting Officer will insert the required item and item number.

    (End of provision)
    42. Section 852.214-73 is revised to read as follows:
    852.214-73 Alternate packaging and packing.

    As prescribed in 814.201-6(a)(3), insert the following provision:

    Alternate Packaging and Packing (May 2018)

    The bidders offer must clearly indicate the quantity, package size, unit, or other different feature upon which the quote is made. Evaluation of the alternate or multiple alternates will be made on a common denominator such as per ounce, per pound, etc., basis.

    (End of provision)
    43. Section 852.214-74 is revised to read as follows:
    852.214-74 Marking of bid samples.

    As prescribed in 814.201-6(b), insert the following provision:

    Marking of Bid Samples (May 2018)

    Any bid sample(s) furnished must be in the quantities specified in the solicitation. Cases or packages must be plainly marked `Bid Sample(s)” with the complete lettering/numbering and description of the related bid item(s), the number of the Invitation for Bids, and the name of the bidder submitting the bid sample(s).

    (End of provision)
    44. Section 852.222-70 is revised to read as follows:
    852.222-70 Contract work-hours and safety standards—nursing home care for veterans.

    As prescribed in 822.305, insert the following clause:

    Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards—Nursing Home Care for Veterans (May 2018)

    (a) No Contractor and subcontractor under this contract shall prohibit the payment of overtime wages to their employees for work in excess of 40 hours in any workweek, which would otherwise be a violation of Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards (the statute) (40 U.S.C. 3701, et seq.), provided—

    (1) The Contractor or subcontractor is primarily engaged in the care of nursing home patients residing on the contractor's or subcontractor's premises;

    (2) There is an agreement or understanding between the Contractor or subcontractor and their employees, before performance of work, that a work period of 14 consecutive days is acceptable in lieu of a work period of 7 consecutive days for the purpose of overtime compensation;

    (3) Employees receive overtime compensation at a rate no less than 11/2 times the employees' regular hourly rate of pay for work in excess of 80 hours in any 14 day period; and

    (4) Pay is otherwise computed in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

    (b) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall insert the text of this clause, including this paragraph (b), in subcontracts at any tier. The Contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor with the provisions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (b) of this clause.

    (End of clause)
    [FR Doc. 2018-07833 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 370, 371, 373, 375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 382, 387, 390, 391, 395, 396, and 398 [Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0376] RIN 2126-AB47 Electronic Documents and Signatures AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA amends its regulations to allow the use of electronic records and signatures to satisfy FMCSA's regulatory requirements. These amendments permit the use of electronic methods to generate, certify, sign, maintain, or exchange records so long as the documents accurately reflect the required information and can be used for their intended purpose. This rule applies only to those documents that FMCSA's regulations obligate entities or individuals to retain; it does not apply to forms or other documents that must be submitted directly to FMCSA unless there are already procedures in place in the regulations for electronic submission to FMCSA. This rule partially implements the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective June 15, 2018.

    Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted to the Administrator of FMCSA in accordance with 49 CFR 389.35 no later than May 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Miller, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, [email protected]

    If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This final rule is organized as follows:

    I. Rulemaking Documents A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents B. Privacy Act II. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions B. Benefits and Costs III. Abbreviations and Acronyms IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking V. Background VI. Proposal of April 28, 2014 VII. Comments and Responses A. Overview B. Electronic signature C. Household Goods (HHG) D. Lease and Interchange of Vehicles (Part 376) E. Drug and Alcohol Testing F. Driver's Records of Duty Status G. Miscellaneous Comments VIII. This Final Rule IX. Section-by-Section Analysis A. Part 370 B. Part 373 C. Part 375 D. Part 376 E. Part 378 F. Part 379 G. Part 380 H. Part 382 I. Part 387 J. Part 390 K. Part 391 L. Part 395 M. Part 398 X. International Impacts XI. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Assistance for Small Entities E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 F. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of Information) G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children) J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property) K. Privacy L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments) O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards) P. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice) I. Rulemaking Documents A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2012-0376 to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, 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.

    B. Privacy Act

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

    II. Executive Summary A. Summary and Purpose of the Major Provisions

    This rule establishes parity between paper and electronic documents and signatures, and expands businesses' and individuals' ability to use electronic methods to comply with FMCSA's requirements. This rule applies only to documents that FMCSA requires entities to retain. It also updates references to outdated recordkeeping and reporting methods throughout chapter III of subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR parts 300-399) to make them technologically neutral.

    This rulemaking implements portions of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN).

    B. Benefits and Costs

    This rule does not impose new requirements, and it is expected to provide regulatory relief to the industry. It codifies previously issued regulatory guidance that provides flexibility to the industry in the use of electronic documents and electronic signatures, and removes outdated and obsolete references in the regulatory text. Examples of documents affected by this rule include vehicle maintenance records, driver qualification files, bills of lading, and business records. Regulated entities are provided additional flexibility and may choose to conduct business using either electronic versions or traditional paper-based versions of these types of documents. Because the choice of using electronic methods is optional and not mandatory, and regulated entities may continue to use traditional paper-based methods if they desire to do so, the Agency expects regulated entities will choose those methods that best suit their individual needs. For those regulated entities that do choose to use electronic documents and methods under this rule, potential cost savings may include reduced expenditures on labor time, office and storage space, materials, and office equipment.

    Because the previously issued regulatory guidance that is now being codified in this final rule has been in place for several years, since January 4, 2011, it is believed that many regulated entities for whom the use of electronic documents and methods best suits their needs may have already made this transition from traditional paper-based methods. Therefore, many of the potential cost savings possible from this rule may have largely already occurred. It is estimated that though there may still be some additional incremental cost savings that could result from the regulatory flexibility being codified by this final rule (e.g., for any remaining regulated entities that may desire at some time to use electronic documents and methods but have not yet made this transition), overall these additional cost savings will be minimal.

    III. Abbreviations and Acronyms Full name Abbreviation or acronym American Moving and Storage Association AMSA. Automatic On-Board Recording Device AOBRD. Atlas Van Lines Atlas. American Trucking Associations ATA. Clean Air Act CAA. Code of Federal Regulations CFR. Commercial Motor Vehicle CMV. U.S. Department of Transportation DOT. Electronic Logging Device ELD. Executive Order EO. Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act E-SIGN. Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act FAST. Federal Register FR. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FMCSA. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations FMCSRs. Government Paperwork Elimination Act GPEA. Household Goods HHG. Hours of Service HOS. Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 1984 Act. National Motor Freight Traffic Association NMFTA. National Environmental Policy Act NEPA. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NPRM. Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance ODAPC. Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc OOIDA. Office of Management and Budget OMB. Paperwork Reduction Act PRA. Portable Document Format PDF. Privacy Impact Assessment PIA. Record of Duty Status RODS. United States Code U.S.C. IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984), as amended, (the 1984 Act) provides broad authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 211 of the 1984 Act grants the Secretary broad power, in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and regulations, to “prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements” and to “perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)). The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(f) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I and III, relating to commercial motor vehicle (CMV) programs and safety regulation.

    Two Federal statutes govern the Agency's implementation of electronic document and signature requirements. The GPEA (Pub. L. 105.277, Title XVII (Secs. 1701-1710), 112 Stat. 2681-749, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note) was enacted on October 21, 1998, to improve customer service and governmental efficiency through the use of information technology. E-SIGN (Pub. L. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464, 15 U.S.C. 7001-7031) was signed into law on June 30, 2000. E-SIGN was designed to promote the use of electronic contract formation, signatures, and recordkeeping in private commerce by establishing legal equivalence between traditional paper-based methods and electronic methods.

    The GPEA defines an electronic signature as a method of signing an electronic communication that: (a) Identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication; and (b) indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication (section 1710(1)). It also requires Federal agencies to provide individuals and entities the options of: (a) Submitting information to or transacting with the agency electronically; and (b) using electronic records retention when practicable. The GPEA states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures shall not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form (section 1707). It also encourages agencies to use electronic signature alternatives (section 1704). This final rule is concerned only with implementing the use of electronic document creation and retention with regard to documents and records required to be maintained, and does not cover electronic submission to FMCSA, as is discussed more broadly in the response to comments below.

    For any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, E-SIGN supersedes all pre-existing requirements that paper records be kept so long as: (a) Such records are generated in commercial, consumer, and business transactions between private parties; and (b) those parties consent to using electronic methods. Specifically, the statute establishes the legal equivalence for contracts, signatures, and other legally-required documents, whether in traditional paper or electronic form (15 U.S.C. 7001(a)(1)).

    V. Background

    In recent years, FMCSA received a number of requests from motor carriers and other interested parties asking permission to use electronic methods to comply with various Agency regulations that require motor carriers and individuals to generate, sign, or store documents. Previously, FMCSA made determinations on whether certain categories of documents could be generated, signed, or stored electronically on a case-by-case basis. However, FMCSA recognized that modern technologies and evolving business practices rendered the distinction between paper and electronic documents and signatures obsolete in most cases.

    FMCSA determined that many businesses and individuals could achieve greater efficiencies using electronic methods, but that others might prefer paper-based recordkeeping. As a result, FMCSA decided to give regulated entities the flexibility to choose which methods to use. On January 4, 2011, FMCSA issued regulatory guidance to 49 CFR 390.31 on the use of electronic signatures and documents to satisfy FMCSA's regulatory requirements. (76 FR 411). That guidance provided that, for the purposes of complying with any provision in chapter III of subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR parts 300-399) that requires a document to be created, signed, certified, or retained by any person or entity, that person or entity may, but is not required to, use electronic methods. The guidance further stated that in order for electronic methods to satisfy FMCSA's regulatory requirements, the documents or signatures had to accurately reflect the information in the record and remain accessible in a form that can be viewed or reproduced according to agency rules.

    On April 28, 2014, FMCSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed incorporating the 2011 guidance into regulations. (79 FR 23306). Subsequent to the issuance of the NPRM, FMCSA removed guidance question 27 and revised question 28 for 49 CFR 395.8, addressing the use of logging software programs for drivers' records of duty status (RODS) in order to ensure consistency with FMCSA's January 2011 guidance (79 FR 39342, July 10, 2014).

    In addition, Presidential Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (issued January 18, 2011, and published January 21 at 76 FR 3821), prompted DOT to publish a notice in the Federal Register on February 16, 2011 (76 FR 8940). This notice requested readers to comment on a plan for reviewing existing rules, as well as to identify existing rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome. DOT placed all retrospective regulatory review comments, including a transcript of a March 14, 2011, public meeting, in docket DOT-OST-2011-0025. One of the comments submitted to that docket was relevant to this rule, and has been included in the comment summary below.1

    1 While the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was enacted after publication of the NPRM, FMCSA notes that publication of this Final Rule also complies with the mandate found in section 5203 of the FAST Act, requiring FMCSA to incorporate guidance into regulations if the guidance is still valid after a period of 5 years. See, Pubic Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1535.

    VI. The 2014 Proposed Rule

    On April 28, 2014, FMCSA published an NPRM titled “Electronic Signatures and Documents” in the Federal Register (79 FR 23306). FMCSA received 17 comments on the NPRM. No public meetings were requested and none was held.

    The NPRM proposed to codify FMCSA's guidance issued under § 390.31 and eliminate references to outdated recordkeeping and reporting methods throughout the Agency's regulations. The proposed rule was intended to establish parity between paper and electronic documents and signatures, and expand businesses' and individuals' ability to use electronic methods to comply with FMCSA's requirements. It applied only to documents that FMCSA requires individuals or entities to retain. It also updated references to outdated recordkeeping and reporting methods throughout 49 CFR parts 300-399 to make them technologically neutral.

    VII. Comments and Responses A. Overview

    Seventeen submissions were posted to the docket. One submission was a duplicate 2 and three were outside the scope of this rulemaking, leaving 13 relevant submissions. Commenters included four trade associations: American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA), American Trucking Associations (ATA), National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA), and Owner, Operator, Independent Driver Association (OOIDA). Three businesses, Atlas Van Lines (Atlas), KeepTruckin (sic), and First Advantage, also provided comments, as did six individuals.

    2 Submission number 013 is a duplicate of number 005.

    Comments Supporting the Rulemaking

    Eight commenters, including the four trade associations, three individuals and a business expressed their support for the proposed rule. First Advantage agreed with the rule and recommended that 49 CFR part 382 be included in its adoption. Trade associations AMSA and NMFTA both strongly supported the rulemaking. OOIDA and ATA supported the rulemaking, although each had concerns (which are addressed further below). Finally, an individual stated “with technology these days, this makes perfect sense.”

    B. Electronic Signature

    Comment. An individual commenter expressed concern about the lack of description in the preamble concerning the new regulatory language in § 390.32(c)(2) and (d). Paragraph § 390.32(c)(2) in the NPRM provided a definition of the term electronic signature, using terms from the GPEA, to set the performance standard for allowing use of electronic signatures. The subparagraph also provided flexibility that such an electronic signature may be made using any available technology that otherwise satisfies FMCSA's requirements. Paragraph § 390.32(d) in the NPRM provided that any person or entity may use documents signed, certified, generated, maintained, or exchanged using electronic methods if the documents accurately reflect the information otherwise required to be contained in them. Paragraph (d) also provided that records, documents, or signatures generated, maintained, or exchanged using electronic methods would not satisfy FMCSA requirements if they are not legible or capable of being retained, used for the purpose for which they were created, or accurately reproduced for reference by any party entitled to access them. This individual commenter noted that “identification and authentication” have specific meanings defining levels of security. This same commenter wrote that the NPRM seemed to assume that electronic signatures are legible, rather than being nothing more than a PIN or user ID and password. Another individual commenter wrote that “allowing electronic signatures needs to be defined.”

    OOIDA was concerned about the security of electronic documents. It requested that FMCSA provide clarification through a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and allow for public comment.

    An anonymous commenter noted FMCSA's requirements implied that it would require a level 2 or 3 authentication of a signature, and wrote, “FMCSA should explain exactly what it will require in terms of authentication and identity proofing (a necessary step in ensuring authentication).” This commenter did not see why FMCSA should require that level of authentication. Further, the individual pointed out there would be a cost to impose level 2 or 3 authentication requirements that FMCSA has not considered.

    FMCSA Response. Based on the confusion generated by the NPRM's placement of the definition in § 390.32(c)(2), FMCSA has decided to move the definition of “electronic signature” to the general definition section for all Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) in §§ 390.5 and 390.5T. The definition in §§ 390.5 and 390.5T will continue to provide that an electronic signature is “a method of signing an electronic communication that identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication and indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication.”

    FMCSA recognizes that the terms “identifies” and “authenticates” carry distinct meanings in the world of information technology, particularly when dealing with information security. However, these are the terms used in the GPEA to set the performance standard for allowing use of electronic signatures. Changing them here could have unintended consequences. FMCSA does not use the terms to mean that a specific level of information or authentication security must be used. Those companies and individuals who would like to use electronic signatures are free to decide, for themselves, what level of information security they are most comfortable maintaining.

    For FMCSA purposes, we require only that the electronic signatures have some level of security to meet the performance standard set forth in the statute and regulations. To make it clear that the §§ 390.5 and 390.5T definition of “electronic signature” follows the GPEA performance standard, this rule will add at the end of the §§ 390.5 and 390.5T definitions a cross reference to the GPEA for the benefit of the public's understanding as to where the definition originated.

    Comment. ATA wrote that motor carriers create and store records used to demonstrate compliance using electronic on-board recorders. ATA commented that FMCSA must explicitly allow drivers to sign and store documents transmitted through the electronic on-board recorder by clicking an “I agree” button. ATA said the NPRM was ambiguous on this issue and explained that there is a distinction between the characterizations of an electronic signature in § 390.32 of the NPRM and in the 2011 guidance, which stated that signatures must “accurately reflect the information in the record and remain accessible in a form that can be accurately viewed and/or reproduced according to agency rules.”

    FMCSA response. We do not believe that the regulation needs to be revised to explicitly state that clicking an “I agree” button on an electronic on-board recorder is an electronic signature. Sections 390.5T and 390.32, when read together, would already allow for such an interpretation so long as the on-board recorder satisfies FMCSA's requirements. This means the on-board recorder must accurately reflect the information and/or data it is designed to record, must retain the information and/or data for the proscribed time period, and must be able to accurately reproduce the information and/or data within the required timeframes (49 CFR 390.32(d)). Additionally, it must be able to show that the user approved the information contained in the on-board recorder (49 CFR 390.5T).

    C. Household Goods (HHG) Information Provided to a Prospective Shipper (§ 375.213)

    Comment. Both AMSA and Atlas strongly supported the ability to provide the Ready to Move brochure and Rights and Responsibilities booklet to consumers electronically, rather than by hyperlink to FMCSA's website. AMSA and Atlas noted, however, that the word “paper” still remains in § 375.213(a), (b)(1), and (e)(2). AMSA indicated that it believed this is an “oversight” on the Agency's part. Furthermore, AMSA pointed out: “Eliminating the paper requirement for the required Ready to Move brochure and Rights and Responsibilities booklet will allow carriers to provide all of that information together electronically.”

    Both commenters noted that the only currently available electronic method for delivering the required Ready to Move brochure and Rights and Responsibilities booklet “is basically unusable by carriers because: (a) It requires that the carrier obtain a receipt that the individual shipper has actually received both booklets when the carrier is not actually providing them the documents, so does not know when the shipper has actually received them in order to be able to obtain an honest and truthful receipt; (b) the regulation does not allow the carrier to have the shipper access the documents on its website, but requires that the shipper go to the FMCSA website to obtain them, eliminating any means for the carrier to electronically track that the shipper has actually received the documents; and (c) the regulation requires that the carrier obtain and keep the required receipt for 3 years (versus the one year period required for most other documents).”

    FMCSA Response. The Agency agrees with the commenters and amends the language in § 375.213(e)(2), by removing the words “electronic or paper.” FMCSA also eliminates the requirement in § 375.213 for the Ready to Move brochure and Rights and Responsibilities booklet to be provided only in paper copy or retrieved at a URL. Finally, FMCSA removes the need to receive a physical receipt of waiver from the shipper as well.

    The proposed rule did not address the length of time a carrier needs to keep the receipt in § 375.213(e)(3) because FMCSA resolved the issue in 2012. AMSA's and Atlas' June 27, 2014, comments discussed reducing the length of time required to maintain the receipt from a three-year period to a one-year period. This was almost two years after FMCSA harmonized the retention period for the required receipt to one year based on AMSA's January 11, 2011, petition. The Agency published a direct final rule (DFR) on July 16, 2012 (77 FR 41699), establishing the retention period as one year.

    HHG Filing of Claims

    Comment. Atlas stated that the rewording of § 370.3 left the process for filing complaints unclear. Specifically, Atlas objected to the removal of the phrase “or electronic” and FMCSA's failure to delete the parenthetical statement that followed.

    FMCSA Response. In response to Atlas' comment, the Agency removes the parenthetical “(when agreed to by the carrier and shipper or receiver involved)” from § 370.3(b), because the form of communication used is determined by agreement of the parties involved. This will clarify that the claimants need to file a claim, either in writing or electronically, rather than orally stating a claim. For the same reason, the Agency also removes the identical parenthetical phrase in § 378.3(a) for the filing and processing of overcharge, duplicate payment, or overcollection payments for motor carrier and household goods freight forwarder transportation of property.

    D. Lease and Interchange of Vehicles (Part 376)

    Comment. OOIDA was concerned that the protections established by a lease “will be compromised if a motor carrier exercises its rights under the proposed rule to use electronic documents, but the owner-operator does not have the means to maintain personal possession at all times and refer to it when necessary during the course of the lease.” OOIDA requested several clarifications regarding the proposed regulatory text in part 376 related to the responsibility of the motor carrier to make documents available to the owner-operator. OOIDA also asked how the owner-operator was to store the document on the CMV. OOIDA wrote that anything other than a paper copy may be less than effective in achieving the purposes of the leasing regulations.

    OOIDA also asked FMCSA to clarify in the final rule that the new requirements for electronic signatures are not intended to permit easy amendment of a lease or its addendums.

    FMCSA Response. As stated in the introduction, the E-SIGN statute requires consent from the consumer to share documents in electronic format. This consent should be part of the contract reached by the parties, in normal business arrangements, which must be signed by all parties indicating their consent to the requirements. We have added this requirement (that consent be documented) into 49 CFR 390.32(d), to ensure it is clear to all who wish to take advantage of the electronic documents and signatures options. If the owner-operator does not have the ability to receive and maintain the lease in electronic format, the owner-operator should obtain the lease in a format he or she can use, i.e., a printed copy.

    In response to OOIDA's request for clarification that the requirements for electronic signatures are not intended to permit easy amendment of a lease or its addendums, without ratification by both parties, FMCSA reiterates that the purpose of this rule is to give regulated entities the choice to conduct business using either electronic or traditional paper-based methods. This rule does not change any substantive legal requirements or business practices. We have added language into 49 CFR 379.5 to include a requirement for the protection of records from unauthorized access and modification, to make this clear.

    E. Drug and Alcohol Testing

    Comment. First Advantage encouraged the Agency to use electronic records and signatures under part 382, “Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing,” as this would provide regulatory relief to the industry.

    ATA requested that the Agency work with the DOT Office of the Secretary to create identical allowances for electronic signatures and transmissions related to drug and alcohol testing requesting requirements found in 49 CFR part 40.

    FMCSA Response. While FMCSA did not include specific changes to part 382 in its NPRM of April 28, 2014, the addition of a new § 390.32 in this final rule applies to those records that are created under part 382. Thus, industry parties may now use electronic records to comply with the records retention requirements found in 49 CFR 382.401, so long as their electronic records captured the information required by § 382.401. On December 5, 2016, FMCSA published a final rule titled “Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse,” (81 FR 87686). That final rule, which falls under part 382, contemplates the use of electronic signatures for certain transactions related to the reporting and receipt of drug and alcohol testing information, including an employer's ability to obtain driver consent.

    In reviewing the CFR for any additional terms to align with the changes proposed in the NPRM, the Agency has included a revision to § 382.601(d). FMCSA removes the phrase “the original of” in this section to reflect the practical reality that there is no real distinction between originals and copies of electronic documents. Moreover, this change conforms to the changes at § 390.31 which permit parties to maintain accurate copies in lieu of originals.

    The DOT Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance (ODAPC) has not approved the use of electronic signatures or documents to satisfy the requirements of the DOT-wide drug and alcohol testing regulations, which are found at 49 CFR part 40. The Agency has no authority over regulations under 49 CFR part 40. Any questions about part 40 regulations should be directed to ODAPC. You may find ODAPC contact information at https://www.transportation.gov/odapc.

    F. Driver's Records of Duty Status

    Comment. Commenters asked that the regulatory guidance for § 395.8, regarding the use of electronic devices to keep a driver's RODS, be addressed. Commenters, including ATA and KeepTruckin (sic), a mobile technology-related firm, wanted the new rule to specifically address how RODS and other HOS documents could be provided to an enforcement officer at roadside. ATA interpreted the need for an “accurate copy” as requiring that drivers retain paper copies to satisfy law enforcement requests. Two individual commenters and KeepTruckin asked if RODS would have to be printed or if they could be displayed on a tablet or smart phone. A commenter asked if RODS and supporting documents could be sent electronically. A commenter asked if a driver had to submit the original log book or if it could be faxed to the motor carrier and printed out when needed.

    ATA stated that FMCSA should allow the use of electronic documents at roadside, and eliminate question 28 of the DOT Interpretations for § 395.8 that requires the ability to print paper RODS. It did not believe that there is a “compelling government interest” in requiring paper copies at roadside inspection. ATA said that, currently, the risk of fraud is no greater than for paper documents. Tablet and smart phone technology can present the documents required at roadside in an easily reviewable format and transmit them electronically.

    FMCSA Response. As noted in Section V, Background, above, interpretative guidance issued under 49 CFR 395.8 that was in effect during the NPRM comment period was subsequently revised, consistent with FMCSA's July 2014 guidance on electronic signatures and documents (79 FR 39342, July 10, 2014). This revision rendered multiple comments obsolete. The July 2014 guidance addressed logging software programs that do not qualify as automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs) or electronic logging devices (ELDs). The Agency is in the process of reviewing all regulatory guidance previously issued by FMCSA. Any changes to existing guidance for § 395.8, § 395.15, or other sections addressed in this rulemaking will be considered during that review. In the meantime, the existing guidance remains in effect.

    This rule modifies 49 CFR 395.15 governing use of AOBRDs. Provisions pertaining to ELDs were addressed in a separate rulemaking (80 FR 78292, December 16, 2015). The ELD final rule also addressed the handling of supporting documents during inspections beginning December 18, 2017. The ATA comment erroneously presumes that the reference to an electronic document constituting an “accurate copy” would mean that drivers would need to have paper documents available for inspections. While there will be circumstances where paper RODS may be required, the need for production of paper records will diminish over time with the adoption of this rule and implementation of FMCSA's ELD final rule.

    FMCSA has long acknowledged drivers' ability to satisfy their obligation to submit paper RODS to their motor carrier employer by scanning the original documents and submitting them electronically (75 FR 32860, June 10, 2010). Submission of supporting documents can be handled in the same manner.

    G. Miscellaneous Comments

    Comment. NFMTA and ATA recommended that the rule be expanded to include documents that FMCSA receives as well. An individual commenter stated that “FMCSA regulations still require paper signatures on many daily reports; creating a paperwork burden to technology adoption.” This commenter requested that FMCSA adopt technology and remove current barriers.

    OOIDA was concerned that the Agency would consider electronic documents as more accurate than other methods in regards to the recording of HOS. OOIDA wrote that a document is only as accurate as the information recorded by its author.

    ATA expressed their confusion of what constitutes an electronic signature.

    FMCSA Response. FMCSA understands the position of those who seek to broaden the scope of this rule to allow electronic signatures on forms submitted to FMCSA. In fact, FMCSA has in certain situations made it possible for industry to use electronic signatures and submit information in limited electronic format. As an example, Certified Medical Examiners may use electronic signatures, if they choose to do so, to sign medical forms, certificates, and a new driver medication report. If FMCSA requests these forms, they are uploaded in portable document format (PDF) to the Medical Examiner's account associated with the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners for FMCSA to access. Unfortunately, adapting all FMCSA systems to allow for use of electronic signatures and submissions would significantly delay the implementation of this rule for use by third parties, as it would require FMCSA to develop and implement technology systems to allow for direct submission to FMCSA from regulated parties. Such development is often a multi-year process, as has been seen in the ongoing implementation for the online Unified Registration System. FMCSA sees no reason the opportunity for private parties to use electronic signatures and records retention should be dependent on FMCSA's ability to receive submissions electronically. Doing so would delay potential benefits to be gained by third parties. Thus, FMCSA is moving forward with this final rule, and will continue to look for opportunities to expand electronic submission options in the future.

    FMCSA's intent is to provide the industry with an electronic signature option for all instances where regulations currently require the more traditional pen and ink signatures on documents to be created and maintained by third parties (i.e., not submitted to FMCSA). We welcome any input as to specific instances where we may have inadvertently omitted the electronic signature option. This input can be submitted using the information listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

    In response to OOIDA's concern, FMCSA notes that this rule merely establishes parity between paper and electronic documents and gives the industry more flexibility. The Agency does not intend to give preference to electronic or paper records.

    With regard to ATA's confusion over what constitutes an electronic signature, FMCSA is purposely providing a performance standard, as opposed to defining a specific technology to be used. There are numerous ways to electronically sign a document. We leave to the parties involved in the transaction to determine the method most appropriate for their purposes.3

    3 For general information on electronic signatures, the agency recommends Nunno, Richard M., “Electronic Signatures”, Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service, CRS Rep. RS20344, Jan. 19, 2001, pgs. 1-2 at https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1448/m1/1/high_res_d/RS20344_2001Jan19.pdf, accessed March 9, 2018.

    VIII. This Final Rule

    This final rule adopts the NPRM substantially as proposed, thereby incorporating previously issued guidance into the CFR. This rule establishes parity between paper and electronic documents and signatures, and expands businesses' and individuals' ability to use electronic methods to comply with certain of the Agency's requirements. This rule only applies to documents between private parties that FMCSA requires individuals or entities to retain. It also updates references to outdated recordkeeping and reporting methods throughout chapter III of subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR parts 300-399) to make them technologically neutral.

    This rulemaking implements portions of the GPEA and E-SIGN. It removes the words “original” and “written and electronic” in many cases where they still appeared in the regulatory text, in order to provide parity between electronic and paper records.

    In response to comments by AMSA and Atlas, FMCSA has also updated § 375.213 to allow electronic copies of the Ready to Move brochure and Rights and Responsibilities document, provided they receive agreement from the customer. Finally, the parenthetical has been removed in §§ 370.3(b) and 378.3(a) to ensure all claims are filed in writing, either by paper or electronically.

    This final rule does not adopt the changes proposed in part 389, FMCSA's rulemaking procedures. Those changes are included in the August 7, 2017, document “Rulemaking Procedures Update” covering broader changes to part 389 (82 FR 36719). The timing of the part 389 NPRM and this final rule were such that addressing all part 389 changes in one rulemaking was less confusing than attempting to finalize a few changes in this final rule while proposing others in the August 7, 2017, part 389 NPRM.

    In addition, this rule reflects changes made in the CFR between April 2014 when the NPRM was published and April 16, 2018. For further discussion of the changes, please see the Section-by-Section Analysis in Part IX of this preamble.

    IX. Section-by-Section Analysis

    The Agency makes changes throughout its regulations to conform to the new definition of “written or in writing” at §§ 390.5 and 390.5T, which eliminates the distinction between paper and electronic methods of communication. The term “written” no longer means “on paper.” As a result the words “electronic” and “paper” are removed throughout as long as they are no longer needed for an alternative reason. This change can be found in parts 370, 371, 373, 375, 376, 378, 379, 382, 387, 391, 395, 396, and 398, and are not discussed any further in this section as they remain unchanged from what was proposed in the NPRM.4

    4 Because the changes made in parts 371 and 396 are limited to the removal of the words “electronic” and “paper,” they are not discussed any further in the section-by-section analysis.

    A. Part 370 49 CFR 370.3, 370.5, 370.9

    FMCSA is removing the parenthetical “(when agreed to by the carrier and shipper or receiver involved)” from 370.3(b) in response to comments. All other changes to part 370 remain as proposed in the NPRM.

    49 CFR 370.7

    In reviewing the CFR, FMCSA discovered an additional instance in § 370.7 where existing regulatory text could be updated to align with the changes proposed in the NPRM. The Agency is removing “original” as referenced in the “original bill of lading,” “original invoice,” and “a photographic copy of the original invoice, or an exact copy thereof or any extract made therefrom . . .” These are either identical or similar to those that were included in the NPRM, similar to the discussion in § 390.32 below. FMCSA also removes the word “photographic” to make this section technologically neutral. Motor carriers, freight forwarders, consignees, and consignors may still maintain a copy of the invoice or an extract made therefrom, but they are free to choose the method of making that copy. We believe that notice and comment on these changes is unnecessary as the additional revisions are similar, if not identical, to changes that were included in the NPRM and garnered no adverse comments.

    B. Part 373 49 CFR 373.103

    As proposed in the NPRM, in § 373.103, FMCSA removes references to “original” documents to reflect the practical reality that there is no real distinction between originals and copies of electronic documents. Moreover, these changes conform to the changes at § 390.31 that permit parties to maintain accurate copies in lieu of originals.

    C. Part 375 49 CFR 375.505

    The changes to § 375.505 make clear that when a household goods motor carrier transports a shipment on a collect-on-delivery basis, notification of the charges can be made using any method of communication, including, but not limited to fax, email, overnight courier, certified mail, or return receipt requested.

    D. Part 376 49 CFR 376.11

    As proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA amends § 376.11(b)(1) to remove the outdated language specifying that receipts for leased equipment may be transmitted by mail, telegraph, or similar means of communication. Accordingly, the amended section no longer includes references to the method of transmitting receipts, thereby giving the parties the freedom to choose their own delivery method.

    49 CFR 376.12

    In paragraph (g), as proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA eliminates outdated references to computer generated documents to eliminate the distinction between electronic and manually generated documents. In today's business and legal environment, there is no need to afford special treatment to computer generated documentation; eliminating this special treatment establishes technological neutrality in this section. These changes do not mean, however, that parties are prohibited from using computers to generate the documents required in this section. To the contrary, all parties are free to conduct their business using the technology they choose, as long as it otherwise meets the Agency's requirements.

    Also, as proposed in the NPRM, in paragraph (1), FMCSA eliminates reference to the original of each lease for the same reasons explained in the discussion of § 373.103 above.

    E. Part 378 49 CFR 378.4

    In addition to removing “original” in § 378.4(c) for the reasons discussed in §§ 370.7 and 373.103 above, FMCSA has introduced a technical amendment in § 378.4(e) to correct a misspelling of the word “orginal” to be “original”. The use of this “original” continues to be proper in this context of informing the carrier that it must accept copies, but doing so means no one else can come forward with the originals and make a duplicate claim. Otherwise, this section remains as proposed.

    F. Part 379 49 CFR 379.5

    As previously drafted, section 379.5 required motor carriers to protect records required under FMCSA's regulations from damage or loss. The outdated language in paragraph (a) referred to physical damage that generally can pertain only to paper records. FMCSA updates this paragraph by changing it to require motor carriers to protect records against destruction, deterioration, unauthorized access and modification, and data corruption. This change reflects the importance of maintaining the integrity of records regardless of the method used to maintain them, and responds to those commenters who requested that FMCSA ensure electronic records are protected from unauthorized amendment. We have updated paragraph (b) to ensure FMCSA is notified in any case where the integrity of the record is at issue.

    49 CFR 379.7

    As previously drafted, section 379.7 contained outdated record preservation language that does not take into account the use of computers and modern technology. As proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA replaces this language with language that permits companies to preserve records using any technology that accurately reflects all of the information in the record and remains accessible for later use in accordance with the Agency's record keeping requirements. These changes conform to the requirements for electronic methods in new § 390.32.

    G. Part 380 49 CFR 380.715

    Also in reviewing the CFR, FMCSA discovered an additional instance where recently added regulatory text could be updated to align with the changes proposed in the NPRM. The Agency has included a revision to § 380.715(a). FMCSA replaces the phrase “assessments (in written or electronic format)” in this section with the phrase “written assessments” to conform to the new definition of “written or in writing” at §§ 390.5 and 390.5T, which eliminates the distinction between paper and electronic methods of communication. We believe that notice and comment on this change is unnecessary as the additional revision in § 380.715 is similar, if not identical, to changes that were included in the NPRM.

    49 CFR 380.725

    Entry-level driver training providers are required by § 380.725(b)(2) to maintain a copy of the driver-trainee's commercial learner's permit(s) or commercial driver's license, and § 380.725(b)(3) requires these training providers maintain copies of commercial driver's licenses and applicable endorsements held by behind-the-wheel and theory instructors. As mentioned throughout this preamble about copies of records, entry-level driver training providers are free to choose the method of maintaining copies as long as it meets the requirements in § 390.31 which permit parties to maintain accurate copies in lieu of originals.

    H. Part 382 49 CFR 382.601

    Also while reviewing the CFR, the Agency discovered an additional instance where existing regulatory text could be updated to align with the changes proposed in the NPRM. In this final rule, FMCSA made an additional revision to § 382.601(d). FMCSA removes the phrase “the original of” in this section for the reasons explained in the discussion of § 373.103, above.

    I. Part 387 49 CFR 387.7

    As previously drafted, paragraph (b)(1) of § 387.7 required insurers and motor carriers to give 35 days' notice prior to cancelling the financial responsibility policies required in § 387.9. This section formerly established mail as the only method of communicating cancellations. As proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA amends this section by replacing the word “mailed” with the more technologically neutral term “transmitted,” and “Proof of mailing” with “Proof of transmission.” This establishes parity between mailing and other methods of transmission as proof of cancellation.

    49 CFR 387.15

    FMCSA amends § 387.15 by removing the outdated 1982 illustration I and the outdated 1983 illustration II. These illustrations represent FMCSA's predecessor Federal Highway Administration's Forms MCS-90 and MCS-82. FMCSA will update the forms by making non-substantive changes to these OMB-approved forms by replacing the terms “mailed” with “transmitted,” and “Proof of mailing” with “Proof of transmission” for the reasons explained in the discussion of § 387.7, above. FMCSA adds a reference to the section that the public may access the current OMB-approved versions of Forms MCS-90 and MCS-82 at FMCSA's website https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/forms. Thus, the public will have access to the most current OMB-approved forms via FMCSA's website rather than outdated forms in § 387.15. This change is in addition to what was proposed in the NPRM. Because the illustrations were not representations of the current OMB-approved forms, we believe that this change is not subject to notice and comment. It is a ministerial action that removes confusion from the regulations. As such, notice and comment are unnecessary.

    49 CFR 387.31

    As proposed, FMCSA amends § 387.31(b)(1) by replacing the term “mailed” with “transmitted,” and “Proof of mailing” with “Proof of transmission” for the reasons explained in the discussion of § 387.7, above.

    49 CFR 387.39

    FMCSA amends § 387.39 by removing the outdated 2003 illustrations I and II. These illustrations represent FMCSA's Forms MCS-90B and MCS-82B. FMCSA will update the forms for the same reasons explained in the discussion of §§ 387.7 and 387.15, above. FMCSA also adds a reference to the section that the public may access the current OMB-approved versions of Forms MCS-90B and MCS-82B at FMCSA's website https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/forms. This change is in addition to what was proposed in the NPRM. Because the illustrations were not representations of the current OMB-approved forms, we believe that this change is not subject to notice and comment. It is a ministerial action that removes confusion from the regulations. As such, notice and comment are unnecessary.

    J. Part 390 49 CFR 390.5 and 390.5T

    FMCSA moves the definition for “electronic signature” from proposed § 390.32(c)(2) to §§ 390.5 and 390.5T, and adds a § 390.5T cross reference for the term to § 390.32(c)(1). As discussed in the response to comments about electronic signatures earlier in this preamble, an electronic signature continues to mean a method of signing an electronic communication that: (1) Identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication; and (2) indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication.

    Based on a few commenters' confusion with the definition, FMCSA adds a clarifying phrase that the definition is in accordance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105-277, Title XVII, Secs. 1701-1710, 112 Stat. 2681-749, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note). This will ensure that regulated entities know FMCSA is using GPEA's performance standard for allowing use of electronic signatures. This change also is made to the currently suspended § 390.5, to ensure that when FMCSA rescinds the suspension, the changes made by this final rule will remain intact.

    As proposed, FMCSA introduces the definition of “written or in writing” in §§ 390.5 and 390.5T. The new definition is technologically neutral and includes anything typed, handwritten, or printed on a tangible medium, such as paper, as well as anything typed or generated electronically, as long as it otherwise meets the new standards in § 390.32. This definition establishes technological neutrality throughout the FMCSRs and eliminates any distinction between paper and electronic documentation as being “written or in writing.”

    49 CFR 390.7

    As proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA removes the outdated explanation of the term “writing” from the rules of construction in § 390.7(b)(2). As explained above, FMCSA has implemented a new definition of “written or in writing” in §§ 390.5 and 390.5T.

    49 CFR 390.31

    Revised § 390.31 permits persons or entities subject to document retention requirements to keep copies in lieu of originals. As proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA removes the reference to microfilm as the only acceptable method for storing such copies. It also removes the prohibition on using computer technology to maintain documents with signatures. This change provides the flexibility to choose the type of recordkeeping and storage that best suits an entity's capacities and business needs. To comply with the requirements of this section, copies must be legible; anyone entitled to inspect them must be able to view and read the content required to be in the record. The requirement that the Agency be able to inspect records applies regardless of whether the copy is in paper or electronic form.

    49 CFR 390.32

    As proposed in the NPRM, new § 390.32 permits any person or entity to use electronic methods to comply with any provision in chapter III of subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR parts 300-399) that requires a document to be signed, certified, generated, maintained, or exchanged. It applies to all forms of written documentation, including forms, records, notations, and other documents. This rule establishes parity between paper and electronic documents and signatures, greatly expanding interested parties' ability to use electronic methods to comply with FMCSA's requirements.

    Paragraph (a) specifies that the rule applies only to documents that FMCSA requires entities or individuals to retain, regardless of whether the Agency subsequently requires them to be produced or displayed at the request of an FMCSA official or other parties entitled to access. It does not apply to documents that individuals or entities are required to file directly with the Agency. For more information about electronic filing methods for documents filed directly with FMCSA, interested parties can consult specific program information on FMCSA's website (www.fmcsa.dot.gov).

    Paragraph (b) permits, but does not require, any entity to satisfy FMCSA requirements by using electronic methods to generate, maintain, or exchange documents. The substance of the document would otherwise have to comply with applicable Federal laws and Agency rules.

    Paragraph (c) permits, but does not require, any entity required to sign or certify a document to do so using electronic signatures. The rule specifies that a person may use any available technology so long as the signature otherwise complies with FMCSA's requirements. In response to comments, this paragraph has been further revised to include that any electronically signed documents must incorporate or otherwise include evidence that both parties have consented to the use of electronic signatures, as required by the E-SIGN Act (15 U.S.C. 7001(c)).

    Paragraph (d) establishes the minimum requirements for electronic documents and signatures. Any electronic document or signature would be considered the legal equivalent of a paper document or signature if it is the functional equivalent with respect to integrity, accuracy, and accessibility. In other words, the electronic documents or signatures need to accurately and reliably reflect the information in the record. They must remain accessible in a form that could be accurately viewed or reproduced according to Agency rules.

    Electronic documents are not to be considered the legal equivalent of traditional paper documents if they are not capable of being retained and accurately reproduced for reference by any entity entitled to access by law, for the period of time required by the Agency's recordkeeping requirements. For example, if Agency rules require that a document be produced upon demand, such as a record of duty status requested by an enforcement officer, the entity must be able to provide the Agency with an accurate copy of the electronic record upon demand. Similarly, if Agency rules require that a document be produced to the Agency within 48 hours, such as a motor carrier with multiple offices, the entity would have to provide the Agency with an accurate copy of the electronic record within 48 hours. The person inspecting the document must be able to view and read the content of that electronic record. As with any documents, paper or electronic, documents that are not legible—for any reason—do not satisfy the Agency's requirements.

    This rule does not apply to other agencies' rules, even if FMCSA requires compliance with those rules. For example, some of FMCSA's regulations cross-reference other agencies' rules, such as those related to drug and alcohol testing (49 CFR part 40) and hazardous materials (49 CFR parts 105-199). In addition, if a motor carrier is operating in a foreign country, it must follow any rules that apply in that country.

    K. Part 391

    Former 49 CFR 391.55 required each motor carrier to maintain a “photographic” copy of a Longer Combination Vehicle driver-instructor's commercial driver's license. But current technology for reproducing documents is not limited to photographic methods; other methods for capturing digital images also exist. Accordingly, as proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA removes the word “photographic” to make this section technologically neutral. Motor carriers are still required to maintain a copy of the Longer Combination Vehicle driver-instructor's commercial driver's license, but they are free to choose the method of making that copy.

    L. Part 395 49 CFR 395.8

    Former § 395.8(f)(2) required that RODS be made in the driver's own handwriting. Recognizing that many drivers and motor carriers prefer to use electronic RODS, including electronic signatures, FMCSA proposed removal of the requirement that RODS be in the driver's own handwriting and adopts the rule as proposed. But drivers are still required to make their own entries; and those entries are required to be legible, regardless of the medium used to record them. This change permits drivers to choose whether to use electronic or handwritten entries and signatures. For example, a driver could make RODS entries in his or her own handwriting with a handwritten signature; electronically with an electronic signature; or typed and then subscribed with a handwritten signature, depending on the method used to record RODS.

    49 CFR 395.15

    Formerly § 395.15 (b)(2) permitted use of automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs) in conjunction with handwritten or printed RODS. Recognizing that many drivers and motor carriers prefer to use electronic means of recording duty status, FMCSA removes reference to handwritten or printed RODS, as proposed in the NPRM. The changes permit drivers and motor carriers to use RODS maintained in other media in conjunction with AOBRDs, as long as they otherwise meet FMCSA's requirements.

    Former paragraph (b)(4) required a driver to have the previous 7 consecutive days of RODS available for inspection and specified that those RODS can be from an AOBRD, handwritten records, computer generated records, or any combination thereof. As proposed in the NPRM, FMCSA makes this section technologically neutral by removing reference to handwritten and computer generated records. Drivers are still permitted to use handwritten or computer generated records, but they are free to choose any medium for maintaining these records that otherwise meets FMCSA's requirements.

    As previously drafted, paragraph (b)(5) referenced “hard copies” of the RODS documents described in paragraph (b)(4). As proposed, FMCSA removes reference to “hard copies” for the same reasons explained in the discussion of paragraph (b)(4) above.

    In paragraph (e), FMCSA removes, as proposed, the requirement that RODS be made in a driver's own handwriting for the reasons explained in the discussion of § 395.8(f)(2), above.

    In paragraph (f), FMCSA removes, as proposed, the requirement that RODS be made in a driver's own handwriting for the reasons explained in the discussion of § 395.8(f)(2), above.

    In paragraph (h), FMCSA removes, as proposed, the option that RODS may be submitted to employers via mail for the same reasons explained in the discussion of § 387.7, above.

    In the introduction to paragraph (i), FMCSA removes, as proposed, reference to handwritten RODS for the reasons explained in the discussion of § 395.8(f)(2), above. In paragraphs (i)(4) and (7), FMCSA removes, as proposed, outdated language applicable to AOBRDs installed before October 31, 1988. FMCSA does not believe that AOBRDs installed before this date are still in use. As such, this language is no longer necessary.

    M. Part 398

    As proposed in the NPRM and for the same reasons explained in the discussion of § 391.55 above, FMCSA removes the requirement in 49 CFR 398.3 that certain documents must be “photographically reproduced.”

    X. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences amongst nations.

    XI. Regulatory Analyses A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. It is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

    This final rule does not impose new requirements, and it is expected to provide regulatory relief to the industry. It codifies previously issued regulatory guidance that provides flexibility to the industry in the use of electronic documents and electronic signatures, and removes outdated and obsolete references in the regulatory text. Examples of documents affected by this rule include vehicle maintenance records, driver qualification files, bills of lading, and business records. Regulated entities are provided additional flexibility and may choose to conduct business using either electronic versions or traditional paper-based versions of these types of documents.

    Because the choice of using electronic methods is optional and not mandatory, and regulated entities may continue to use traditional paper-based methods if they desire to do so, the Agency expects regulated entities will choose those methods that best suit their individual needs. For those regulated entities that do choose to use electronic documents and methods under this rule, potential cost savings may include reduced expenditures on labor time, office and storage space, materials, and office equipment. For example, specific types of savings could include purchasing less paper and toner/ink, printing fewer documents, requiring fewer file cabinets or document boxes for storage of paper documents, using less space for storage of paper documents, expending less labor time in activities such as handling and filing of paperwork, expending less labor time in identifying and retrieving documents, and transmitting fewer paper documents by mail or courier services.

    Because the previously issued regulatory guidance that is now being codified in this final rule has been in place for several years, since January 4, 2011, it is believed that many regulated entities for whom the use of electronic documents and methods best suits their needs may have already made this transition from traditional paper-based methods. Therefore, many of the potential cost savings possible from this rule may have largely already occurred. It is estimated that though there may still be some additional incremental cost savings that could result from the regulatory flexibility being codified by this final rule (e.g., for any remaining regulated entities that may desire at some time to use electronic documents and methods but have not yet made this transition), overall these additional cost savings will be minimal. Furthermore, these potential remaining additional cost savings cannot be reliably quantified or monetized. Factors contributing to difficulties in quantifying the potential cost savings include the variety of records and documents potentially affected across multiple FMCSA regulations, a lack of information regarding the number of records or documents signed, certified, generated, exchanged, or maintained, and a lack of information regarding the extent to which electronic documents and signatures have already been voluntarily adopted under existing FMCSA guidance.

    Of the comments submitted to the April 28, 2014, NPRM, discussed earlier in Section VII, Comments and Responses, none provided data or information to suggest that this final rule would be a significant regulatory action.

    In light of the above considerations, the Agency does not believe that the rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor would it meet any of the other criteria presented in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, for a significant regulatory action. Therefore, as noted earlier, FMCSA has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action.

    B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)

    E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, requires that for “every one new [E.O. 13771 regulatory action] issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 13771 issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Memorandum M-17-21, April 5, 2017) defines two different types of E.O. 13771 actions: An E.O. 13771 regulatory action, and an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.

    An E.O. 13771 regulatory action is defined as:

    (i) A significant action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 that has been finalized, and that imposes total costs greater than zero; or

    (ii) a significant guidance document (e.g., significant interpretive guidance) reviewed by OIRA under the procedures of E.O. 12866 that has been finalized and that imposes total costs greater than zero.

    The Agency action, in this case a rulemaking, must meet both the significance and the total cost criteria to be considered an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, and therefore does not meet the significance criterion for being an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. Consequently, this rulemaking is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action.

    An E.O. 13771 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” As discussed earlier, this final rule does not impose new requirements, and it is expected to provide regulatory relief to the industry. Because the choice of using electronic methods is optional and not mandatory, and regulated entities may continue to use traditional paper-based methods if they desire to do so, the Agency expects regulated entities will choose those methods that best suit their individual needs. For those regulated entities that do choose to use electronic documents and methods under this rule, potential cost savings may include reduced expenditures on labor time, office and storage space, materials, and office equipment. Consequently, this rule has total costs less than zero, and therefore is a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771. However, as discussed earlier, it is believed that many regulated entities for whom the use of electronic documents and methods best suits their needs may have already made this transition from traditional paper-based methods under existing FMCSA guidance, and therefore many of the potential cost savings possible from this rule may have largely already occurred. It is estimated that though there may still be some additional incremental cost savings that could result from the regulatory flexibility being codified by this final rule (e.g., for any remaining regulated entities that may desire at some time to use electronic documents and methods but have not yet made this transition), overall these additional cost savings will be minimal. Furthermore, these potential remaining additional cost savings cannot be reliably quantified or monetized because of the large variety of records and documents potentially affected across multiple FMCSA regulations, a lack of information regarding the number of records or documents signed, certified, generated, exchanged, or maintained, and a lack of information regarding the extent to which electronic documents and signatures have already been voluntarily adopted under existing FMCSA guidance. Therefore, though it is expected that there will be some additional incremental cost savings that will result from this final rule, these cost savings are expected to be minimal and are not quantified.

    As a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771, this rule contributes to Agency compliance with section 2(a) of E.O. 13771 regarding issuing at least two E.O. 13771 deregulatory actions for each E.O. 13771 regulatory action. Because the cost savings resulting from this rule are not quantified, this rule does not however contribute towards Agency compliance with section 2(c) of E.O. 13771 regarding offsetting the costs of E.O. 13771 regulatory actions with cost savings from E.O. 13771 deregulatory actions.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and 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. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed earlier, though it is expected that there will be some additional incremental cost savings that will result from this final rule, these cost savings are expected to be minimal, and to the extent that they occur they will be beneficial to the entities that realize these cost savings. Consequently, I certify the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    D. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact listed in the For Further Information Contact section of this rule.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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 $156 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or more in any one year. Though this final rule will not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the potential effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of Information)

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This rule codifies FMCSA regulatory guidance within the CFR, allowing those documents that FMCSA's regulations obligate entities or individuals to retain, many of which are generated as part of customary and usual business or private practices, to be maintained electronically or in paper form. This rule does not apply to forms or other documents that must be submitted directly to FMCSA; the regulations which state that those documents either must or may be submitted to FMCSA in electronic format (such as those covered by 49 CFR part 382, subpart G) are not impacted by this final rule, and any paperwork burdens associated with those rules were already analyzed by FMCSA in prior rulemakings.

    For this final rule, FMCSA reviewed all current, active, OMB-approved information collection request (ICR) supporting statements. These statements are available for public inspection via www.reginfo.gov. Table 1 shows the 27 active ICRs covering the rules in 49 CFR parts 300 to 399 that are being impacted by this final rule allowing electronic methods or signatures. Each of these listed collections currently allows for electronic creation, retention, or signature of records covered by the collection. We also show the current expiration date for each collection.

    Table 1 OMB Control No. Title OMB Current
  • expiration date
  • 2126-0001 Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers Regulations 6/30/2019 2126-0003 Inspection, Repair and Maintenance 7/31/2018 2126-0004 Driver Qualification Files 1/31/2020 2126-0006 Medical Qualification Requirements 8/31/2018 2126-0008 Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers of Passengers and Motor Carriers of Property 1/31/2020 2126-0009 Accident Recordkeeping Requirements 9/30/2020 2126-0011 Commercial Driver Licensing and Test Standards 10/31/2018 2126-0013 Motor Carrier Identification Report 4/30/2019 2126-0014 Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Highway Routing 4/30/2020 2126-0015 Designation of Agents, Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders 1/31/2020 2126-0016 Licensing Applications for Motor Carrier Operating Authority 1/31/2020 2126-0017 Financial Responsibility, Trucking and Freight Forwarding 5/31/2020 2126-0018 Request for Revocation of Authority Granted 9/30/2020 2126-0019 Application for Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foreign Motor Private Carriers 10/31/2018 2126-0025 Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection 8/31/2019 2126-0026 Training Certification for Drivers of Longer Combination Vehicles 5/31/2020 2126-0028 Training Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators 4/30/2020 2126-0030 Hazardous Materials Safety Permits 8/31/2020 2126-0051 FMCSA Registration/Update(s) 1/31/2020 2126-0054 Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking Requirements 8/31/2018 2126-0056 Lease and Interchange of Vehicles 8/31/2018 2126-0057 Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse 1/31/2020 2126-0060 Motor Carrier Records Change Form 7/31/2018 2126-0062 Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Registration 12/31/2018 2126-0063 State Commercial Driver's License Program Plan 12/31/2018 2126-0064 391.41 CMV Driver Medication Form 1/31/2020 2126-0065 Commercial Driver's License Skills Testing Delays 2/28/2019

    Each of the above-listed collections has a section in its supporting statement discussing the extent to which automated information collection, creation, or storage is expected to occur. For example, FMCSA's “Lease and Interchange of Vehicles” ICR, 2126-0056, states “Leases may be created and maintained electronically. FMCSA estimates that 50% of the leases are electronic.”

    Therefore, there are no new collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for OMB to approve, nor are there any revisions of currently approved collections required by this final rule.

    G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O. 13132, if it has “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.” FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

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

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

    J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

    K. Privacy

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This final rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. FMCSA has determined that this rule would not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (December 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.

    L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372, regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

    M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

    N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.

    O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    P. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph (6)(q) and paragraph (6)(y). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph (6)(q) covers regulations implementing record preservation procedures for motor carriers, brokers, and household goods freight forwarders, including record types retained and retention periods. The CE in paragraph (6)(y) covers motor carrier identification and registration reports, and requirements about motor carriers', drivers', brokers', and freight forwarders' copies of records. The content in this rule is covered by these CEs and the final action does not have any effect on the quality of the environment. The CE determination is available for inspection or copying in the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria pollutants.

    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O., and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this final rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 370

    Freight forwarders, Investigations, and Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 371

    Brokers, Motor carriers, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 373

    Buses, Freight, Freight forwarders, Motor carriers, and Moving of household goods.

    49 CFR Part 375

    Advertising, Consumer protection, Freight, Highways and roads, Insurance, Motor carriers, Moving of household goods, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 376

    Motor carriers, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 378

    Freight forwarders, Investigations, Motor carriers, and Moving of household goods.

    49 CFR Part 379

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

    49 CFR Part 380

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 382

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Penalties, Safety, and Transportation.

    49 CFR Part 387

    Buses, Freight, Freight forwarders, Hazardous materials transportation, Highway safety, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Moving of household goods, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Surety bonds.

    49 CFR Part 390

    Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 391

    Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, and Transportation.

    49 CFR Part 395

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 396

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 398

    Highway safety, Migrant labor, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR, chapter III, as follows:

    PART 370—PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND VOLUNTARY DISPOSITION OF LOSS AND DAMAGE CLAIMS AND PROCESSING SALVAGE 1. The authority citation for part 370 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13301, 14706; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 370.3 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 370.3 as follows: a. Remove the words “or electronic” and the parenthetical “(when agreed to by the carrier and shipper or receiver involved)” from paragraph (b) introductory text, and b. Remove the phrase “where claims are electronically handled,” from paragraph (b)(3).
    § 370.5 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 370.5 in paragraph (a) as follows: a. Remove the phrase “or by electronic transmission”, and b. Remove both additional instances of the words “or electronically”. 4. Amend § 370.7 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 370.7 Investigation of claims.

    (b) Supporting documents. When a necessary part of an investigation, each claim shall be supported by the bill of lading, evidence of the freight charges, if any, and either the invoice, a copy of the invoice, or an exact copy thereof or any extract made therefrom, certified by the claimant to be true and correct with respect to the property and value involved in the claim; or certification of prices or values, with trade or other discounts, allowance, or deductions, of any nature whatsoever and the terms thereof, or depreciation reflected thereon; Provided, however, That where property involved in a claim has not been invoiced to the consignee shown on the bill of lading or where an invoice does not show price or value, or where the property involved has been sold, or where the property has been transferred at bookkeeping values only, the carrier shall, before voluntarily paying a claim, require the claimant to establish the destination value in the quantity, shipped, transported, or involved; Provided, further, That when supporting documents are determined to be a necessary part of an investigation, the supporting documents are retained by the carriers for possible FMCSA inspection.

    § 370.9 [Amended]
    5. Amend § 370.9 in paragraph (a) as follows: a. Remove the phrase “or electronically transmitted”; and b. Remove both additional instances of the words “or electronically”. PART 371—BROKERS OF PROPERTY 6. The authority citation for part 371 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13301, 13501, 14122; subtitle B, title IV, Pub. L. 109-59; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 371.109 [Amended]
    7. Amend § 371.109 as follows: a. Remove the last sentence in paragraph (a); and b. Remove the last sentence in paragraph (b).
    § 371.111 [Amended]
    8. Amend § 371.111 in paragraph (c) as follows: a. Remove the comma after the word “dated”; and b. Remove the words “electronic or paper”. PART 373—RECEIPTS AND BILLS 9. The authority citation for part 373 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13301, 13531, 14706; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    10. Amend § 373.103 by: a. Redesignating paragraph (a) introductory text as (a)(1) and paragraphs (a)(1) through (11) as paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (xi); b. Designating the undesignated paragraph following newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(xi) as paragraph (a)(2); c. Redesignating paragraph (b) introductory text as paragraph (b)(1) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) as (b)(1)(i) through (xi); d. Designating the undesignated paragraph following newly redesignated paragraph (b)(1)(xi) as paragraph (b)(2); and e. Revising newly designated paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 373.103 For-hire, non-exempt expense bills.

    (a) * * *

    (2) The shipper or receiver owing the charges shall be given the freight or expense bill and the carrier shall keep a copy as prescribed at 49 CFR part 379.

    (b) * * *

    (2) The carrier shall keep a copy of all expense bills issued for the period prescribed at 49 CFR part 379. If any expense bill is spoiled, voided, or unused for any reason, a written record of its disposition shall be retained for a like period.

    PART 375—TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS 11. The authority citation for part 375 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13102, 13301, 13501, 13704, 13707, 13902, 14104, 14706, 14708; subtitle B, title IV, Pub. L. 109-59; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    12. Amend § 375.209 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 375.209 How must I handle complaints and inquires?

    (b) * * *

    (3) A system for recording in writing all inquiries and complaints received from an individual shipper by any means of communication.

    13. Amend § 375.213 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (e) introductory text, and (e)(2) to read as follows:
    § 375.213 What information must I provide to a prospective individual shipper?

    (a) When you provide the written estimate to a prospective individual shipper, you must also provide the individual shipper with the DOT publication titled “Ready to Move?—Tips for a Successful Interstate Move” (Department of Transportation publication FMCSA-ESA-03-005, or its successor publication). You must provide the individual shipper with a copy or provide a hyperlink on your internet website to the FMCSA website containing that publication.

    (b) * * *

    (1) The contents of appendix A of this part, titled “Your Rights and Responsibilities When You Move” (Department of Transportation publication FMCSA-ESA-03-006, or its successor publication). You must provide the individual shipper with a copy or provide a hyperlink on your internet website to the FMCSA website containing the information in FMCSA's publication “Your Rights and Responsibilities When You Move.”

    (e) If an individual shipper elects to waive receipt of the Federal consumer protection information by one of the methods described in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this section, and elects to access the same information via the hyperlink on the internet:

    (2) You must obtain a signed, dated receipt showing the individual shipper has received both booklets that includes, if applicable, verification of the shipper's agreement to access the Federal consumer protection information on the internet.

    14. Amend § 375.505 by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
    § 375.505 Must I write up a bill of lading?

    (b) * * *

    (5) When you transport on a collect-on-delivery basis, the name, address, and if furnished, the telephone number, fax number, or email address of a person to notify about the charges. The notification may be made by any method of communication, including, but not limited to, fax transmission; email; overnight courier; or certified mail, return receipt requested.

    PART 376—LEASE AND INTERCHANGE OF VEHICLES 15. The authority citation for part 376 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13301, 14102; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 376.11 [Amended]
    16. Amend § 376.11 as follows: a. Remove the last sentence in paragraph (b)(1); b. Remove the word “papers” and add in its place “documents” in the third and fourth sentences of paragraph (d)(1); and c. Remove the words “or papers” from the fifth sentence of paragraph (d)(1). 17. Amend § 376.12 by revising paragraphs (f), (g), and (l) to read as follows:
    § 376.12 Lease requirements.

    (f) Payment period. The lease shall specify that payment to the lessor shall be made within 15 days after submission of the necessary delivery documents concerning a trip in the service of the authorized carrier. The documentation required before the lessor can receive payment is limited to log books required by the Department of Transportation and those documents necessary for the authorized carrier to secure payment from the shipper. In addition, the lease may provide that, upon termination of the lease agreement, as a condition precedent to payment, the lessor shall remove all identification devices of the authorized carrier and, except in the case of identification painted directly on equipment, return them to the carrier. If the identification device has been lost or stolen, a letter certifying its removal will satisfy this requirement. Until this requirement is complied with, the carrier may withhold final payment. The authorized carrier may require the submission of additional documents by the lessor but not as a prerequisite to payment. Payment to the lessor shall not be made contingent upon submission of a bill of lading to which no exceptions have been taken. The authorized carrier shall not set time limits for the submission by the lessor of required delivery documents.

    (g) Copies of freight bill or other form of freight documentation. When a lessor's revenue is based on a percentage of the gross revenue for a shipment, the lease must specify that the authorized carrier will give the lessor, before or at the time of settlement, a copy of the rated freight bill, or, in the case of contract carriers, any other form of documentation actually used for a shipment containing the same information that would appear on a rated freight bill. Regardless of the method of compensation, the lease must permit lessor to examine copies of the carrier's tariff or, in the case of contract carriers, other documents from which rates and charges are computed, provided that where rates and charges are computed from a contract of a contract carrier, only those portions of the contract containing the same information that would appear on a rated freight bill need be disclosed. The authorized carrier may delete the names of shippers and consignees shown on the freight bill or other form of documentation.

    (l) Copies of the lease. The parties must sign the lease. The authorized carrier shall keep a copy and shall place another copy of the lease on the equipment during the period of the lease unless a statement as provided for in § 376.11(c)(2) is carried on the equipment instead. The owner of the equipment shall keep a copy of the lease.

    PART 378—PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROCESSING, INVESTIGATION, AND DISPOSITION OF OVERCHARGE, DUPLICATE PAYMENT OR OVERCOLLECTION CLAIMS 18. The authority citation for part 378 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13321, 14101, 14704, 14705; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 378.3 [Amended]
    19. Amend § 378.3 in paragraph (a) by removing the words “or electronically communicated (when agreed to by the carrier and shipper or receiver involved)” from the first sentence. 20. Amend § 378.4 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (b) introductory text; b. Revise paragraph (c); and c. In paragraph (e) remove the term “orginal” and add in its place “original”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 378.4 Documentation of claims.

    (b) Claims for overcharge shall be accompanied by the freight bill. Additional information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

    (c) Claims for duplicate payment and overcollection shall be accompanied by the freight bill(s) for which charges were paid and by freight bill payment information.

    § 378.5 [Amended]
    21. Amend § 378.5 in paragraph (c) by removing the words “or electronically transmitted”.
    § 378.6 [Amended]
    22. Amend § 378.6 by removing the words “or electronic”. 23. Revise § 378.7 to read as follows:
    § 378.7 Acknowledgment of claims.

    Upon receipt of a written claim, the carrier shall acknowledge its receipt in writing to the claimant within 30 days after the date of receipt except when the carrier shall have paid or declined in writing within that period. The carrier shall include the date of receipt in its written claim, which shall be placed in the file for that claim.

    24. Revise § 378.8 to read as follows:
    § 378.8 Disposition of claims.

    The processing carrier shall pay, decline to pay, or settle each written claim within 60 days after its receipt by that carrier, except where the claimant and the carrier agree in writing to a specific extension based upon extenuating circumstances. If the carrier declines to pay a claim or makes settlement in an amount different from that sought, the carrier shall notify the claimant in writing of the reason(s) for its action, citing tariff authority or other pertinent information developed as a result of its investigation.

    PART 379—PRESERVATION OF RECORDS 25. The authority citation for part 379 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13301, 14122, 14123; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    26. Revise § 379.5 to read as follows:
    § 379.5 Protection and storage of records.

    (a) The entity shall protect records subject to this part from destruction, deterioration, unauthorized access, modification and/or data corruption.

    (b) The entity shall notify the Secretary if prescribed records are substantially destroyed, damaged, accessed and modified without authorization, or otherwise corrupted.

    27. Revise § 379.7 to read as follows:
    § 379.7 Preservation of records.

    (a) All records may be preserved by any technology that accurately reflects all of the information in the record and remains accessible in a form that can be accurately reproduced later for reference.

    (b) Common information, such as instructions, need not be preserved for each record as long as it is common to all such forms and an identified specimen of the form is maintained for reference.

    Appendix A to Part 379 [Amended] 28. Amend appendix A to part 379 in sections A.3.(d), B.3., F.1.(b), I.3.(c), I.5.(b), and I.5.(c) by removing the word “papers” and adding in its place the word “documents”. PART 380—SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 29. The authority citation for part 380 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31305, 31307, 31308, and 31502; sec. 4007(a) and (b) of Pub. L. 102-240 (105 Stat. 2151-2152); sec. 32304 of Pub. L. 112-141; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    30. Amend § 380.715 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 380.715 Assessments.

    (a) Training providers must use written assessments to determine driver-trainees' proficiency in the knowledge objectives in the theory portion of each unit of instruction in appendices A through E of part 380, as applicable. The driver-trainee must receive an overall minimum score of 80 percent on the theory assessment.

    PART 382—CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL USE AND TESTING 31. The authority citation for part 382 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31301 et seq., 31502; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 382.601 [Amended]
    32. Amend § 382.601 by removing the phrase “the original of” from the second sentence of paragraph (d). PART 387—MINIMUM LEVELS OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MOTOR CARRIERS 33. The authority citation for part 387 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13101, 13301, 13906, 13908, 14701, 31138, 31139; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    34. Amend § 387.7 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 387.7 Financial responsibility required.

    (b)(1) Policies of insurance, surety bonds, and endorsements required under this section shall remain in effect continuously until terminated. Cancellation may be effected by the insurer or the insured motor carrier giving 35 days' notice in writing to the other. The 35 days' notice shall commence to run from the date the notice is transmitted. Proof of transmission shall be sufficient proof of notice.

    35. Revise § 387.15 to read as follows:
    § 387.15 Forms.

    Endorsements for policies of insurance (Form MCS-90) and surety bonds (Form MCS-82) must be in the form prescribed by the FMCSA and approved by the OMB. Endorsements to policies of insurance and surety bonds shall specify that coverage thereunder will remain in effect continuously until terminated, as required in § 387.7 of this subpart. The continuous coverage requirement does not apply to Mexican motor carriers insured under § 387.7(b)(3) of this subpart. The endorsement and surety bond shall be issued in the exact name of the motor carrier. The Forms MCS-82 and MCS-90 are available from the FMCSA website at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/forms.

    36. Amend § 387.31 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 387.31 Financial responsibility required.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Cancellation may be effected by the insurer or the insured motor carrier giving 35 days' notice in writing to the other. The 35 days' notice shall commence to run from the date the notice is transmitted. Proof of transmission shall be sufficient proof of notice.

    37. Revise § 387.39 to read as follows:
    § 387.39 Forms.

    Endorsements for policies of insurance (Form MCS-90B) and surety bonds (Form MCS-82B) must be in the form prescribed by the FMCSA and approved by the OMB. Endorsements to policies of insurance and surety bonds shall specify that coverage thereunder will remain in effect continuously until terminated, as required in § 387.31 of this subpart. The continuous coverage requirement does not apply to Mexican motor carriers insured under § 387.31(b)(3) of this subpart. The endorsement and surety bond shall be issued in the exact name of the motor carrier. The Forms MCS-82B and MCS-90B are available from the FMCSA website at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/forms.

    § 387.313T [Amended]
    38. Amend § 387.313T in paragraph (b) by removing the words “in triplicate”.
    § 387.413T [Amended]
    39. Amend § 387.413T in paragraph (b) by removing the words “in triplicate”. PART 390—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL 40. The authority citation for part 390 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31134, 31136, 31137, 31144, 31151, 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677-1678; sec. 212, 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743-1744); sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745; sections 32101(d) and 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778, 830; sec. 2, Pub. L. 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    41. Amend § 390.5 as follows: a. Lift the suspension of the section; b. Add definitions of “electronic signature” and “written or in writing” in alphabetical order; and c. Suspend § 390.5 indefinitely.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 390.5 Definitions.

    Electronic signature means a method of signing an electronic communication that identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication and indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication, in accordance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105-277, Title XVII, Secs. 1701-1710,, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note, 112 Stat. 2681-749).

    Written or in writing means printed, handwritten, or typewritten either on paper or other tangible medium, or by any method of electronic documentation that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 390.32.

    42. Amend § 390.5T by adding definitions of “electronic signature” and “written or in writing” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 390.5T Definitions

    Electronic signature means a method of signing an electronic communication that identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication and indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication, in accordance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105-277, Title XVII, Secs. 1701-1710,, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note, 112 Stat. 2681-749).

    Written or in writing means printed, handwritten, or typewritten either on paper or other tangible medium, or by any method of electronic documentation that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 390.32.

    § 390.7 [Amended]
    43. Amend § 390.7 by removing paragraph (b)(2) and redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) through (7) as (b)(2) through (6), respectively. 44. Revise § 390.31 to read as follows:
    § 390.31 Copies of records and documents.

    All records and documents required to be maintained under this subchapter must be maintained for the periods specified. Except as otherwise provided, copies that are legible and accurately reflect the information required to be contained in the record or document may be maintained in lieu of originals.

    45. Add § 390.32 to read as follows:
    § 390.32 Electronic documents and signatures.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to documents that entities or individuals are required to retain, regardless of whether FMCSA subsequently requires them to be produced or displayed to FMCSA staff or other parties entitled to access. This section does not apply to documents that must be submitted directly to FMCSA.

    (b) Electronic records or documents. Any person or entity required to generate, maintain, or exchange documents to satisfy requirements in chapter III of subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 300-399) may use electronic methods to satisfy those requirements.

    (c) Electronic signatures. (1) Any person or entity required to sign or certify a document to satisfy the requirements of chapter III of subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR parts 300-399) may use an electronic signature, as defined in § 390.5T of this part.

    (2) An electronic signature may be made using any available technology that otherwise satisfies FMCSA's requirements.

    (d) Requirements. Any person or entity may use documents signed, certified, generated, maintained, or exchanged using electronic methods if the documents accurately reflect the information otherwise required to be contained in them. Records, documents or signatures generated, maintained, or exchanged using electronic methods do not satisfy the requirements of this section if they are not capable of being retained, are not used for the purpose for which they were created, or cannot be accurately reproduced within required timeframes for reference by any party entitled to access. Records or documents generated electronically do not satisfy the requirements of this section if they do not include proof of consent to use electronically generated records or documents, as required by 15 U.S.C. 7001(c).

    PART 391—QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS AND LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLE (LCV) DRIVER INSTRUCTORS 46. The authority citation for part 391 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, 31136, 31149, 31502; sec. 4007(b) Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114 Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215 Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; sec. 32934 Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec 5524 Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 391.55 [Amended]
    47. Amend § 391.55 in paragraph (b)(2) by removing the word “photographic”. PART 395—HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS 48. The authority citation for part 395 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31137, 31502; sec. 113, Pub.L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub.L. 106-159 (as added and transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub.L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743, 1744); sec. 4133, Pub.L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1744; sec. 108, Pub.L. 110-432, 122 Stat. 4860-4866; sec. 32934, Pub.L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5206(b) of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    49. Amend § 395.8 by revising paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows:
    § 395.8 Driver's record of duty status.

    (f) * * *

    (2) Entries made by driver only. All entries relating to a driver's duty status must be legible and made by the driver.

    50. Amend § 395.15 by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (4), and (5), (e), (f), (h)(1), (i) introductory text, and (i)(4) and (7) to read as follows:
    § 395.15 Automatic on-board recording devices.

    (b) * * *

    (2) The device shall provide a means whereby authorized Federal, State, or local officials can immediately check the status of a driver's hours of service. This information may be used in conjunction with records of duty status maintained in other media, for the previous 7 days.

    (4) The driver shall have in his/her possession records of duty status for the previous 7 consecutive days available for inspection while on duty. These records shall consist of information stored in and retrievable from the automatic on-board recording device, other written records, or any combination thereof.

    (5) All copies of other written records of duty status referenced in paragraph (b)(4) must be signed by the driver. The driver's signature certifies that the information contained thereon is true and correct.

    (e) Entries made by driver only. If a driver is required to make written entries relating to the driver's duty status, such entries must be made by the driver and be legible.

    (f) Reconstruction of records of duty status. Drivers are required to note any failure of automatic on-board recording devices, and to reconstruct the driver's record of duty status for the current day and the past 7 days, less any days for which the drivers have records, and to continue to prepare a written record of all subsequent duty status until the device is again operational.

    (h) * * *

    (1) The driver shall submit to the employing motor carrier, each record of the driver's duty status within 13 days following the completion of each record;

    (i) Performance of recorders. Motor carriers that use automatic on-board recording devices for recording their drivers' records of duty status shall ensure that:

    (4) The automatic on-board recording device warns the driver visually and/or audibly that the device has ceased to function;

    (7) The on-board recording device/system identifies sensor failures and edited data;

    PART 396—INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE 51. The authority citation for part 396 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31151, 31502; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5524 Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 396.11 [Amended]
    52. Amend § 396.11 by removing the word “original” from paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4), and (b)(4).
    § 396.12 [Amended]
    53. Amend § 396.12 by removing the word “original” from paragraph (d). PART 398—TRANSPORTATION OF MIGRANT WORKERS 54. The authority citation for part 398 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 13301, 13902, 31132, 31133, 31136, 31502, 31504; sec. 204, Pub.L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 941 (49 U.S.C. 701 note); sec. 212, Pub.L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    § 398.3 [Amended]
    55. Amend § 398.3 in paragraph (b)(8) by removing the words “photographically reproduced” wherever they appear. Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87: April 6, 2018. Raymond P. Martinez, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07749 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0110; FXES11130900000 178 FF09E42000] RIN 1018-BB79 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Black-Capped Vireo From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), remove the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla, listed as Vireo atricapillus) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to recovery. This determination is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the threats to this species have been reduced or managed to the point that the species has recovered and no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0110 and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arlingtontexas/. Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking will be available by appointment, during normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington Ecological Services Field Office, 2005 NE Green Oaks Blvd., Arlington, TX 76006; telephone 817-277-1100; facsimile 817-277-1129; [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Debra Bills, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington Ecological Services Field Office, 2005 NE Green Oaks Blvd., Suite 140, Arlington, TX 76006; telephone 817-277-1100; or facsimile 817-277-1129. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, a species may be removed (delisted) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife if it is determined it has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened. Delisting can only be completed by issuing a rule.

    This rule removes the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla, listed as Vireo atricapillus) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider the same factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species if the best scientific and commercial data indicate the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or endangered; or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error. We have determined that the primary threats to the black-capped vireo have been reduced or managed to the point that the species is recovered.

    Peer review and public comment. We completed a Species Status Assessment (SSA) to evaluate the species' needs, current conditions, and future conditions to support our proposed rule. We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on the SSA report. We considered all comments and information we received during the comment period on the proposed rule to delist the black-capped vireo when finalizing our SSA report and this final rule.

    Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed delisting rule for the black-capped vireo (81 FR 90762, December 15, 2016) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

    Background

    Please refer to the proposed delisting rule for the black-capped vireo (81 FR 90762, December 15, 2016) for a summary of species information.

    Our December 15, 2016, proposed rule was based largely on the SSA report, which characterized the species' overall viability in the future. Please see ADDRESSES, above, for information on how to obtain a copy of the SSA report.

    Summary of Biological Status and Threats Species Description and Needs

    The black-capped vireo is a migratory songbird that breeds and nests in south-central Oklahoma, Texas, and the northern states of Mexico (Coahuila, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas), and winters along Mexico's western coastal states. In general, black-capped vireo breeding habitat is shrublands and open woodlands.

    The resource needs of the black-capped vireo are described in the SSA report for individuals, populations, and for the species rangewide. Life-history needs are generally categorized as breeding, feeding, and sheltering; for migratory species, this may also include habitat for migration and wintering. Individual black-capped vireos need a suitable breeding habitat patch of at least 1.5 hectares (ha) (3.7 acres (ac)) of shrublands with between 35 and 55 percent shrub cover that consists largely of deciduous shrubs, often oaks in mesic areas, and with a low proportion of junipers. Within breeding habitat patches, shrub mottes (groups of shrubs) with deciduous foliage from ground level to 3 meters (m) (0 to 9.8 feet (ft)) in height are needed for nest concealment and foraging.

    Populations of black-capped vireos are described based on the number of adult males the breeding habitat can support. Those sites (defined as geographical areas with suitable breeding habitat) capable of supporting at least 30 adult males are considered “manageable populations.” Those sites with suitable breeding habitat capable of supporting 100 or more adult males are considered “likely resilient populations,” that have the ability to withstand disturbances of varying magnitude and duration. Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) brood parasitism rates below 40 percent (Tazik and Cornelius 1993, p. 46; Wilsey et al. 2014, p. 568) are necessary to sustain and expand vireo populations.

    Information on use of habitat during migration is sparse. In general, black-capped vireos require airspace for movement and woody vegetation for stopovers extending from the northernmost portion of the breeding grounds to the extent of the known wintering grounds.

    The winter range of the black-capped vireo occurs entirely on the slopes of Mexico's Pacific coast. Arid and semi-arid scrub and secondary growth habitat, generally 0.6 to 3.0 m (2 to 10 ft) in height, is needed for feeding and sheltering.

    Across its range, the black-capped vireo needs suitable breeding habitat to support manageable and likely resilient populations that are geographically distributed to allow gene flow and dispersal, low brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism rates to allow sufficient productivity, sufficient airspace and stopover sites for migration, and wintering areas of arid and semi-arid scrub and secondary growth habitat along the Pacific slopes of western Mexico. During the breeding season, habitat requirements appear to be more specialized than during wintering and migration. Given the potential for black-capped vireos to use a wide range of habitat types during migration and wintering, much of the subsequent analysis is focused on breeding habitat.

    Species' Current Conditions

    There are no available rangewide population estimates of breeding black-capped vireos. However, reported occurrences (sightings) of black-capped vireos are available for comparing abundance and distribution across timeframes (but see section 4.1, “Assumptions,” in the SSA report (Service 2016) regarding inherent differences in survey effort and the differences between reported occurrences and population estimates). At the time of listing in 1987, there were approximately 350 reported black-capped vireo occurrences. From 2009 to 2014, there were 5,244 adult males reported, a 17.5 percent increase from the prior review period in 2000 to 2005.

    At the time of listing in 1987, the known population occurred in 4 Oklahoma counties, 21 Texas counties and 1 Mexican state. The consistency of survey effort has varied throughout the years; however, it represents the best information available to evaluate abundance and distribution rangewide. The known breeding distribution now occurs in 5 Oklahoma counties, 40 Texas counties, and 3 states in Mexico.

    Information from 2009 to 2014 indicates there are 14 known populations with 100 males or more (defined as a likely resilient population) throughout the breeding range, 9 of which occur on managed lands (under Federal, State, or municipal ownership, or under conservation easement) in the United States. An additional 20 manageable populations (30 or more adult males, but fewer than 100), 10 of which occur on managed lands, are distributed throughout the range in the United States.

    Information gathered from annual black-capped vireo monitoring at four publicly managed areas containing the largest known black-capped vireo populations represents some of the best data available on the species' population trends. These four regularly surveyed areas (Fort Hood Military Installation, Fort Sill Military Installation, Kerr Wildlife Management Area, and Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge) show stable or increasing population estimates since 2005. From 2000 to 2005 these populations represented 64 percent of the known population. From 2009 to 2014, these four major populations accounted for 40 percent of the known rangewide breeding population. The difference in percentage suggests the black-capped vireo's distribution is wider than was understood in 2000 to 2005. These same data also indicate that additional unknown populations likely exist on private lands throughout the breeding range. The largest increase in known abundance is an additional large population documented in Val Verde County, Texas. The four regularly surveyed areas and the Val Verde site were estimated to consist of 14,418 adult males in 2013-2014.

    The levels of gene flow between extant populations indicate adequate genetic diversity (Vazquez-Miranda et al. 2015, p. 9; Zink et al. 2010, entire). This is true despite some variation in studies with respect to genetic diversity, gene flow, and population structuring (e.g., Barr et al. 2008; Zink et al. 2010; Athrey et al. 2012).

    Little is known about the habits of black-capped vireos during migration. Most evidence suggests that there is a southerly, central Mexican migratory route following the Sierra Madre Oriental (Marshall et al. 1985, p. 4; Farquhar and Gonzalez 2005, entire).

    Vireos banded on the breeding grounds in the United States that return in following years suggest adequate availability of resources during wintering and migration. Survival rates (estimated from return rates) for black-capped vireos at Fort Hood are comparable to the rates of other passerines (Ricklefs 1973; Martin 1995; Kostecke and Cimprich 2008, p. 254).

    Information on migration and wintering of black-capped vireos in Mexico is limited to a few studies that document the extent of the wintering range and estimate habitat areas. Winter habitat utilized is more general and diverse than that of the breeding grounds. While specific requirements of winter habitat are unknown, tropical dry forests (areas where arid and semi-arid winter habitats occur) exist in areas normally inaccessible to development. Habitat modelling has suggested wintering areas in Mexico occur across 103,000 to 141,000 square kilometers (km2) (39,769 to 54,440 square miles (mi2)) and extend farther than previous records have identified, including the states of Guerrero and Chiapas (Vega Rivera et al. 2010, p. 101; Powell 2013, pp. 34-38). Of this area, approximately 7.1 percent (1,000,000 ha (2,471,053 ac)) occurs on protected natural areas (national parks, reserves, etc.) (Vega Rivera et al. 2010, pp. 98-102). Additionally, there are approximately 1,492,400 ha (3,687,801 ac) of lands designated as “important bird areas” within the estimated winter range (Vega Rivera et al. 2011, p. 103). This designation as “important bird areas” provides some protection to the species. The level of protection varies by area (Vega Rivera et al. 2011, p. 103).

    The U.S. portion of the black-capped vireo's range is comprised of a diversity of landownerships, from private lands to several forms of public ownership. Various conservation actions and programs have been developed and implemented in an effort to conserve the species. These conservation actions implemented on publicly managed and private lands throughout the species' current range have reversed black-capped vireo declines within several populations. Ongoing active management on publicly managed lands and those under conservation easements has resulted in 40 populations in Oklahoma and Texas, varying in size from a single adult male to an estimated 7,478 adult males. Of these, 9 are considered likely resilient populations and another 10 are considered manageable populations. Although information on breeding vireos in Mexico is limited, the vireo is currently afforded protected status (SEMARNAT 2015, p. 79), known threats appear to be of less magnitude than those in the United States, and densities of known populations have been documented up to six times as high as populations in the United States (Farquhar and Gonzalez 2005, p. 25; Wilkins et al. 2006, p. 28).

    The contribution of prescribed fire and wildfire to the development of suitable breeding habitats in Oklahoma and the eastern portion of the species' Texas range is well documented (USFWS 1991, p. 22; Campbell 1995, p. 29; Grzybowski 1995, p. 5). In the western portion of the species' breeding range in Texas and in Mexico, fire is not as essential in maintaining habitat suitability. The use of prescribed fire as a habitat management tool is increasing or remains constant across most of the United States (Melvin 2015, p. 10). More than 3,156 ha (7,800 ac) in Oklahoma and more than 48,562 ha (120,000 ac) in Texas have been burned annually (2004-2014) with prescribed fire. In addition, large amounts of additional acreage is burned each year by unplanned wildfire: Oklahoma's annual average is approximately 63,940 ha (158,000 ac) and Texas' annual average is approximately 322,939 ha (798,000 ac)) (NIFC 2014). Although the majority of these burns were on Federal lands outside of the black-capped vireo's range, there has been an overall increase in the use of prescribed fire as a cost effective tool for range and wildlife management.

    Reduction of brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds through management programs increases black-capped vireo breeding success (Eckrich et al. 1999, pp. 153-154; Kostecke et al. 2005, p. 57; Wilkins et al. 2006, p. 84; Campomizzi et al. 2013, pp. 714-715). Brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism rates below 40 percent are vital to sustaining and expanding black-capped vireo populations. The continuation of brown-headed cowbird trapping on Federal and private properties and expansion of this practice to other properties would help reduce brood parasitism rates and improve black-capped vireo breeding success. In an effort to manage the brown-headed cowbird populations in Texas, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has implemented a cowbird trapping program, which provides participating landowners a training and certification process.

    When the proposed rule was completed, there were eight Service-approved Habitat Conservation Plans addressing the “incidental take” of black-capped vireos for project-related impacts since the species was listed, all of which are in Texas. In total, approximately 7,843.2 ha (19,381 ac) of black-capped vireo habitat may be impacted, either directly or indirectly, resulting from activities authorized through HCPs. To mitigate black-capped vireo habitat loss, the permittees must preserve and provide funding for approximately 8,239.4 ha (20,360 ac) of habitat restoration and management for off-site black-capped vireo habitats as conservation actions under these HCPs. Since the publishing of the December 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 90762), an additional HCP was completed in June of 2017 for a wind energy project in McCulloch County, Texas. This project documented a previously unknown locality of more than 150 male black-capped vireos, and provides a permanently protected preserve for vireos on over 500 acres.

    Recovery Planning and Recovery Criteria

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans identify site-specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species and objective, measurable criteria that set a trigger for review of the species' status. Methods for monitoring recovery progress may also be included in recovery plans.

    Recovery plans are not regulatory documents; instead they are intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed species and define criteria that are designed to indicate when the threats facing a species have been removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer need the protections of the Act. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.

    The black-capped vireo recovery plan was approved by the Service on September 30, 1991 (USFWS 1991). Specific details of recovery for delisting the species was indeterminable 27 years ago; therefore, an interim objective of reclassification from endangered to threatened status was used to develop recovery criteria (USFWS 1991, p. 36). The recovery plan includes the following reclassification criteria:

    (1) All existing populations are protected and maintained.

    (2) At least one viable breeding population exists in each of the following six locations: Oklahoma, Mexico, and four of six Texas regions.

    (3) Sufficient and sustainable area and habitat on the winter range exist to support the breeding populations outlined in (1) and (2).

    (4) All of the above have been maintained for at least 5 consecutive years and available data indicate that they will continue to be maintained.

    When the recovery plan was approved in 1991, a viable population was estimated, using population viability analysis, to be at least 500 pairs of breeding black-capped vireos. The recovery plan was intended to protect and enhance the populations known at that time, while evaluating the possibility of recovery and developing the necessary delisting criteria if recovery is found to be feasible. The rangewide population was unknown, but the Oklahoma population was thought to be fewer than 300 individual birds.

    Comparing the current status of the species to the reclassification criteria provides some information about the health of the populations. Regarding the first criterion, we would not expect that all known populations described in the recovery plan would exist in the same locations today because suitable habitat becomes unsuitable over time while other unsuitable areas become suitable (e.g. following shrub encroachment or fire). Regardless, many of the populations identified in the recovery plan continue to thrive, and approximately 67% of known populations of greater than 30 birds are under some form of protection. From 2009 to 2014, the total black-capped vireo counts and estimates in each of the recovery areas, with the exception of Mexico where we have limited information, exceeds 500 males, with four recovery areas numbering in the thousands (Service 2016, p. 85). Multiple populations are present in each of the recovery areas and at least one breeding population with more than 500 males is known from three of the four Texas recovery areas and from Oklahoma (Service 2016, p. 77-79), indicating that criterion (2) has largely been met. Regarding Criterion (3), we can evaluate the numbers of birds banded on the breeding grounds that return in following years as an indicator of the availability of resources on the wintering grounds. In general, black-capped vireo return rates suggest sufficient resources are available during migration and wintering (Service 2016, pp. 88-89). Finally, regarding criterion (4), it appears that those criteria were met at the time of the 2007 5-yr review and continue to be met today.

    During the 2007 5-year review of the status of the species, it was determined that the 1991 recovery plan was outdated and did not reflect the best available information on the biology of the species and its needs (USFWS 2007, p. 5). Therefore, rather than use the existing outdated recovery criteria, the Service assessed the species' viability, as summarized in the SSA report (Service 2016; see ADDRESSES, above, for information on how to obtain a copy of the SSA report) to inform the process of making the determination that the black-capped vireo has recovered.

    Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be reclassified or delisted on the same basis. Consideration of these factors was incorporated in the SSA report (Service 2016; see ADDRESSES, above, for information on how to obtain a copy of the SSA report) as “causes and effects,” and projected in future scenarios to evaluate viability of the black-capped vireo. The effects of conservation measures currently in place were also assessed as part of the current condition of the species in the SSA report, and those effects were projected in future scenarios.

    Causes and Effects

    When the black-capped vireo was listed in 1987, the known threats influencing its status were the loss of suitable breeding habitat (Factor A) and brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Factor E). These continue to be the primary factors affecting the species' viability. The loss of breeding habitat in the United States has been linked to changes in vegetation due to fire suppression (vegetational succession), grazing and browsing from livestock and native and nonnative ungulates, and the conversion of breeding habitat to other land uses. In addition, we considered the effects of climate change on available breeding and wintering habitat and other potential habitat impacts in the winter range in order to assess the status of the species throughout its range.

    Habitat Loss (Factor A)

    Black-capped vireo breeding habitat is most likely to occur on lands categorized in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Census data by landowners as “rangeland.” Therefore, trends in lands categorized as rangeland is a useful indirect measure for estimating the effects of land use changes on the black-capped vireo. There has been a general increasing trend since 1987 for occurrence of rangeland within the black-capped vireo's U.S. breeding range, based on available Agricultural Census data. That is, there has been an increase in the amount of lands reported as rangeland. Since 2002, Oklahoma has reported a 36 percent increase and Texas has reported a 4.4 percent increase in rangeland (USDA 2002a, 2002b, 2012a, and 2012b).

    The prevalence of goats in Texas in counties where the black capped vireo was known to occur was specifically considered a threat to the black-capped vireo in 1987. Goat browsing can eliminate shrub foliage necessary for black-capped vireo nest concealment. Since that time, goats within the U.S. range of the vireo have dramatically decreased, largely attributed to the repeal of the National Wool Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1781 et seq.; repealed by Pub. L. 103-130 (dated November 1, 1993), with an effective date of December 31, 1995, under section 3(a) of Pub. L. 103-130). From 1987 to 2012, reported numbers of goats decreased by 46.8 percent in counties where black-capped vireos are known to occur (USDC 1987a, 1987b; USDA 2012a, 2012b).

    Cattle, white-tailed deer, and nonnative ungulates are also known to impact black-capped vireo habitat by browsing and eliminating shrub foliage necessary for nest concealment; however, this impact is to a lesser extent than the impacts of goats (Graber 1961, p. 316; Shaw et al. 1989, p. 29; Guilfoyle 2002, p. 8; Wilkins et al. 2006, pp. 52-54). Cattle numbers have also decreased across the black-capped vireo's range from 1987 to 2012 by 37.2 percent (USDC 1987a, 1987b; USDA 2012a, 2012b). While livestock numbers have decreased, rangeland acres have increased. Wilcox et al. (2012) attribute this apparent discrepancy to reductions in stocking density. This overall decline in livestock density has been driven by changing land ownership and the increase in wildlife conservation (Wilcox et al. 2012). White-tailed deer densities in the species' range in Texas have increased by 18.3 percent from 2005 to 2014 (TPWD 2015, p. 27), leading to increased deer browsing, but this increase is considerably less than the decreases in goats and cattle. In Mexico, a primary economic activity is livestock ranching within the breeding range (Morrison et al. 2014, p. 37), although trend data are not available. In some areas of Mexico, livestock appears to be at low densities (Morrison et al. 2014, p. 37) and may be separated from breeding vireos by elevation and, therefore, may not be in direct contact with habitat (Farquhar and Gonzalez 2005, p. 30).

    Vegetational succession, or the change in plant species composition over time, continues to affect the black-capped vireo habitat in the eastern portion of the range in Texas and in Oklahoma. Habitat that is considered to be early successional in the eastern portion of the range is created naturally or artificially by disturbance, usually by fire. In the absence of wildfire or prescribed fire, early successional habitats in the eastern portion of the range grow into wooded habitat that provides unsuitable structure for vireo nesting. In the western portion of the range in Texas and Mexico, suitable black-capped vireo habitat does not typically grow into wooded habitat, and succession management is less important (Hayden et al. 2001, p. 32; Farquhar and Gonzalez 2005, p. 32; McFarland et al. 2012, p. 5).

    Overall, the reduction in numbers of goats and cattle compensates for unanticipated increases in deer browsing and contributes to a net increase in available breeding habitat. Likewise, the increasing amount of reported rangeland acres since listing have likely improved habitat conditions within the breeding range. In the eastern portion of the range, breeding habitat is considered early successional habitat and associated with disturbance such as fire. Because land managers in the eastern portion of the range are increasingly using fire as a management tool, available breeding habitat has likely increased in this portion of the range. In the western portion of the range, such disturbance is not necessary to maintain suitable habitat, and much of the available breeding habitat is more stable in the long term.

    Winter Range (Factor A)

    Black-capped vireos are more general in habitat selection for wintering, and can use scrub, disturbed habitats, secondary growth habitats, and tropical dry forests as well as shrubs. Although threats to the species on its wintering grounds were not identified at the time of listing (1987) or during the 2007 5-year review, they were considered as part of the species status assessment process to determine whether winter habitat availability could be a limiting factor. Dry forests in Mexico are a conservation concern (Miles et al. 2006, p. 502) and have historically been modified for agricultural and other purposes (Powell 2013, p. 100). The majority of impacts (greater than 55 percent) to tropical dry forests occurred prior to the listing of the black-capped vireo (Powell 2013, pp. 101-102). Habitat loss still occurs (Powell 2013, pp. 101-102), but the extent of habitat specifically important to wintering vireos is unknown, but likely diverse, considering the variety of habitats used. Habitat models have suggested the winter range may be as large as 141,000 km2 (54,440 mi2) in size (Vega Rivera et al. 2010, p. 101). Much of this habitat occurs on canyons and slopes and may be inaccessible to most anthropogenic impacts.

    Brood Parasitism (Factor E)

    Brown-headed cowbirds are brood parasites; females remove an egg from a host species nest, lay their own egg to be raised by the adult hosts, and the result usually causes the death of the remaining host nestlings (Rothstein 2004, p. 375). Brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds has been documented to affect more than 90 percent of black-capped vireo nests in some Texas study areas (Grzybowski 1991, p. 4). Control of cowbirds through trapping has been shown to significantly reduce brood parasitism and increase population productivity of vireos (Eckrich et al. 1999, pp. 153-154; Kostecke et al. 2005, p. 28). An evaluation of Breeding Bird Survey data shows brown-headed cowbird detections have been decreasing in Texas and Oklahoma since 1967, specifically in ecoregions where black-capped vireos are known to occur (Sauer et al. 2014, entire).

    Furthermore, available data suggest geographic differences in the impact cowbirds have on breeding vireos. Cowbird abundance and brood parasitism appears to be less prevalent on the western portion of the black-capped vireo's range and in Mexico (Bryan and Stuart 1990, p. 5; Farquhar and Maresh 1996, p. 2; Farquhar and Gonzalez 2005, p. 30; Smith et al. 2012, p. 281; Morrison et al. 2014, p. 18).

    Although cowbird abundance appears to be declining and the effects of brood parasitism are reduced in portions of the vireo's range, cowbird control continues to be necessary to maintain the current number of black-capped vireo populations and individuals in the eastern portion of the range in Texas and in Oklahoma. Since the completion of the SSA report, a study was published on the effects of brood parasitism and local populations, which provided additional information indicating some sites with low brood parasitism rates have insufficient reproduction to balance mortality and rely on immigration of individuals from other areas to avoid extirpation (Walker et al. 2016). There are many other factors apart from cowbird brood parasitism that may influence resiliency of localities; however, cowbird management still remains the most effective means of improving reproductive success at numerous localities. We have updated the SSA report to reflect this study, and we address the study's implications below, under Summary of Comments and Recommendations.

    Climate Change (Factor E)

    The effects of climate change are a concern in ecosystems that are sensitive to warming temperatures and decreased precipitation, such as arid and semi-arid habitats where the black-capped vireo resides. In Texas, climate change models generally predict a 3 to 4 degree Fahrenheit (1.6 to 2.2 degree Celsius) increase in temperature between 2010 and 2050 (Nielsen-Gammon 2011, p. 2.23; Banner et al. 2010, p. 8, Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire). Predictions on precipitation trends over Texas are not as clear (Nielsen-Gammon 2011, p. 2.28), but the models indicate that Texas weather will likely become drier (Banner et al. 2010, p. 8, Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire; Runkle et al. 2017, entire).

    Although the impact from the effects of climate change on shrubland habitat required by the black-capped vireo for breeding is uncertain, shrub encroachment into grasslands in North America, primarily due to fire suppression and livestock grazing, is well documented (Van Auken 2000, entire; Briggs et al. 2005, entire; Knapp et al. 2007, p. 616). Projected warming temperatures and dry conditions will likely influence future shrubland dominance (Van Auken 2000, p. 206). Evidence suggests that within the far west portion of the black-capped vireo's range, the effects of climate change and fire suppression would result in a shrubland-dominated landscape (White et al. 2011, p. 541). In this scenario, the availability of shrub habitat would be the least affected, and potentially more prevalent on the landscape, which may increase the available amount of suitable breeding habitat. Following the publication of the December 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 90762), an additional study was published on the effects of extreme drought on a black-capped vireo location in Texas (Colón et al. 2017). This study provides evidence that extreme conditions of drought may reduce reproductive success, increase cowbird brood parasitism, and influence choice of vegetation substrate. The effects appear to be regional, since another well-studied Texas population did not suffer these effects; impacts to the affected population appear to be limited to the specific drought year, that is, the affected population appears to have recovered the following year. We have updated the SSA report to reflect this information, and we address its relevance to this rule below, under Summary of Comments and Recommendations.

    Species Future Conditions and Viability

    We evaluated overall viability of the black-capped vireo in the SSA report (Service 2016; revised 2017 based on information provided during the comment period and included in the docket for the final rule; see ADDRESSES, above, for information on how to obtain a copy of the SSA report) in the context of resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Species viability, or the ability to sustain populations long term, is related to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events (redundancy), the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (representation), and the ability of populations to withstand disturbances of varying magnitude and duration (resiliency). The viability of a species is also dependent on the likelihood of new stressors (processes or events with a negative impact on the species) or continued threats (a stressor and its source) now and in the future that act to reduce a species' redundancy, representation, and resiliency and the species overall ability to withstand such stressors.

    In the SSA report, we forecast the viability of known populations of black-capped vireos over the next 50 years. We chose 50 years to reflect specific climate change models that are relevant to the black-capped vireo and its habitat. The 50 year timeframe also reflects our ability to project land management decisions. We developed multiple future conditions scenarios for the known manageable and likely resilient populations based on both continued management (i.e., continuing the current conditions of habitat and cowbird management) and decreased management. For the decreased management scenarios, populations on private lands were considered to have no management in the future, while habitat and cowbird management on publicly managed lands was projected to diminish in scale or frequency that would not continue to provide for the needs of the species. The decreased management scenario projected the future conditions of the species without the continued protections of the Act. All of the scenarios are considered to be within the realm of reasonable possibility. Even in the worst case scenario, at least 26 of the 34 known manageable and likely resilient populations have a moderate to high (i.e., greater than 50 percent) likelihood of persisting over the next 50 years, indicating adequate resiliency of those populations and redundancy across the species' range. Likewise, those populations projected in the worst case scenario are distributed throughout the range as multiple populations within each of the different areas of representation, indicating adequate redundancy within each of the representative areas (as described below).

    We evaluated several studies with respect to representation in the black-capped vireo, mostly involving genetic diversity. Although there is discrepancy between studies, there is evidence that adequate gene flow for healthy genetic diversity exists across known breeding populations. Additionally, there is a diversity of habitat types utilized within both the breeding and wintering ranges. For these reasons, the black-capped vireo appears to have adequate representation both genetically and ecologically to allow for adaptability to environmental changes.

    Resiliency, in terms of habitat capable of supporting greater than 100 adult males, for the eastern portion of the black-capped vireo's breeding range is dependent on vegetation and cowbird management. In the western portion of the range, population resiliency is higher, because management is not required to maintain suitable breeding habitat and threats related to cowbirds are less severe. Since 2005, resiliency, in terms of population size, has increased in regularly monitored populations, and under future scenarios, the number of likely resilient populations either increases or remains close to current levels (Service 2016); therefore, we expect that trend in increasing resiliency to continue into the future.

    The recovery of the black-capped vireo is due, in part, to conservation actions, in the form of habitat and cowbird management in parts of the species' breeding range. Many localities of vireo habitat, especially in the eastern portion of the breeding range, will require continued management activities to persist. In considering its management needs, the forecast of future conditions includes scenarios based on the needs of the species, stressors, identification of additional populations, and restoration efforts. Our forecasts that produce stable or increasing resiliency and redundancy reflect the differences in the current and projected future conditions of the species compared to the status assessment that was conducted to support the 1987 listing decision.

    The future persistence of the species in some places will require active management of threats. Prescribed fire as a management tool is a cost effective way to restore prairies and shrublands and to reduce impacts of invasive juniper, and is often used to benefit game species (e.g., deer, wild turkey). Such management actions may directly and indirectly benefit black-capped vireos when they occur within the breeding range. The Service has obtained commitments from our key Federal, State, and private conservation partners (included in the docket with this final rule), who are largely responsible for the recovery of the species, to continue to manage black-capped vireo populations on publicly managed lands and to promote management actions across the breeding range of the species. For example, the Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans for Fort Hood and Fort Sill will continue management actions that directly benefit black-capped vireos. Likewise, prescribed fire is being used as a management tool for a variety of species at most publicly managed areas within the current breeding range of the black-capped vireo, and those management actions will continue regardless of the listing status of black-capped vireos. Black-capped vireo populations existing on properties under management through public ownership (Federal, State, municipal) or easement are generally projected to persist under short- and long-term conditions. Even under diminished management specific to black-capped vireos, many of these locations are expected to be better suited than unmanaged lands to provide resources for the black-capped vireo, often due to the conservation mission of the property (e.g., state parks).

    Summary of Updates to SSA Report and Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan

    As discussed in this rule, two recent studies have been published relevant to the status of the black-capped vireo. We have updated the SSA report (included in the docket with this final rule) to reflect this information. Additionally, we corrected errors in Table 14 of the SSA report. This table summed the forecasted scenarios of Table 13, which was correct.

    Based on comments received, we have clarified the role of management for the species as it pertains to “conservation reliance” and worked with our Federal, State and private partners to develop the post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan and commitments to managing the species on lands under their authority. Specifically, in the SSA report, as well as the December 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 90762), the impact of brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism on certain locations was expressed in terms of sustainability and expansion of populations. Additionally, the species was identified as “conservation-reliant” due to successful recovery actions, largely cowbird management, being implemented. The Service concludes that cowbird management was a major factor leading to the recovery of the species. Thus, the importance of cowbird management was discussed in the SSA report and proposed rule. Particularly, the black-capped vireo population in Oklahoma and localities in the eastern portion of the Texas range may be reliant on cowbird management periodically, or perpetually, to ensure minimal losses of current population numbers. In this regard, we believe the species may be “conservation reliant,” due to efforts necessary to retain healthy shrublands and reduce brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism under certain conditions in portions of the range. However, the proposal to remove the species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife was not made on the condition of continued management. The future scenarios forecast in the SSA report included a “worst case” scenario in which all management for the species would cease. In the worst case scenario, we acknowledge that the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation over the next 50 years would likely decline, but would not meet the definition of endangered or threatened. We therefore proposed to delist the species.

    Based on the comprehensive information collected for the SSA report, there is inherent uncertainty in forecasting future threats and population status scenarios over a 50-year timeframe. To address this uncertainty and ensure that the black-capped vireo continues to prosper, the SSA report and proposed rule noted the importance of continued management of known populations of the species. To further this recommendation, the Service has obtained mutual commitments with many of our partners in the form of cooperative management agreements or other strategies to continue to manage known populations of the black-capped vireo and implement the PDM plan (see draft PDM plan: 83 FR 11162; March 14, 2018). These cooperative management agreements are included the docket with this final rule and in the PDM plan, and provide assurances that post-delisting monitoring will detect trends in the black-capped vireo's status and threats. Please see ADDRESSES, above, for information on how to obtain a copy of the PDM plan.

    Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on December 15, 2016 (81 FR 90762), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by February 13, 2017. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the San Angelo Standard-Times, Alpine Avalanche, Lawton Oklahoma Constitution, and the Austin American Statesman. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

    State and Peer Reviewer Comments

    Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the Secretary must give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4(a) to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4(i) of the Act directs that the Secretary will submit to the State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition. We solicited and received comments from both the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). Both agencies supported the delisting of the black-capped vireo, acknowledged the significant progress on private lands that have improved range conditions, and offered to continue to assist in post-delisting monitoring and other partnership opportunities.

    TPWD expressed concern about the lack of information from Mexico, and suggested that the species continues to be threatened in that country by development and some forms of incompatible agriculture. However, TPWD stated that the extent of impact to the vireo is essentially unknown. Even with the limited information available, the SSA analysis indicated continued persistence over the 50-yr projected timeframe. Black-capped vireo return rates generally suggest sufficient resources are available during migration and wintering, but we agree with TPWD that additional study in this portion of the species' range is important and support efforts to obtain information related to the status of the vireo from Mexico.

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals regarding the scientific data and interpretations contained in the SSA report supporting this final rule. We received responses from all three of the peer reviewers.

    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the black-capped vireo. The peer reviewers had no significant objection to the analysis provided in the SSA report. In general, the peer-review comments were largely minor (editorial) or easily addressed. Substantive comments were specifically addressed, and did not involve changes to the viability analysis of the SSA report. A summary of the substantive peer reviewer comments and responses are available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0110.

    Public Comments

    We received comments from 32 respondents. We reviewed all comment letters provided and addressed the substantive comments. Those substantive comments are grouped together in related categories below.

    (1) Comment: Two commenters suggested the use of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (the 3Rs) to characterize viability for the black-capped vireo is not appropriate. They noted the lack of citations and methodology in the SSA report, as well as the 3R model being insufficiently tested for use in assessing species' viability.

    Our Response: There are many publications in the scientific literature that explore the use of the conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation to characterize viability (e.g., Shaffer and Stein 2000; Svancara et al. 2005; Carroll et al. 2010; Redford et al. 2011; Waples et al. 2013; Neel et al. 2014; Wolf et al. 2015). We have often used this conservation planning framework in our recovery plans, and this is a fundamental concept applied explicitly in our species status assessments. We consider our reliance on the 3Rs to be use of the best available scientific and commercial information. We recognize that appropriate citations were not initially included in the SSA report and have now added them to the updated report.

    (2) Comment: One commenter stated that the threat of climate change should include increasing frequency and severity of drought, wildfires, and flooding.

    Our Response: We evaluated the concern of climate change on the species by reviewing relevant studies on the species and potential habitat factors that could occur in the next 50 years. Flooding does not appear to be a stressor for black-capped vireos, with the possible exception of the population occurring near Independence Creek in Texas, which, unlike most other localities, utilizes the riparian corridor for nesting.

    In the SSA report, we discuss the issue of wildfire largely in terms of historical suppression leading to the threat of vegetational succession in habitats within the eastern portion of the species' range. We acknowledge that wildfire is a stressor to the species; however, it generally results in temporary impacts and is generally believed to have an overall positive effect to the species over time. As a result of historical fire suppression, land managers use prescribed fire to promote ecosystem health, and in the case of the black-capped vireo, as a tool to sustain high-quality breeding habitat.

    We discuss drought effects within the SSA report, specifically regarding a future model that suggests an increase in shrubland habitats within the breeding range of the species, which may be beneficial since the black-capped vireo nests in shrubland habitats.

    The ability to predict and associate drought with climate change is complicated. A new study was published in 2017 (Colón et al. 2017) that evaluated the effects of the extreme drought of 2011 on a large population of black-capped vireos in Texas. This study provides evidence that extreme conditions of drought may reduce reproductive success, increase cowbird brood parasitism, and influence choice of vegetation substrate. The effects appear to be localized, since another well-studied Texas population did not suffer these effects; impacts to the affected population appear to have been limited to the specific drought year, that is, the affected population appears to have recovered the following year.

    A study evaluating the 2011 drought, which is the driest consecutive 12-month period in Texas records, surmises that the heatwave and drought were not consistent with regional trends (since the mid-1900s) and were largely attributed to anomalous sea surface temperatures related to La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean, rather than anthropogenic effect on climate (Hoerling et al. 2013, entire). Global climate models do predict increasing drought severity and frequency for most of North America; however, past trends over the central United States, including portions of Texas, have shown decreasing frequency and intensity of droughts (Pan et al. 2004, entire; Hoerling et al. 2013, p. 2812). Regional-scale feedback processes that lead to replenishment of seasonally depleted soil moisture, thereby increasing late-summer evapotranspiration and suppressing daytime maximum temperatures may partly explain the observed late 20th century temperature trend in the central U.S. and these effects may reduce the magnitude of climate change effects within the species' range (Pan et al. 2004, p. L17109). We have updated the SSA report to reflect the new study (Colón et al. 2017); however, the information does not change the analysis.

    (3) Comment: Several commenters discussed the issue of brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism. The majority commented that cowbird management continues to be necessary and will likely be curtailed following the black-capped vireo's delisting. A recently published study was also provided (Walker et al. 2016), with new information regarding vireo populations and brood parasitism.

    Our Response: The SSA report identifies the threat of brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism, as well as the management actions that have been successfully implemented to reduce the impacts on populations of black-capped vireos. We recognize the efforts of our conservation partners in managing the threat, which is partly responsible for the recovery of the species. Our analysis in the SSA report includes a scenario in which cowbird management did not occur and the effect it may have on vireo populations up to 50 years in the future. Based on the criteria we established under several assumptions, we predict the scenario would result in the reduction of known populations across the breeding range. However, the status of the species still would not meet the definition of endangered or threatened.

    The assumptions of this analysis, as with any forecast of future conditions, are accompanied by uncertainty, which we acknowledge in the SSA report. To reduce uncertainty, the Service has obtained commitments from key conservation partners to continue to manage localities for the benefit of the black-capped vireo under their authorities. These commitments, included in the PDM plan, further acknowledge the partnerships of State and Federal entities who have worked to recover the species.

    A recently published paper (Walker et al. 2016) was submitted with comments on the effectiveness of cowbird management and resiliency. In addition to reaffirming the importance of cowbird management on reproductive success, several study sites with low brood parasitism rates were determined to be sites that have insufficient reproduction to balance mortality and rely on immigration of individuals from other areas to avoid extirpation in the 4-year period of observation. The commenter suggests that some populations with cowbird management and low brood parasitism rates may still not be sustainable. Additionally, it was recommended that resiliency for black-capped vireo populations would be better measured by reproductive success and survival. We agree that there are many other factors apart from cowbird brood parasitism that may influence resiliency of localities; however, cowbird management still remains the most effective means of improving reproductive success at numerous localities. We encourage additional study of other factors that contribute to increased resiliency, including those that influence brood parasitism effects on reproductive success. We also agree that demographic factors, such as reproductive success and survival are good metrics for resiliency; unfortunately, those metrics are only available for a small portion of localities within the breeding range.

    (4) Comment: Two commenters addressed the issue of white-tailed deer browsing in vireo habitat. One provided a different perspective of the deer densities given in the SSA report, while the other stated there was no evidence to indicate deer browsing is less of a threat than goats and cattle.

    Our Response: The SSA report includes deer densities in Texas, which are reported on an annual basis by TPWD. While we acknowledge the differing methodology provided by the commenter for calculating the change in these figures, we believe that weighting the average of deer densities would not substantially change the average percent change provided in the SSA report, because of the relatively similar sizes of the Resource Management Units within ecoregions. The SSA report shows the positive trend of estimated deer density numbers in central Texas, which is of concern to black-capped vireos. However, deer are game animals regulated by the States, which provide monitoring and management options similar to other threats to the species that have been managed. The potential impact of deer versus livestock on browse (and thus potential black-capped vireo habitat) is appropriately addressed in the SSA report (Graber 1961, p. 316; Guilfoyle 2002, p. 8).

    (5) Comment: One commenter noted the lack of records from the vireo's northern range in Kansas and Nebraska, suggesting permanent habitat loss or other issues in those States.

    Our Response: The prevalence of the black-capped vireo in Kansas has been reported in only a few publications, notably a regular occurrence in Comanche County. However, the Service noted in its 2007 black-capped vireo 5-year review that the species has not been documented in Kansas since the 1950s, and its range no longer extends past central Oklahoma. The Nebraska records are even more limited, and the species may have only been an accidental summer visitor in that State (Graber 1961, p. 313). For these reasons, the 1991 recovery plan only included the States of Oklahoma and Texas, as well as Mexico, as part of the recovery strategy. The SSA report for the black-capped vireo fully acknowledges the limited northern extent of the breeding range; however, the species has had an increasing population and distribution over the last 10 to 15 years.

    (6) Comment: One commenter provided an article indicating there could be millions of exotic herbivores within the range.

    Our Response: The article cited by the commenter (Texotics, Texas Parks & Wildlife Magazine, April 2007) is not peer reviewed and does not meet the standard for using the best available scientific information. We understand that the prevalence of exotic ungulates within the range of the vireo may have an influence on habitat availability. However, we are unaware of any evidence of their influence or scientific studies that have specifically addressed the impacts of exotic ungulates on habitats used by the black-capped vireo. During development of the SSA report, we reached out to our State partners for information related to trends and estimates of exotics across the region, and were informed that the States did not track this information and were unaware of reliable estimates.

    (7) Comment: Two commenters stated that feral hogs are a threat to the species and were not considered in the SSA report.

    Our Response: Feral hogs are a problem for land managers across the black-capped vireo's range. They may influence oak recruitment, increase erosion, and damage individual trees. However, there is no evidence suggesting that feral hog prevalence is a threat to the species.

    (8) Comment: One commenter indicated there were no assurances that Fort Hood Military Installation will incorporate vireo management actions into its integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP).

    Our Response: The Army continues to be an important partner in the conservation of the black-capped vireo. In particular, Fort Hood has provided a substantial amount of research and management toward the black-capped vireo, which has had a profoundly positive effect on the population. The Army's commitment to the species has resulted in the largest known population under a single management authority at Fort Hood. The Army strives to sustain native ecosystems at its installations to support military activities, which includes shrubland habitat utilized by the black-capped vireo at Forts Hood and Sill. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that the numerous years of research and management of this species is an investment the Army would maintain. However, to further address this issue, we have obtained a written commitment from the Army that both Fort Hood and Fort Sill will utilize their authorities under the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) to ensure the species continues to thrive at those installations after it is delisted. This commitment is included in the PDM plan.

    (9) Comment: Three commenters stated that the information regarding genetic diversity and structure presented in the SSA report does not reflect the intent or findings of the Vasquez-Miranda et al. 2015 research.

    Our Response: We disagree with the commenters. Our SSA report summarizes the available and relevant studies on the genetic variability in the black-capped vireo. The Vasquez-Miranda et al. (2015) paper was the most recent study on the subject, and is summarized to support similar hypotheses that genetic structuring within the breeding range is not apparent, or biologically significant. We contacted the authors of the study and received affirmation that our interpretation of their study is appropriately summarized in the SSA report.

    (10) Comment: Three commenters stated that, contrary to the data provided in the SSA report, goat densities in Texas are not declining.

    Our Response: The data provided in the SSA report were collected from the USDA's Agricultural Census. These statistics show goat densities across the vireo's range have declined since 1992. Another study (Wilcox et al. 2012) of livestock densities in Texas arrives at a similar conclusion. The goat population numbers reported from Texas have continually declined since the repeal of the National Wool Act of 1954.

    (11) Comment: We received two comments that state that the SSA report does not adequately address habitat loss caused by development in central Texas.

    Our Response: The SSA report indirectly addresses habitat loss through an accounting of reported rangeland/pastureland statistics across the breeding range of the black-capped vireo. Black-capped vireo habitat can occur on small patches on undeveloped land throughout the breeding range in the United States. Using the USDA Agricultural Census of land use within the species' range, an indirect measure of land use changes can be tracked over time. The SSA report indicates that reported land use changes within a majority of the species' range do not appear to threaten the availability of habitat. When the species was evaluated in 1985, a population of black-capped vireos in central Texas near Austin, which consisted of approximately 33 pairs, was thought to be the largest known to exist. Currently, it is estimated that more than 200 pairs occur in the area just west of Austin.

    (12) Comment: One commenter stated that the SSA report provides misinformation concerning juniper trees in relation to black-capped vireo habitat.

    Our Response: We believe the SSA report accurately describes the importance of juniper occurring within black-capped vireo habitat. In general, while juniper trees may be used for nesting and foraging, it is not a preferred nesting substrate for the species. Juniper is a problem in large portions of the species' range due to its invasive nature, which often renders breeding habitat unsuitable within just a few years. Except in some cases where preferred nesting substrates are sparse or limited suitable shrub cover exists, the invasive nature of juniper is a more important consideration in managing black-capped vireo breeding habitat.

    (13) Comment: We received several comments related to livestock browsing of black-capped vireo habitat in the SSA report. Commenters suggested habitat loss would not decrease or be reversed due to a decrease in livestock. Commenters also suggested cattle presence is projected to increase, and drought effects on cattle should be considered and evaluated under future conditions.

    Our Response: The SSA report clarifies the influence of livestock on black-capped vireos, which is largely related to effects on habitat and presence of brown-headed cowbirds. Pertaining to direct impacts on habitat, goats are the most detrimental to the species because they browse shrub foliage necessary for nesting. While portions of the breeding range are still influenced by the presence of goats, trends show a decline in goat density across the U.S. portion of the range. Based on this trend and the expiration of previous subsidies for goat ranching in the United States, we did not see a reasonable scenario of expanding goat pressure on black-capped vireo habitat under long-term future conditions.

    Cattle decreases are also shown in trend data across the species' range. Cattle have less of an overall impact on habitat, because they generally do not browse on shrub vegetation where vireos nest. In fact, the Service allows cattle grazing on lands approved as compensatory mitigation for the black-capped vireo. Other public lands that manage populations of vireos, such as Fort Hood Military Installation, also manage cattle operations with little impact to the birds nesting in the same area. The primary factor associated with cattle is the presence of brown-headed cowbirds, which can be controlled relatively easily and inexpensively.

    Additionally, our analysis addressed cattle on reported acres of rangeland within the breeding range of the black-capped vireo, which is where influence on the species would be expected. These data were collected from the USDA Agricultural Census, which is conducted every 5 years, with the most recent available in 2012. General predictions of cattle increases do not target areas where vireos would be expected to occur.

    While our SSA report does not attempt to forecast cattle presence in our future conditions, we believe we captured the primary drivers influencing the species, including cowbird and habitat management, within our predictions influencing the known population. We disagree with the comment that habitats previously impacted by livestock would not revert back to suitable conditions following a decrease in livestock. Healthy rangeland condition and habitat enhancement is greatly influenced by appropriate grazing management.

    (14) Comment: Several comments addressed the issue of long-term land management for the black-capped vireo. Commenters stated that management currently occurring on both private and public lands would not continue should the species be delisted. Two commenters suggested we obtain long-term commitments from public land-managing authorities.

    Our Response: The recovery of the black-capped vireo is due in large part to our conservation partners, and we are pleased to report that we have those long-term commitments in the PDM plan. The SSA report discusses the effective management actions that have, in part, led to the recovery of the black-capped vireo. Most notably, vegetation and cowbird management within the eastern portion of the species' range has been important to expanding localities. Many such management actions have occurred due to the species being listed under the Act. However, some actions regarding habitat management on private lands are often implemented to improve range conditions for livestock and game animals. Managing for these resources through juniper and mesquite control and use of prescribed fire likely benefits the black-capped vireo when conducted in the species' breeding range. Often these actions are coordinated with the State fish and game agencies and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, which are partners with the Service in conserving fish and wildlife resources. Technical assistance and management plans developed with these partners are largely focused on ecosystem health and native biodiversity, including federally listed species. To further our partnerships, the Service has obtained commitments from key land-managing entities to continue beneficial practices to ensure the black-capped vireo thrives.

    (15) Comment: We received comments regarding the black-capped vireo's range in Mexico. In general, commenters noted the lack of information from that portion of the range and stated that additional threats should be addressed.

    Our Response: We provide a discussion of the importance of the black-capped vireo's range in Mexico in the SSA report, acknowledging the paucity of data available from that country. There is much anecdotal information on threats to the breeding and wintering ranges; however, little quantitative or qualitative data or information exist. Under the Act, we are required to use the best available scientific and commercial information in implementing our responsibilities under the Act. Even in situations where there is little or no information, a determination of a species' status must be made. In this case, our SSA analysis indicates continued persistence over the 50-yr projected timeframe and black-capped vireo return rates generally suggest sufficient resources are available during migration and wintering.

    (16) Comment: Two commenters stated that the SSA report and proposed rule should provide assurances that existing populations and habitat would be protected in the event the species is delisted.

    Our Response: The purpose of the SSA report is to provide a science-based risk assessment of the viability of the black-capped vireo. Following a peer-review process, as well as review of the draft by our State partners, the Service used the SSA report to evaluate the species' status under the Act. There is no direct mechanism for assurances to protect known populations when the species is delisted. However, most known populations occur on lands that are provided some degree of management and protection (e.g., State and Federal lands). Additionally, due to the outstanding efforts of our conservation partners toward recovery of this species and to provide assurances for the species' continued success, the Service has obtained commitments for the largest populations that will further conservation and management of the species. These commitments are included in the docket with this final rule and provided in the PDM plan.

    (17) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service did not adequately address a peer review comment involving the adequacy of addressing future conditions of habitat loss within the SSA report.

    Our Response: We thoroughly and carefully evaluated the responses to the draft SSA report provided by the peer reviewers. We clarified that the SSA report used four criteria to assess the future conditions of the species. While habitat loss was the primary reason the black-capped vireo was listed in 1987, the major sources identified were browsing by goats and vegetational succession. These threat sources, and other relevant threats, have been reduced and managed to the point that we consider the species recovered.

    (18) Comment: We received several comments regarding the population data provided in the SSA report. Some simply noted that no population estimate is provided. One believed the species could not be delisted without a population estimate. Other comments stated that the census data used are unreliable and not sufficient to support an increase in vireo abundance. One comment suggested Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data should be used in the SSA report.

    Our Response: In the SSA report, we provide a history of population information for the black-capped vireo and the most recent data to summarize the current conditions of the species. We acknowledge that there are no rangewide estimates of the breeding population available; thus, we use the best available information to evaluate the species. A determination regarding the status of a species under the Act does not require a population estimate; under section 4 of the Act, species are assessed under five factors, often referred to as “threats” to the species, using the best available information. The census data we used span a 6-year period across the breeding range. While the survey methods used to collect these data vary, we believe this information is of much higher quality than the census data collected in 1985 and used for the original listing determination. Our SSA report also analyzed the species status on the basis of analysis of the 3 R's—resiliency, redundancy, and representation. By that measure as well, we believe the black-capped vireo has recovered to the point the protections of the ESA are no longer necessary. The SSA report also acknowledges the potential for reported increases in the known population under current conditions to be, in part, related to an increase in survey effort generated by the listing. However, it is clear that threats to the species have been reduced and managed, which is the reason the species has recovered.

    We do not use BBS data for the black-capped vireo, because only the raw data were available. To estimate population change and annual indexes of species abundance, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) statistically analyzes the raw BBS data using a hierarchical model analysis (Sauer et al. 2011, p. 7-9). Although the raw data show a slight increase in black-capped vireo detections since the species was listed, population trends are not available and should not be inferred from the raw data without further statistical analyses given the changes in the number of surveyed routes and other confounding factors.

    (19) Comment: We received two comments regarding the use of prescribed fire and black-capped vireo habitat management. One comment suggested prescribed fire is used to promote grasses, not shrubs. The other comment stated fire is used to benefit game species, some of which are a threat to the black-capped vireo.

    Our Response: Prescribed fire is used to promote habitat health in a variety of ecosystems, including grasslands, shrublands, and forests. Further, prescribed fire is the most important tool for managing black-capped vireo habitat within the eastern portion of the species' range because of its effectiveness at promoting hardwood shrub mottes and grasses important to breeding habitat. Prescribed fire benefits several game species, some of which may degrade nesting habitat if present in high densities. However, we believe the benefits of prescribed fire on private lands as a tool for ecosystem health within the breeding range of the species far outweigh the adverse effects of deer management, which is generally directed toward increasing animal quality, rather than numbers.

    (20) Comment: One commenter noted the uncertainty regarding the extent of recovery occurring on private lands, and the limitation of known recovery in only a few well-managed areas.

    Our Response: The SSA report for the black-capped vireo acknowledges the extent of information known about the species' numbers across its breeding range. The proportion of the species range and populations for which the data were available for the analysis was significant as compared to the overall range and populations of the species. The Act requires that we use the best available information when determining whether a species should or should not be included on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. As a result, we provide the most current information known about the species' population across its breeding range.

    (21) Comment: We received several comments on the use of rangeland as an indicator of habitat potential in the SSA report. Commenters stated that the use of USDA rangeland statistics is not an appropriate indicator for black-capped vireo habitat. One comment recommended the use of TPWD's Texas Ecosystem Analytical Mapper to identify habitat. Another commenter stated Texas A&M University's Institute of Renewable Natural Resources publication, “Texas Land Trends—Status update and trends of Texas rural working lands,” forecasts future losses of working lands.

    Our Response: TPWD's Texas Ecosystem Analytical Mapper (TEAM) is a good tool for evaluating vegetative communities, but does not identify breeding habitat parameters for the black-capped vireo. Black-capped vireo habitat is characterized by shrub vegetation of irregular height, with foliage reaching ground level, which cannot be identified using TEAM. The data in Texas A&M University's Institute of Renewable Natural Resources publication, “Texas Land Trends—Status update and trends of Texas rural working lands,” considers additional data sources but is primarily based on USDA Agricultural Census, that is the same data used in the SSA report. Because of the need for a common data set for both Oklahoma and Texas, and the need to detect land trends across time, we decided to utilize the USDA Agricultural Census reports for both States. One comment referenced that the report, “forecasts future losses of working lands,” but did not provide a page number or cite specific information; it is possible that the comment is referring to the Texas Statewide trend, while our analysis focused on the land trends for the counties within the black-capped vireo's range.

    (22) Comment: Several commenters believe the recovery plan for the black-capped vireo is not adequately addressed or that the SSA report is insufficient to support delisting. Some comments requested clarification of the recommendation for “threatened” status in the 2007 5-year review and the delisting proposal.

    Our Response: Recovery plans under the Act are intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed species; however, they are not regulatory documents. As explained in the SSA report and December 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 90762), the black-capped vireo recovery plan was developed in 1991, and has not been updated. In fact, a complete strategy for recovery had not been conceived at the time the plan was developed, and it only provided interim criteria to downlist the species, precluding any possibility of considering recovery criteria in the recovery plan as a contribution to the current status analysis for delisting the species. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, which may or may not involve all recovery criteria in a final plan being fully met, but comparing the current status of the species to the reclassification criteria provides some information about the health of the populations. In this case, the reclassification criteria have generally been met. Ultimately, the Service is required to evaluate a species' status with respect to the five factors set forth at section 4(a)(1) of the Act when receiving a petition to downlist or delist, as well as every 5 years for species currently on the List. Our current process uses the SSA framework, which is a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the biological status of the species with respect to its resource needs, current conditions, and forecasted future conditions. We believe this approach is well-suited for addressing the biological status of a species based on scientific information without applying regulatory definitions of the species' status under the Act, which is accomplished through the rulemaking process.

    (23) Comment: One commenter indicated that Wilcox et al. (2012), cited in the December 15, 2016, proposed rule was not made available, and may have been used inappropriately.

    Our Response: Wilcox et al. (2012) was cited in the SSA report and proposed rule, but was inadvertently omitted from the literature cited section in the SSA report. We have added the reference to this section in the SSA report and this rule. We disagree that this study is not applicable in the context in which it is cited in the proposed rule. The article, titled “Historical Stocking Densities on Texas Rangelands,” is cited in the discussion on rangelands and livestock. We simply paraphrase a conclusion in the study that references healthier changes in rangelands over time due in part to reduced livestock densities.

    (24) Comment: We received three comments concerning the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-712) described in the proposed rule. Commenters stated that the MBTA would not be protective of the black-capped vireo after it is delisted.

    Our Response: The reference to the MBTA in the proposed rule is to note that the removal of the black-capped vireo from the List would not affect its status under the MBTA. We did not imply that the MBTA would be a substitute for the Act. The black-capped vireo is being removed from the List due to recovery, not because it will be protected under the MBTA. It will remain listed under the MBTA.

    (25) Comment: We received two comments on the definition of “manageable locality” in the proposed rule and SSA report. The comments stated that the definition is not supported.

    Our Response: In the SSA report, we use the best available information to summarize the current conditions of the species across its breeding range. Rather than define what constitutes a population of black-capped vireos, for the purposes of evaluating redundancy, we define units that are reasonably expected to be manageable and resilient. One comment referred to the SSA report definition as a “population” and also refers to the 1991 recovery plan population estimate of 500 pairs for comparison. The SSA report uses the term “locality” and provides a definition in order to distinguish it from a “population,” similar to the term “population” in the recovery plan, which was estimated using a Population Viability Analysis model from data available in 1989. Contrary to the comments, we believe our designations of manageable locality and likely resilient locality are supported as described in the SSA report.

    (26) Comment: Several commenters did not agree that the SSA report supports a delisting proposal.

    Our Response: We disagree with the commenters. The SSA report is a science-based risk assessment. It compiles the best available information and includes a comprehensive analysis of past, present, and forecasted future scenarios of the availability of the resource needs of the species. The report was peer-reviewed, without significant comments on the quality of information or analysis provided.

    (27) Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule and SSA report do not address specific threats to the black-capped vireo. Commenters noted wind energy, urbanization, oak wilt, and oil and gas development as potential threats to the species.

    Our Response: We recognize that there are a variety of stressors that may continue to affect individual black-capped vireos or their habitat. In the SSA report, we evaluate those stressors that are known, or appear to be a threat to the species, and therefore influence the viability of species. Included in our characterization of viability are conservation actions that are known to have a positive influence on viability. We address potential urbanization in another comment, noting that our evaluation of land use trends encompasses this stressor. Oil and gas development is most prominent in the western portion of the species' range; where overlap occurs, we have not identified or been provided information indicating there is a continuing or eminent threat to the species from oil and gas exploration. Wind energy also occurs largely in the western portion of the black-capped vireo's range. At the request of wind energy companies, the Service has reviewed numerous proposed projects in Texas for potential impacts to black-capped vireo. Through this coordination, several large, previously undocumented black-capped vireo localities were discovered and impacts frequently avoided or minimized. Wind energy projects are normally planned on a large landscape, but have a small overall footprint (ground disturbance). Collisions with rotors are expected to be rare, as vireos do not fly within the distance of rotors during the breeding season. Of the numerous projects reviewed for impacts to the species, only one has requested and received an incidental take permit authorizing impacts to the species. This facility also resulted in the documentation of a location with more than 150 male vireos previously unknown, offset the impacts of the project through permanent protection, and will monitor the site for the life of the facility. We do not have evidence that oak wilt is a significant threat to the black-capped vireo. Vegetation composition in areas used by vireos is variable, but the woody vegetation structure generally remains the same. While oak wilt may affect localized areas of habitat, vireos use a variety of hardwood species with the appropriate structure for nesting and foraging.

    (28) Comment: One commenter stated that the short- and long-term timeframes utilized in the SSA report are not supported.

    Our Response: The basis for the use of the short- and long-term timeframes is provided on page 12 of the SSA report. The short-term timeframe reflects the availability of past information for the species since the original assessment in 1985. The long-term timeframe is associated with specific climate change models relevant to the species and its habitat and also reflects our ability to project land management decisions.

    (29) Comment: Two commenters disagreed with the analysis of the black-capped vireo's winter range in the SSA report. Comments stated that the information is not adequate and the use of return rates of wintering birds is insufficient to address winter range habitat availability.

    Our Response: The use of return rates of banded black-capped vireos, by itself, is not an indicator of habitat availability on the winter range. We provided return rates as a part of the information collected to evaluate the potential threats to the winter range. The SSA report acknowledges the limited information available on potential threats to the winter range. There are recent studies on the winter range we summarized in the SSA report that we believe, along with the other information presented, indicate habitat within the winter range is not a limiting factor for species viability.

    (30) Comment: We received information suggesting that BBS data show brown-headed cowbirds detections are increasing across the vireo's range, rather than decreasing as shown in the SSA report.

    Our Response: The information provided to support the comment was USGS BBS raw data, the same source utilized in the SSA report. The difference is the Service's SSA report uses USGS's BBS Regional Trend Analysis data. As noted in an earlier comment response, USGS uses statistical analysis of the raw data to produce trend and annual indices, which is a better estimate of population change. The brown-headed cowbird hierarchical model analysis data we use in our SSA report are available at https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html and show a decreasing trend in Texas and Oklahoma.

    Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to, or removing species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list or delist a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the black-capped vireo. Our analysis indicates the known threats at the time of listing, habitat loss (Factor A) through land use changes, livestock grazing, and vegetation succession, and brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism (Factor E), are reduced or adequately managed. Under current management, these threats are mitigated such that vireo numbers are robust and increasing. Management actions by our partners on publicly managed and other protected lands will continue based on our shared conservation commitments, which are documented in the PDM plan and included in the docket associated with this final rule. We expect prescribed fire and other management actions to continue in the eastern portion of the U.S. range because the actions are necessary for landscape and rangeland management and are aligned with the conservation mission of many landowners where large populations of black-capped vireos currently exist. We find that the species has recovered so that it no longer meets the definition of endangered under the Act.

    Since the black-capped vireo was listed (1987), its known abundance and distribution have increased. Currently, we know of 20 manageable and 14 likely resilient populations (as those terms are defined earlier in this rule and in the SSA report) across the species' breeding range. We assessed the likelihood of persistence of these populations over the next 50 years based on our ability to reasonably predict climate change outcomes and consistent land management activities. In the worst case scenario, the black-capped vireo would be expected to diminish in range and populations, but still remain above the level reported from 2000 to 2005. The black-capped vireo appears to have adequate redundancy, representation, and resiliency to persist over the next 50 years.

    Over the foreseeable future, the primary threats to the species continue to be habitat loss through land use conversion and vegetational succession, and brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism. Most threats have decreased in magnitude or are adequately managed, particularly through the use of prescribed fire for various habitat restoration purposes not directly related to black-capped vireo management and we generally expect those trends to continue throughout the foreseeable future. The wintering area for the black-capped vireo occurs entirely in Mexico, but many of the existing habitat areas in Mexico are buffered from degradation due to limited accessibility and rugged terrain, so we do not anticipate significant reductions in habitat quality or quantity over the foreseeable future even without specific management assurances. We find that the species no longer meets the definition of threatened under the Act.

    Based on the analysis in the SSA report (Service 2017; see ADDRESSES, above, for information on how to obtain a copy of the SSA report), and summarized above, the black-capped vireo does not currently meet the Act's definition of endangered in that it is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. In addition, the black-capped vireo is not a threatened species because it is not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

    Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may be listed if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined that the black-capped vireo is not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, we next consider whether there are any significant portions of its range in which the black-capped vireo is in danger of extinction or likely to become so. We published a final policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Aspects of that policy were vacated for species that occur in Arizona by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. CBD v. Jewell, No. CV-14-02506-TUC-RM (Mar. 29, 2017), clarified by the court, Mar. 29, 2017. Since the black-capped vireo does not occur in Arizona, for this finding we rely on the SPR Policy, and also provide additional explanation and support for our interpretation of the SPR phrase. In our policy, we interpret the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the Act's definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species” to provide an independent basis for listing a species in its entirety; thus there are two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify for listing: A species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range; or a species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species, is an “endangered species.” The same analysis applies to “threatened species.”

    Our final policy addresses the consequences of finding that a species is in danger of extinction in an SPR, and interprets what would constitute an SPR. The final policy includes four elements: (1) If a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.

    The SPR policy applies to analyses for all status determinations, including listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. As described in the first element of our policy, once the Service determines that a “species”—which can include a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS)—meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” the species must be listed in its entirety and the Act's protections applied consistently to all individuals of the species wherever found (subject to modification of protections through special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).

    For the second element, the policy sets out the procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR; the procedure is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. The first step in our assessment of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. We subsequently examine whether, in light of the species' status throughout all of its range, it is necessary to determine its status throughout a significant portion of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and no SPR analysis is required. The policy explains in detail the bases for this conclusion—including that this process ensures that the SPR language provides an independent basis for listing; maximizes the flexibility of the Service to provide protections for the species; and eliminates the potential confusion is a species could meet the definitions of both “endangered species” and “threatened species” based on its statuses throughout its range and in a significant portion of its range. See, e.g., SPR Policy, 79 FR 37580-81.

    We identified portions of the black-capped vireo's range that may be significant, and examined whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that would indicate that those portions of the range may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Within the breeding range, distinctions can be made between Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma, based on vegetation types and, in Mexico, based on observed higher densities of birds. Additionally, a distinction could be made between the eastern and western portion of the breeding range, based on the importance of the threats of cowbird brood parasitism and vegetational succession (both more impactful in the eastern range). While these geographic distinctions may be significant, information and analysis indicates that the species is unlikely to be in danger of extinction or to become so in the foreseeable future in these portions, given that the increases in reported rangeland statistics, decreases in cattle and goats, and ongoing management of cowbirds have occurred across the range, including within the eastern portion of the range. Therefore, these portions do not warrant further consideration to determine whether they are a significant portion of its range.

    We also evaluated representation across the black-capped vireo's range to determine if certain areas were in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, due to isolation from the larger range. Several studies have addressed genetic diversity of the black-capped vireo, particularly due to its fairly restricted breeding range both historically and currently, and due to the ephemeral nature of its habitat in portions of its range and its patchy distribution in the breeding range. Evidence exists that population differentiation has occurred over the black-capped vireo's breeding range due to limited gene flow between breeding populations (Barr et al. 2008, entire). However, other studies have shown no differentiation of populations and that adequate gene flow exists (Vazquez-Miranda et al. 2015, p. 9; Zink et al. 2010, entire). Adult black-capped vireos show strong site fidelity to territories between breeding seasons, especially in larger populations (USFWS 1991, p. 19). Gene flow between populations is largely dependent on the proximity of populations, in order to facilitate dispersal of breeding birds. Dispersal distances for adults is generally 0.14 to 0.41 kilometers (km) (0.09 to 0.25 miles (mi)) (DeBoer and Kolozar 2001, entire); however, long dispersal distances have been recorded up to 12.8 km (8 mi) (USFWS 1991, p. 19). Natal dispersal, the movement from hatch site to breeding site, is known to be much greater, generally from 21 to 30 km (13 to 19 mi) (Grzybowski 1995, p. 18; Cimprich et al. 2009, p. 46). The longest dispersal distance of a banded nestling re-sighted as a breeding adult was 78 km (48.5 mi) (Cimprich et al. 2009, entire). The known populations of black-capped vireos are geographically spread widely across the species' historical range and habitat types, ensuring that the global population is not singular and isolated. Additionally, the known distribution demonstrates robust representation when considering genetic heterozygosity and lack of genetic structuring across these populations.

    Our analysis indicates that there is no significant geographic portion of the range that is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, no portion warrants further consideration to determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.

    Conclusion

    We have determined that none of the existing or potential stressors causes the black-capped vireo to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is the species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We may delist a species where the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened. 50 CFR 424.11(d)(2). On the basis of our evaluation, we conclude that, due to recovery, the black-capped vireo is not an endangered or threatened species.

    Effects of the Rule

    This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the black-capped vireo from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies are no longer required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the black-capped vireo. There is no critical habitat designated for this species; therefore, this rule does not affect 50 CFR 17.95.

    Removal of the black-capped vireo from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife does not affect the protection given to all migratory bird species under the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712). The take of all migratory birds, including the black-capped vireo, is governed by the MBTA. The MBTA makes it unlawful, at any time and by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof (16 U.S.C. 703(a)). The MBTA regulates the taking of migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes. Section 704 of the MBTA states that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is authorized and directed to determine when, and to what extent, if at all, and by what means, the take of migratory birds should be allowed, and to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the take. In adopting regulations, the Secretary is to consider such factors as distribution and abundance to ensure that any take is compatible with the protection of the species. Modification to black-capped vireo habitat would constitute a violation of the MBTA only to the extent it directly takes or kills a black-capped vireo (such as removing a nest with chicks present).

    Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this requirement is to develop a program that detects the failure of any delisted species to maintain sufficient viability without the protective measures provided by the Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.

    The PDM plan for the black-capped vireo was developed in coordination with our Federal, State, and other partners. The PDM plan utilizes the results from current research and effective management practices that have improved the status of the species and led to its recovery. The PDM plan identifies measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in the black-capped vireo's populations, distribution, and viability. If declines are detected equaling or exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM plan participants, will investigate causes of these declines, including considerations of habitat changes, substantial human persecution, stochastic events, or any other significant evidence. The investigation will be to determine if the black-capped vireo warrants expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat protection, additional cowbird trapping, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act. Additionally, the Service has obtained commitments from our key conservation partners to continue to manage for the species on lands under their authorities. We have included these written commitments in the docket along with this final rule, and as an appendix to the PDM plan. The final PDM plan will be made available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arlingtontexas/ after comments on the draft PDM have been considered and incorporated as appropriate.

    Required Determinations National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with listing or delisting a species as under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0110, and upon request from the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Service's Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

    § 17.11 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the entry for “Vireo, black-capped” under “BIRDS” from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Dated: March 8, 2018. James W. Kurth, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07350 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    83 73 Monday, April 16, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0272; Product Identifier 2018-NM-005-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that during a fleet survey on a retired Model 737 airplane, cracking was found common to the windshield and aft sill web. This proposed AD would require, at certain locations, repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the windshield and aft sill web, and applicable on-condition actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact 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 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-2018-0272.

    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-2018-0272; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0272; Product Identifier 2018-NM-005-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that during a fleet survey on a retired Model 737 airplane, cracking was found common to the windshield and aft sill web. The airplane had 67,695 flight cycles and 80,269 flight hours. Two cracks each measured approximately 0.35 inch long. The cracks initiated from the edge of the fastener hole and propagated toward the outboard edge of the aft sill web. Aft sill web cracking is the result of fatigue caused by cyclic pressurization of the fuselage and a knife edge condition at the fastener holes. At the Boeing metallurgical lab, three additional fastener hole cracks were detected common to the aft sill web using an HFEC inspection. The cracks also propagated toward the outboard edge of the aft sill web. Such cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of the windshield assembly.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive HFEC inspections of the number 3 windshield and of the aft sill web at station 254.6, between S-9 and S-11 on the left- and right-hand sides, and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0272.

    Explanation of Requirements Bulletin

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept into Boeing service bulletins.

    In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the development of a new process in which the service information more clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition in the “Accomplishment Instructions.” The new process results in a Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 63 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators HFEC inspection 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 per inspection cycle $0 $340 per inspection cycle $21,420 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0272; Product Identifier 2018-NM-005-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 31, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during a fleet survey on a retired 737 airplane, cracking was found common to the windshield and aft sill web. We are issuing this AD to address such cracking at these locations, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the windshield assembly.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Actions for Group 1 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to correct the unsafe condition, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (h) Required Actions for Group 2 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017: Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:

    Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1377, dated December 11, 2017, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017.

    (i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1377 RB, dated December 11, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, this AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    (2) 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. 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.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 30, 2018. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07648 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0270; Product Identifier 2017-NM-133-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that a functional test to ensure that there is no blockage of vent pipes was not done on the trim tank of certain airplanes during production. This proposed AD would require doing a trim tank functional test, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact 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 service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0270; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0270; Product Identifier 2017-NM-133-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0152, dated August 17, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was discovered that the production functional test to verify the “Tank Pressures during Refuel Overflow” was not performed on the Trim Tank (TT) of A330 and A340 aeroplanes up to MSN [manufacturer serial number] 1711. This test ensures that there is no blockage of the vent pipes.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead, in combination with a high level sensor failure, to an over-pressurisation of the TT during refueling or during aft fuel transfer, possibly resulting in a TT rupture and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published Service Bulletin (SB) A330-28-3130, SB A340-28-4140 and SB A340-28-5061, to provide functional test instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time functional test of the TT overflow and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Corrective actions include a general visual inspection of the aperture leading to the flame arrestors (NACA duct), a detailed inspection of the flame arrestor, and blockage removal or repair of any discrepant NACA duct.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0270.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.

    The service information describes procedures for doing a trim tank overflow functional test, a general visual inspection of the aperture leading to the flame arrestors (NACA duct), a detailed inspection of the flame arrestor, and blockage removal or repair of discrepant NACA ducts. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 97 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Functional test 16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 $0 $1,360 $131,920

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspections that would be required based on the results of the proposed test. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Inspections 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170

    We have received no definitive data that would allow us to provide cost estimates for the blockage removal or repair of a discrepant NACA duct 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 proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0270; Product Identifier 2017-NM-133-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 31, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this AD, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 1 through 1711 inclusive.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213 airplanes.

    (5) Airbus Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

    (6) Airbus Model A340-541 airplanes.

    (7) Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that a functional test to ensure that there is no blockage of vent pipes was not done on the trim tank of certain airplanes during production. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct blocked vent pipes, which, in combination with a high level sensor failure, could lead to over-pressurization of the trim tank during refueling or aft fuel transfer. This could lead to trim tank rupture and consequent reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Functional Test

    Within 42 months after the effective date of this AD, do a trim tank overflow functional test in accordance with the instructions of the service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3), as applicable.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017.

    (h) Corrective Actions

    (1) If, during the functional test required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the trim tank maximum allowable pressure is exceeded: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's Design Organization Approval (DOA) to obtain instructions for corrective actions, and within the compliance time indicated in those instructions accomplish the corrective actions accordingly.

    (2) If, during the functional test required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the trim surge tank maximum allowable pressure is exceeded: Before further flight, do a general visual inspection of the aperture leading to the flame arrestors (NACA duct) and do a detailed inspection of the flame arrestor in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; as applicable.

    (3) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, any discrepancy (blockage or damage of the NACA duct) is found: Before further flight, accomplish the applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3130, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4140, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-5061, Revision 00, dated May 18, 2017; as applicable.

    (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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0152, dated August 17, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0270.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

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

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 30, 2018. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07647 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0169; Product Identifier 2017-NM-095-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-17, which applies to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes. AD 2015-02-17 requires revising the electrical emergency configuration procedure in the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to include procedures for deploying the ram air turbine manually to provide sufficient hydraulic power and avoid constant speed motor/generator (CSM/G) shedding. Since we issued AD 2015-02-17, we have determined that replacement or modification of the two flight warning computers (FWCs) is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD would add a requirement to replace or modify the two FWCs. This proposed AD would also remove airplanes from the applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact 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.

    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-2018-0169; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0169; Product Identifier 2017-NM-095-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We issued AD 2015-02-17, Amendment 39-18084 (80 FR 4762, January 29, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-17”), for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes. AD 2015-02-17 requires revising the electrical emergency configuration procedure in the Emergency Procedures section of the AFM to include procedures for deploying the ram air turbine manually to provide sufficient hydraulic power and avoid CSM/G shedding. AD 2015-02-17 resulted from an electrical load analysis that revealed that hydraulic power might not be sufficient to supply the CSM/G during slat/flap extension when only one engine is running. We issued AD 2015-02-17 to prevent CSM/G shedding in conjunction with the loss of the main electrical system, which could lead to the scenario where the flight crew is not clearly warned that the electrical system has switched on the battery and thus has a limited duration that would allow a safe landing.

    Actions Since AD 2015-02-17 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2015-02-17, we have determined that replacement or modification of the two FWCs is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0105R1, dated July 17, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The Constant Speed Motor/Generator (CSM/G), as installed on Airbus A330 aeroplanes, is qualified for an overload condition of 9.5 kVA [kilovolt-ampere] for 30 minutes. This duration is sufficient to perform safe landing and go-around. However, electrical load analysis revealed that the hydraulic power might not be sufficient to supply the CSM/G during slat/flap extension, when only one engine is running.

    This condition, if not corrected, and in conjunction with the loss of main system, could lead to a scenario where the crew is not clearly warned that the electrical system has switched on the battery and thus has a limited duration to support a safe landing.

    To initially address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued an Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Temporary Revision (TR) to amend the electrical emergency configuration “ELEC EMER CONFIG” procedure to require the pilot to deploy the ram air turbine manually before setting the Landing Recovery to “ON” position, which provides sufficient hydraulic power and avoids CSM/G shedding under worst-case operational conditions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0273 to require amendment of the AFM by incorporating the applicable Airbus TR.

    After finding that [EASA] AD 2014-0273 contained some incorrect and incomplete information, EASA issued AD 2014-0281 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2015-02-17], retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0273, which was superseded, but correcting the information related to pre-mod/pre Service Bulletin (SB) or post-mod/post SB aeroplane configurations.

    Since EASA AD 2014-0281 was issued, in order to improve the “ELEC EMER CONFIG” procedure, Airbus developed modifications to install improved Flight Warning Computer (FWC), which is embodied in production through Airbus modification (mod) 205228, and to be embodied in service with Airbus SB A330-31-3232 * * *.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0281, which is superseded, and requires installation of a software standard upgrade [or replacement] of the two FWCs and removal of the applicable AFM TR once the aeroplane is modified.

    Since EASA AD 2017-0105 was issued, it was identified that there was no need to require removal of applicable AFM TR, nor incorporation of a later AFM revision, as the contents are identical. This revised [EASA] AD deletes the requirement of paragraph (3) [of EASA AD 2017-0105].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0169.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-31-3232, Revision 01, dated February 14, 2017. The service information describes procedures for replacement or modification of the FWCs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI applies to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes. However, this proposed AD excludes airplanes on which Airbus modification 205228 has been embodied in production. Modification 205228 addresses the unsafe condition specified in this proposed AD. We have coordinated this difference with EASA.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 105 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • AFM revision (retained actions from AD 2015-02-17) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $8,925 FWC modification or replacement (new proposed action) 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 0 255 26,775

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-17, Amendment 39-18084 (80 FR 4762, January 29, 2015), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0169; Product Identifier 2017-NM-095-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 31, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-02-17, Amendment 39-18084 (80 FR 4762, January 29, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-17”).

    (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 manufacturer serial numbers, except those airplanes with Airbus modification 205228 embodied in production.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an electrical load analysis that revealed that hydraulic power might not be sufficient to supply the constant speed motor/generator (CSM/G) during slat/flap extension when only one engine is running. We are issuing this AD to prevent such a condition which, in conjunction with the loss of the main electrical system, could lead to the scenario where the flight crew is not clearly warned that the electrical system has switched on the battery and thus has a limited duration that would allow a safe landing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision, With a New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2015-02-17, with a new exception. Except for airplanes identified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 15 days after February 13, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-02-17), revise the Emergency Procedures section of the Airbus A330 AFM to include the information in the applicable Airbus temporary revision (TR) specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD into the AFM. Operate the airplane according to the procedures in the applicable TR. When the information in the applicable TR has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the TR, and the TR may be removed.

    (1) For airplanes in Airbus pre-modification 47930 configuration and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3067 configuration: Airbus A330/A340 AFM TR TR427, UPDATE OF ELEC—EMER CONFIG PROCEDURE, Issue 1.0, dated November 7, 2014.

    (2) For airplanes in Airbus post-modification 47930 configuration or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3067 configuration: Airbus A330/A340 AFM TR TR428, UPDATE OF ELEC—EMER CONFIG PROCEDURE, Issue 1.0, dated November 7, 2014.

    (h) New Airplanes Not Affected by the Retained AFM Revision

    Airplanes operated with an AFM that incorporates the information in Airbus EMERGENCY PROCEDURES/24-ELECTRICAL POWER/ELEC—EMER CONFIG Documentary Unit (DU) 00005218.0001001 (for airplanes in Airbus pre-modification 47930 configuration and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3067 configuration), or DU 00005218.0002001 (for airplanes in an Airbus post-modification 47930 configuration or post-Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3067 configuration), as applicable, are compliant with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided that the applicable DU is not removed from the AFM.

    (i) New Definitions

    (1) For the purposes of this AD, an affected FWC is a FWC standard lower than T7-0. An FWC that is not affected is a FWC standard T7-0 having part number (P/N) LA2E20202T70000, or higher standard.

    (2) For the purposes of this AD: Group 1 airplanes are those equipped with an affected FWC (as defined in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD) as of the effective date of this AD. Group 2 airplanes are those equipped with FWCs that are not affected (as defined in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD) as of the effective date of this AD.

    (j) New Requirement of This AD: FWC Replacement or Modification

    For Group 1 airplanes: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace or modify an affected FWC with an FWC that is not affected, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-31-3232, Revision 01, dated February 14, 2017.

    (k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no person may install an affected FWC on the modified airplane.

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an affected FWC on any airplane.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-31-3232, dated May 4, 2016.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

    (i) 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.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-02-17 are approved as an AMOC for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

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

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0105R1, dated July 17, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0169.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    (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: airworthiness.A330-A340[email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 22, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-06591 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0298; Product Identifier 2017-NM-179-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, and A320-233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of missing assembly hardware on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections and checks of the lower and upper THSA attachments and applicable related investigative and corrective actions; a one-time inspection of the THSA lower attachment and replacement as applicable; and, for certain airplanes, activation of the electrical load sensing device (ELSD) and concurrent modifications. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

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

    For United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS) service information identified in this AD, contact United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS): Goodrich Corporation, Actuation Systems, Stafford Road, Fordhouses, Wolverhampton WV10 7EH, England; phone: +44 (0) 1902 624938; fax: +44 (0) 1902 788100; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0298; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3223.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0298; Product Identifier 2017-NM-179-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0237, dated December 4, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA) of Airbus A320 Family aeroplanes has been rig-tested to check secondary load path behaviour in case of primary load path failure. In that configuration, the loads are transferred to the secondary load path, which should jam, preventing any Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer motion. The test results showed that the secondary load path did not jam as expected, preventing detection of the primary load path failure. To verify the integrity of the THSA primary load path and the correct installation of the THSA, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-27-1164, later revised multiple times, and SB A320-27A1179, and EASA issued AD 2006-0223 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-06-02, Amendment 39-14983 (72 FR 12072, March 15, 2007) (“AD 2007-06-02”)], AD 2007-0178 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2008-09-16, Amendment 39-15497 (73 FR 24160, May 2, 2008)(“AD 2008-09-16”)], AD 2008-0150, and AD 2014-0147, each AD superseding the previous one, requiring one-time and repetitive inspections.

    Since EASA AD 2014-0147 was issued, Airbus designed a new device, called Electrical Load Sensing Device (ELSD), to introduce a new mean of THSA upper secondary load path engagement detection. Consequently, Airbus issued several SBs (Airbus SB A320-27-1245, A320-27-1246, and A320-27-1247, depending on aeroplane configuration) providing instructions to install the wiring provision for ELSD installation and to install ELSD on the THSA, and SB A320-27-1248, providing instructions to activate the ELSD. Airbus also revised SB A320-27-1164, now at Revision 13, including instructions applicable for aircraft equipped with ELSD.

    Furthermore, following a visual inspection of the THSA, an operator reported that the THSA was found with a bush missing, inducing torqueing of the THSA lower attachment primary bolt against the THSA lug, which resulted in the application of a transverse force on the lug.

    Prompted by several other identical findings, Airbus released Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A27N010-17 to provide instructions for inspection and associated corrective actions.

    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0147, which is superseded, and requires installation of ELSD on the THSA, ELSD activation, and a one-time inspection to verify the bush presence on the THSA lower attachment.

    The unsafe condition is uncontrolled movement of the horizontal stabilizer as a result of the latent (undetected) failure of the THSA's primary load path and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    The required actions include repetitive inspections and checks of the lower and upper THSA attachments and applicable related investigative and corrective actions; a one-time inspection of the THSA lower attachment and replacement as applicable; and, for certain airplanes, activation of the ELSD and concurrent modifications.

    Related investigative actions include an inspection of the upper THSA attachment, an inspection of the lower attachment, and a check of the upper and lower clearance between the secondary nut trunnion and the junction plate. Corrective actions include replacement of the THSA and repair.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0298.

    Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2007-06-02 and AD 2008-09-16

    Accomplishment of the certain proposed actions would terminate all requirements of AD 2007-06-02 and AD 2008-09-16.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, including AOT Appendix_A27N010-17. This service information describes the procedure for a one-time general visual inspection of the THSA lower attachment to measure the gap between the THSA lower attachment tab washer and attachment plates and replacement of the THSA lower attachment if the measured gap is less than 0.5 mm. The replacement includes doing an inspection of the THSA parts to confirm the bushing is missing and applicable corrective actions (i.e., repair).

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the upper THSA attachments for correct installation, cracks, damage and metallic particles; a general visual inspection of the upper attachment for correct installation; a check of the clearance between secondary nut trunnions and junction plates and correct installation of the lower THSA attachment; a general visual inspection of the THSA ball screw to check for the absence of dents; and applicable related investigative and corrective actions.

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1245, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017. This service information describes the procedure to modify the wiring provisions for the ELSD.

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1246, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016. This service information describes the procedures to adapt the wiring provision of the ELSD and THSA to accommodate the correct installation of the ELSD.

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1247, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017. This service information describes the procedure to modify the upper attachment secondary load path of the THSA to accommodate the correct installation of the ELSD.

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017. This service information describes the procedure to activate the ELSD.

    UTAS has issued United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Aerospace Systems Repair Instructions RF-DSC-1361-17, Version 00, including Appendix A, dated May 24, 2017. This service information describes repair instructions to follow if the bushing is missing as specified in AOT A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017.

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

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,180 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspections, Check, Activation, and Modifications Up to 59 work-hours x $85 per hour = $5,015 Up to $15,353 Up to $20,368 Up to $24,034,240.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Replacement 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 $240,000 $240,935

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0298; Product Identifier 2017-NM-179-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 31, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2007-06-02, Amendment 39-14983 (72 FR 12072, March 15, 2007) (“AD 2007-06-02”) and AD 2008-09-16, Amendment 39-15497 (73 FR 24160, May 2, 2008) (“AD 2008-09-16”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, and A318-122 airplanes; Model A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, and A319-133 airplanes; Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, and A320-233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes; certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of missing assembly hardware on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). We are issuing this AD to address uncontrolled movement of the horizontal stabilizer as a result of the latent (undetected) failure of the THSA's primary load path and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Actions: Lower THSA Attachment

    Before exceeding 20 months since airplane first flight, or since airplane first flight following last THSA replacement, or within 20 months after the last inspection of the lower THSA attachment as specified in the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 02 up to Revision 09, whichever occurs latest, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD concurrently, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016, Repeat the actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20 months.

    (1) Check the clearance between the secondary nut trunnions and the junction plates at the lower THSA attachment.

    (2) Do a general visual inspection of the lower THSA attachment for correct installation of attachment parts.

    (3) Do a general visual inspection of the ball screw for dents.

    (h) Repetitive Inspections: Upper THSA Attachment

    Before exceeding 10 months since airplane first flight, or since airplane first flight following last THSA replacement, or within 10 months after the last inspection of the upper THSA attachment as specified in the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 02 up to Revision 09, whichever occurs latest, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD concurrently, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 months.

    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the upper THSA attachment for correct installation, cracks, damage, and metallic particles.

    (2) Do a general visual inspection of the upper attachment for correct installation of attachment parts.

    (i) Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    If, during any action required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected (e.g., any installation deviation, cracking, damage, metallic particle, or dent is found), before further flight, accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016; except as required by paragraph (o)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Reporting Requirements for Actions Required by Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD

    In case of any findings during any action required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, report the inspection results to Airbus using the applicable “Inspection Reporting Sheet” of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. If operators have reported findings as part of obtaining any corrective actions approved by the EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA), operators are not required to report those findings as specified in this paragraph.

    (1) If the inspection or check was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection or check was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (k) One-Time Inspection and Replacement

    For airplanes on which the THSA has been replaced or reinstalled since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish a detailed inspection of the THSA lower attachment gap clearances, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, including AOT Appendix_A27N010-17. If the measured gap is less than 0.5 mm, before further flight, replace the THSA, including doing an inspection of the THSA parts to confirm the bushing is missing and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, including AOT Appendix_A27N010-17; and United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Aerospace Systems Repair Instructions RF-DSC-1361-17, Version 00, including Appendix A, dated May 24, 2017, as applicable, except as required by paragraph (o)(2) of this AD.

    (l) Definition of Groups

    For the purpose of this AD: Group 1 airplanes are those that, on the effective date of this AD, do not have the electrical load sensing device (ELSD) activated. Group 2 airplanes are those that, on the effective date of this AD, have the ELSD activated.

    (m) Activation and Concurrent Modification

    For Group 1 airplanes (see paragraph (l) of this AD): Do the actions specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Within 4 years after the effective date of this AD, activate the ELSD of the THSA on the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1248, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017.

    (2) Concurrently with or before the activation of the ELSD required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, modify the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1245, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1246, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016; as applicable.

    (n) Concurrent Requirement for Airplanes Equipped With THSAs That Do Not Have ELSDs

    For an airplane equipped with a THSA having a part number listed in Figure 1 to paragraphs (n), (p), and (q) of this AD: Concurrently with or before the activation required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, modify the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1247, Revision 00, dated March 6, 2017.

    EP16AP18.025 (o) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 13, dated August 8, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (v)(2) of this AD.

    (2) Where Airbus AOT A27N010-17, Revision 01, dated October 17, 2017, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (v)(2) of this AD.

    (p) Parts Installation

    Do not install on any airplane a THSA with a part number listed in Figure 1 to paragraphs (n), (p), and (q) of this AD and do not deactivate the ELSD at the times specified in paragraph (p)(1) or (p)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) Group 1 airplanes (see paragraph (l) of this AD): After modification of the airplane as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

    (2) Group 2 airplanes (see paragraph (l) of this AD): From the effective date of this AD.

    (q) Method of Compliance

    An airplane on which Airbus modification 155955 has been embodied in production is considered compliant with paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (n) of this AD, provided that it is determined that no THSA with a part number listed in Figure 1 to paragraphs (n), (p), and (q) of this AD is installed on that airplane, and that the ELSD remains activated. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination, provided those records can be relied upon for that purpose.

    (r) Airplanes Not Affected by the Requirements of Paragraph (k) of This AD

    The inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD is not required for airplanes on which the THSA has been installed as specified in the instructions of Airbus A320 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 27-44-51-400-001, dated May 2017, or subsequent.

    (s) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for initial actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1164, Revision 10, dated March 2017, 2014; Revision 11, dated December 15, 2014; or Revision 12, dated March 23, 2016.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A27N010-17, dated March 27, 2017.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (m)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1246, dated March 20, 2015.

    (t) No Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections in This AD

    Accomplishment on an airplane of the one-time inspection and replacement, as applicable, specified in paragraph (k) of this AD and the modifications specified in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (n) of this AD, as applicable, do not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for that airplane.

    (u) Terminating Action for Other FAA ADs

    Accomplishing the initial actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, and accomplishing the applicable actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, terminates all requirements of AD 2007-06-02 and AD 2008-09-16.

    (v) 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 (x)(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 DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (4) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as specified in paragraph in (o)(1) of this AD, if any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (w) Special Flight Permits

    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.

    (x) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0237, dated December 4, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0298.

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

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

    (4) For UTAS service information identified in this AD, contact United Technologies Corporation Aerospace Systems (UTAS): Goodrich Corporation, Actuation Systems, Stafford Road, Fordhouses, Wolverhampton WV10 7EH, England; phone: +44 (0) 1902 624938; fax: +44 (0) 1902 788100; email: [email protected]com; internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.

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

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 30, 2018. Chris Spangenberg, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07656 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0044; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-35] RIN. 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Creswell, OR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Hobby Field, Creswell, OR, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action would ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0044; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-35, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Farnsworth, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone (206) 231-2244.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0044; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-35”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hobby Field, Creswell, OR, within a 2.1-mile radius of Hobby Field and within 1.8 miles each side of the 354° bearing from the airport extending to 7.1 miles north of the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM OR E5 Creswell, OR [New] Hobby Field, OR (Lat. 43°55′51″ N, long. 123°00′24″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 2.1-mile radius of Hobby Field, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 354° bearing from the airport extending to 7.1 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 3, 2018. Stephanie C. Harris, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07650 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1200; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-23] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Reedley, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Reedley Municipal Airport, Reedley, CA, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action would ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1200; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-23, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Farnsworth, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone (206) 231-2244.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1200; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-23) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations/gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-1200; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-23”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone (206) 231-2253.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace to support the RNAV procedures at Reedley Municipal Airport, Reedley, CA. The proposed airspace would extend upward from 700 feet above the surface at Reedley Municipal Airport within 2 miles east and 4 miles west of the 168° and 348° bearings from the airport extending to 6.1 miles south and 6.5 miles north of the airport, respectively.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP CA E5 Reedley, CA [New] Reedley Municipal Airport, CA (Lat. 36°40′16″ N, long. 119°27′04″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 2 miles east and 4 miles west of the 168° and 348° bearings from the Reedley Municipal Airport extending to 6.1 miles south and 6.5 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 03, 2018. Stephanie C. Harris, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07652 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0128; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-3] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Aberdeen, MD AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Phillips Army Air Field, (AAF), Aberdeen, MD. This action would accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of Aberdeen non-directional beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approaches. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport, and would replace the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal descriptions of associated Class D and E airspace.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0128; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

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

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2018-0128 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-3) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0128; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

    Amending Class D airspace at Phillips AAF, Aberdeen, MD, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airfield; and

    Amending Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area to within a 4.4-mile radius of Phillips AAF, and within 2 miles each side of the 028° bearing from Phillips AAF, extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 9 miles northeast of the airport. The northeast extension from the Aberdeen NDB would be removed due to the decommissioning of the navigation aid and cancelation of the NDB approach.

    The geographic coordinates of Phillips AAF would be adjusted in the associated airspace areas to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    In addition, an editorial change would be made replacing the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace legal descriptions.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA MD D Aberdeen, MD [Amended] Phillips AAF, MD (Lat. 39°27′58″ N, long. 76°10′07″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Phillips AAF; excluding that airspace in Restricted Area R-4001A when it is in effect. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The specific date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA MD E4 Aberdeen, MD [Amended] Phillips AAF, Aberdeen, MD (Lat. 39°27′58″ N, long. 76°10′07″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles each side of the 028° bearing from Phillips AAF, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 9 miles northeast of the airport; excluding that airspace in Restricted Area R-4001A when it is in effect. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The specific date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA MD E5 Aberdeen, MD Phillips AAF, MD (Lat. 39°27′58″ N, long. 76°10′07″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Phillips AAF and within an 8.3-mile radius of Phillips AAF extending clockwise from the 260° bearing to the 030° bearing from the airport, excluding the airspace in Restricted Areas R-4001A and R-4001B when they are in effect.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 5, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07649 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0139; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-1] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lyons, KS AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lyons-Rice County Municipal Airport, Lyons, KS. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Lyons non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach, and would enhance the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. Additionally, the geographic coordinates are being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0139; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0139; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lyons-Rice County Municipal Airport, Lyons, KS, and the geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning and cancellation of the Lyons NDB, and NDB approach, which would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE KS E5 Lyons, KS [Amended] Lyons-Rice County Municipal Airport, KS (Lat. 38°20′31″ N, long. 98°13′38″ W)

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 5, 2018. Christopher L. Southerland, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07664 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 790 [Docket No. FHWA-2013-0018] RIN 2125-AF63 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The FHWA withdraws its August 4, 2014, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to establish a weighting factor of 5.0, to be used in determining the weighted population of fine particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment areas.

    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) language for the CMAQ Program funds that must be obligated for PM2.5 projects in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas (referred to in this document as a “set-aside”) instructs that the set-aside be calculated based on “weighted population” in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Because the statute did not specify the values to be applied to determine the weighted population, FHWA had previously initiated a rulemaking to establish the weighting factor. After reviewing the record in this matter, FHWA withdraws the NPRM.

    DATES:

    The NPRM “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program,” RIN 2125-2013-0018, published August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45146), is withdrawn as of April 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cecilia Ho, Office of Natural Environment, 202-366-9862, or Ms. Diane Mobley, Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1366, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access and Filing

    This document, the 2014 NPRM, and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at https://www.federalregister.gov.

    Background

    The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914) established the CMAQ Program. The program provides funding to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter (i.e., nonattainment areas), and for areas that were out of compliance but have now met the standards (i.e., maintenance areas). The program was reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107) in 1998, under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144) in 2005, under MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405) in 2012, and most recently under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312) in 2015.

    Section 1113(b)(6) of MAP-21 amended 23 U.S.C. 149 by adding subsection (k)(1) requiring priority use of CMAQ funds in areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for the PM2.5 NAAQS.1 Specifically, 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1) states:

    1 The EPA has set both an annual and a 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 (40 CFR 50.7).

    For any State that has a nonattainment or maintenance area for fine particulate matter, an amount equal to 25 percent of the funds apportioned to each State under section 104(b)(4) for a nonattainment or maintenance area that are based all or in part on the weighted population of such area in fine particulate matter nonattainment shall be obligated to projects that reduce such fine particulate matter emissions in such area, including diesel retrofits.

    Although the statute requires that the PM2.5 set-aside must be calculated based on “weighted population,” it was not specific regarding what that weighting factor should be. Because the language did not specify values to be applied to determine the weighted population, FHWA must make that determination as the Agency implementing the CMAQ Program.

    Since October 1, 2012, a State's CMAQ apportionment has been determined by multiplying a State's total amount for all apportioned programs under MAP-21 by the share of the State's total Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 apportionments for the CMAQ Program apportionment relative to the State's total apportionments under all programs for FY 2009, based on the statutory formula at the time.2

    2 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(4).

    For the PM2.5 set-aside calculation, FHWA follows the prior statutory approach to weighted population formulas. To determine the 25 percent that States must set-aside for PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas, FHWA must determine weighted populations for ozone, CO, and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. The weighted population numbers provide a means to reflect the severity of the air quality problems among the populations of the areas in nonattainment and maintenance for ozone, CO, and PM2.5. The FHWA is using the weighting factors in the most recent statutory apportionment formula from SAFETEA-LU for ozone and CO. However, since MAP-21 and prior legislation did not include a PM2.5 weighting factor in CMAQ apportionment formulas, FHWA continues to use the weighted population formula, which was used in prior statutes, to determine the PM2.5 set-aside under MAP-21.

    The use of the previous weighted population formula for the PM2.5 set-aside calculation is based on the congressional description of the set-aside and requires two main mathematical steps, with multiple sub-steps. The PM2.5 set-aside calculation is based on the State's net CMAQ apportionment, which is the State's total CMAQ apportionment minus required set-asides for the Transportation Alternatives Program and State Planning & Research. The first main step is to determine the amount of the State's net CMAQ apportionment that is attributable to PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance. County-level weighted populations are calculated by taking the population in each of the State's counties with a nonattainment or maintenance area and multiplying by the weighting factors for each pollutant for which the county is in nonattainment or maintenance status. The State's total weighted population for all three criteria pollutants (ozone, CO, and PM2.5) is determined by combining the weighted populations of all counties in nonattainment or maintenance for any of the pollutants. The State's PM2.5 weighted population is determined by combining the weighted populations of all counties in nonattainment or maintenance for PM2.5. The State's PM2.5 weighted population is divided by the State's total weighted population to determine the percentage of the State's total weighted population attributable all or in part to PM2.5. The net CMAQ apportionment amount then is multiplied by the PM2.5 percentage to determine the amount of the net CMAQ apportionment amount attributable to PM2.5 pollutants. The second main step is to multiply the resulting number by 25 percent to arrive at the PM2.5 set-aside under 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1). States are to spend that set-aside only on PM2.5 projects, as chosen by the States, in the nonattainment or maintenance areas for PM2.5. This is not meant to be a limit on the amount of funds to be spent; areas may spend additional CMAQ funds above the 25 percent set-aside on PM2.5 projects.

    To calculate the weighted population of an area under 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1), FHWA uses updated populations based on the most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau for each county, or part of a county, that is designated nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, CO, or PM2.5. The U.S. Census Bureau provides annual estimates of county populations, and FHWA historically has used this jurisdictional level to determine CMAQ apportionments. Updated populations are then given a relative value—a weighting—that corresponds to the nonattainment designation and severity of the criteria pollutant classification of the area, as established under the CAA.

    Beginning in 2013, FHWA implemented the MAP-21 changes by an administrative determination to use a weighting factor of 1.2 for PM2.5 areas. The justification for this determination was outlined in the August 2014 NPRM.

    The FHWA issued a NPRM on August 4, 2014, proposing to set a weighting factor of 5.0 for PM2.5 areas. The FHWA solicited comments on this weighting factor and specifically requested comments on whether setting the weighting factor at 5.0 may present any implementation concerns for States or local transportation agencies, and if so, how FHWA could address those concerns. The FHWA received 28 3 sets of comments on the NPRM.

    3 The docket shows receipt of 31 comments; however, 3 sets were duplicates.

    NPRM Comments Generally

    One State DOT commented that a weighting factor of 5.0 does not fully consider the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA's analysis predicted that the implementation of Federal controls will ensure more than 90 percent of areas will attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the year 2020. The EPA expects that fewer than 10 counties, out of the more than 3,000 counties in the U.S., will need to consider any local actions to reduce fine particle pollution in order to meet the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by 2020. The rest of the country can rely on air quality improvements from Federal rules already on the books to meet this new standard. It is not clear to the commenter that a proposed weighting factor of 5.0 sufficiently considered this EPA information and the associated reduction in potentially harmful health impacts.

    One metropolitan planning organization (MPO) commented that setting the weighting factor at 5.0 could inhibit the region's ability to meet existing reduction commitments for ground-level ozone and place a fast-growing region at a disadvantage for dealing with increased congestion. A weighting factor of 5.0 does not take into account resources available at the State and local level. The commenter is concerned that increasing the PM2.5 weighting factor from the interim value of 1.2 to 5.0 will significantly reduce the flexibility of a State or region to develop air quality projects that best meet the needs of the affected local population.

    One State DOT disagreed with FHWA's characterization of the impact of moving from a weighting factor of 1.2 to a weighting factor of 5.0 as producing a “modest difference.” The commenter pointed out that the amount of the set-aside shown in an example set forth in the NPRM 4 increases by more than 15 percent. If the weighting factor were to be increased from the current 1.2 to the proposed 5.0, the amount required to be set-aside for the 7 counties in Michigan would increase from $11.5 million to $15.6 million, an increase of more than $4.1 million per year, or roughly 36 percent. Every dollar and the strings attached to each dollar, matter greatly to the State.

    The comments submitted by a transportation association and supported by 10 State DOTs and other transportation organizations recommended that the final rule provide the specific weightings to be used for each possible combination of nonattainment and maintenance areas. They commented that the following combinations were not addressed in the proposed rule, and should be added to the final rule: (1) Ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas that are also designated as PM2.5 maintenance areas; (2) CO nonattainment or maintenance areas that are also designated as PM2.5 nonattainment areas; (3) CO nonattainment or maintenance areas that are also designated as PM2.5 maintenance areas; (4) Ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas that are also designated as CO nonattainment or maintenance areas and are designated as PM2.5 nonattainment areas; and (5) Ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas that are also designated as CO nonattainment or maintenance areas and are designated as PM2.5 maintenance areas. These combinations should be addressed specifically in the final rule even if the weighting for one or more of the individual pollutants (e.g., CO) is 1.0. The benefit of specifying the weighting factor for each possible combination is that it ensures clarity and certainty in implementation of the rule.

    The same transportation association with the supporting State DOTs also expressed their opposition to the proposed 5.0 weighting. They believed that the reasoning presented for selecting the weighting factor of 5.0 is inadequately supported in the proposed rulemaking. They commented that increasing the PM2.5 weighting factor from 1.2 to 5.0 will significantly reduce the flexibility of a State or region to develop air quality projects that best meet the needs of the affected local population. They recommended retaining the existing weighting of 1.2 for the following reasons: (1) The earlier Senate version of MAP-21 included a 1.2 weighting factor for an apportionment formula for areas designated nonattainment or maintenance for PM2.5: (2) The weighting factors used prior to MAP-21 (to determine CMAQ apportionments) ranged from 1.0 for CO to 1.4 for the highest ozone classification—as the NPRM notes, a weighting factor of 1.2 is in the midpoint value of that range, and a reasonable inference is that Congress intended for FHWA to adopt a weighting factor within the range of those already in use; and (3) The factor only establishes a minimum investment level for PM2.5 projects. A State can invest additional funding in such projects if it determines this is the best use of its CMAQ funding. They do not believe there is sufficient support for concluding that PM2.5 should be assigned a weighting factor that is twice as great as the other two pollutants combined. Such a factor has no basis in the legislation nor does the scientific information cited in the NPRM provide a compelling basis for assigning such a weighting. They further commented that even if FHWA concluded that the highest existing factor should be doubled, there is an error in the logic proposed in this NPRM. The highest possible weighting factor should be 1.2 multiplied by 1.4, or 1.68 for an area that is nonattainment or maintenance for CO and is also extreme nonattainment for ozone. Thus, if the intent is to double the highest possible weighting factor under current law and policy, the weighting factor should be no higher than 3.36.

    In the event that a weighting factor of 1.2 is not retained for PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the commenters recommended adopting a weighting factor no higher than the current highest weighting factor of 1.4 for “extreme” ozone nonattainment areas. This approach would ensure that the weighting for PM2.5 nonattainment areas is within the range contemplated by Congress when it enacted MAP-21 while also reflecting the heightened severity of PM2.5 health effects.

    Five commenters (two State DOTs and three MPOs) support FHWA setting the PM2.5 weighting factor at 5.0. These commenters cited the serious health impacts associated with PM2.5 emissions. They agreed that setting the weighting factor at 5.0 for PM2.5 set-aside calculations was intended to improve and benefit overall public health by targeting PM2.5 emissions. The commenters also agreed that it is reasonable to set a weighting factor for PM2.5 that is higher than the weighting factor for ozone and CO given the potential health impacts.

    One commenter suggests that an even higher weighting factor (higher than 5.0) for PM2.5 nonattainment areas could be supported if cost effectiveness of CMAQ projects were taken into account. For example, the Carl Moyer Program administered by the California Air Resources Board has, for many years, taken the health impacts and toxicity of PM2.5 into account in its cost effectiveness formula that is used to determine which projects are funded. They urged FHWA to consider the rationale for a higher weighting of PM2.5 emission reductions relative to nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, and CO, as well.

    One MPO commented that a wide variety of projects eligible under the CMAQ Program reduce PM2.5 as well as other criteria pollutants. The flexibility that FHWA has provided to select projects that demonstrate criteria pollutant emissions for CMAQ funding is beneficial and appreciated. This commenter requests that FHWA continue this flexibility with respect to the types of projects that reduce PM2.5 and are counted toward the obligation targets for such projects. This allows each region to effectively target investment opportunities specific to its unique strategies to meet air quality as well as other planning objectives.

    FHWA Decision To Withdraw the NPRM

    Based on the current record, including comments received in response to the NPRM indicating that the 1.2 weighting factor was sufficient and provided States necessary flexibilities, FHWA has decided to withdraw the August 2014 NPRM and, accordingly, cancels the plans to develop a final rule. If FHWA determines changes to the weighting factor currently in use are necessary and advisable in the future, a new rulemaking would be initiated that will incorporate any appropriate recommendations from the comments received through this rulemaking. The FHWA will continue to use the weighting factor in use since 2013. The NPRM proposing to establish a weighting factor to be used in determining the weighted population of PM2.5 nonattainment areas are withdrawn.

    Issued on: April 10, 2018. Brandye L. Hendrickson, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07906 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0270] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Ocean City, MD. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during an air show on May 23, 2018. This action would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0270 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. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; 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 February 21, 2018, the Town of Ocean City, MD, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Canadian Snowbirds Air Show Featurette from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on May 23, 2018. Details of the event were provided to the Coast Guard on March 7, 2018. The air show consists of a single public performance by the Canadian Forces 431 Air Demonstration Squadron conducting a 40-minute aerobatic performance of high-speed, low-flying fixed-wing military aircraft operating within a Federal Aviation Administration-designated air show box, located above the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Ocean City, MD. Hazards from the air show include participants operating adjacent to a designated navigation channel and interfering with vessels intending to operate within that channel, as well as aircraft mishaps that involve crashing during an air show aerobatic performance conducted above navigable waters located near the shoreline. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the air show would be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Ocean City, MD.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons and vessels on certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. on May 23, 2018. The safety zone would cover all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, within an area bounded by the following coordinates: Commencing at a point near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′33.3″ N, longitude 075°04′37.7″ W, thence eastward to latitude 38°20′24.9″ N, longitude 075°04′01.5″ W, thence southward to latitude 38°19′18.4″ N, longitude 075°04′26.9″ W, thence westward to latitude 38°19′27.0″ N, longitude 075°05′03.0″ W, thence northward to point of origin, located adjacent to Ocean City, MD. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters within a rectangular area approximately 7,000 feet in length and 3,000 feet in width, parallel to the shoreline at Ocean City, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons and vessels on the specified navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 2 p.m. air show. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. 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 s and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and day-of-week of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small designated area of the North Atlantic Ocean for less than 3 hours during a Wednesday before Memorial Day when vessel traffic is normally low. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine band channel 16 to provide information about the safety zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone 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 Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 3 hours that would prohibit vessel movement within a small portion of the North Atlantic Ocean. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add §  165.T05-0270 to read as follows:
    §  165.T05-0270 Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, within an area bounded by the following coordinates: Commencing at a point near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′33.3″ N, longitude 075°04′37.7″ W, thence eastward to latitude 38°20′24.9″ N, longitude 075°04′01.5″ W, thence southward to latitude 38°19′18.4″ N, longitude 075°04′26.9″ W, thence westward to latitude 38°19′27.0″ N, longitude 075°05′03.0″ W, thence northward to point of origin, located adjacent to Ocean City, MD. All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:

    (1) Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcement of the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C apply to the safety zone created by this section.

    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.

    (2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.

    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone shall obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative. To request permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region and or designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted to enter the safety zone, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative and proceed as directed while within the zone.

    (4) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. on May 23, 2018.

    Dated: April 9, 2018. Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07825 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0914] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Taylor Bayou Turning Basin, Port Arthur, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the upper reaches of Taylor Bayou Turning Basin in Port Arthur, TX. This action is necessary to provide protection for the levee and temporary protection wall located at the north end of the turning basin until permanent repairs can be effected. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0914 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 rulemaking, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-719-5086, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port, Port Arthur DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 14, 2017, the Coast Guard established a temporary safety zone for the upper reaches of Taylor Bayou Basin in Port Arthur, TX.1 That emergency action was necessary to protect the damaged flood protection levee and bulkhead during stabilization efforts. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the local drainage district initiated and completed emergency repairs to protect against potential storm surge during hurricane season. Permanent repairs to the flood protection wall are now necessary. They are extensive and are expected to take approximately five to seven years. Damage to the temporary repairs would make the surrounding community susceptible to flooding during storm surge or extreme tide events that may endanger persons and property in the surrounding community. The USACE has requested, and the Coast Guard concurs, that protection measures must be instituted until permanent repairs are completed.

    1 See the temporary final rule titled Safety Zone; Taylor Bayou Turning Basin, Port Arthur, TX, Docket No. USCG-2017-0797.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of the surrounding community and to protect persons, vessels, and the environment during permanent repairs to the Taylor Bayou Turning Basin flood protection wall. Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone until permanent repairs are completed. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Taylor Bayou Turning Basin north of latitude 29°50′57.45″ N until January 31, 2023. The duration of the zone is intended to endure the safety of persons, vessels, and the environment until permanent repairs to the flood protection system are completed. No person or vessel would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur (COTP) or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and entities impacted by the safety zone. The safety zone affects approximately 350-yards of Taylor Bayou Turning Basin north of latitude 29°50′57.45″ N. Only one facility receives vessels within this zone and that facility would be permitted to receive vessels based on previously agreed to maneuvering calculations and plans.

    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 safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on vessel owners or operators.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this ride 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 rulemaking 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 retaliated 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 rulemaking 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 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 rulemaking 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rulemaking under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary 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 proposed rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone that would prohibit persons and vessels from entry into waters on the upper reaches of Taylors Bayou Turning Basin unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Port Arthur (COTP) or a designated representative. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60] 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 environment 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 this 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 our 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 165

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.2.

    2. Add § 165.T08-0914 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08—0914 Safety Zone; Taylor Bayou Turning Basin, Port Arthur, TX

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: navigable waters of Taylor Bayou Turning Basin north of latitude 29°50′57.45″ N. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.

    (b) Definition. As used in this section, a designated representative means a Coast Guard coxswain, officer or petty officer, or a federal, state or local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Port Arthur (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23 of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

    (2) To request permission to enter, contact COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16, or contact Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Port Arthur on VHF-FM channel 65A or by telephone at 409-719-5070. Those persons or vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful directions given by the COTP or a designated representative.

    (d) Enforcement date. This section will be enforced from June 1, 2018 through January 31, 2023.

    Dated: March 14, 2018. Jacqueline Twomey, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07865 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 202 [Docket No. 2016-03] Mandatory Deposit of Electronic-Only Books AGENCY:

    U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 407 of the Copyright Act requires the mandatory deposit with the Copyright Office (“Office”) of all works published in the United States, within three months of publication, for use by the Library of Congress (“Library”). The Office is allowed to exclude certain classes of works from this requirement. In a 2010 interim rule, the Office codified its longstanding practice of excluding from the mandatory deposit requirements all electronic works that are not otherwise available in a physical format (i.e., “electronic works published in the United States and available only online.”). The 2010 interim rule created one exception to this general rule for electronic-only serials, which are subject to mandatory deposit, if they are published in the United States and if they are affirmatively demanded by the Office. On May 17, 2016, the Office published a Notice of Inquiry seeking public comment on potential regulatory changes that would make the interim rule final and would make electronic-only books and sound recordings subject to mandatory deposit requirements by way of the same demand process. Based on the responses to the NOI and input from the Library, the Office proposes revising its regulations to make the interim rule final, and to make electronic-only books published in the United States subject to the mandatory deposit requirements if they are affirmatively demanded by the Office. The proposed rule does not address mandatory deposit of electronic-only sound recordings.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the regulations.gov system for the submission and posting of public comments in this proceeding. All comments are to be submitted electronically through regulations.gov. Specific instructions for submitting comments are available on the Copyright Office website at https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/ebookdeposit. If electronic submission of comments is not feasible due to lack of access to a computer and/or the internet, please contact the Office using the contact information below for special instructions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy P. Abramson, Assistant General Counsel, by email at [email protected] or John R. Riley at [email protected] Both can be reached by telephone at 202-707-8350.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background A. Mandatory Deposit Under the Copyright Act Generally

    The Copyright Act's “mandatory deposit” requirement, section 407 of title 17, provides that the owner of copyright or the exclusive right of publication in a work published in the United States must, within three months of publication, deposit two complete copies of the “best edition” of the work with the Copyright Office, or, in the case of sound recordings, two complete phonorecords of the best edition, together with any printed or other visually perceptible material published with the phonorecords.1 The Register may issue a written demand for works at any time after they have been published in the United States.2 Failure to make the required deposit after a written demand is made by the Register may subject such person on whom the demand was made to monetary liability.3 Compliance with this section is not a condition of copyright protection, but the Copyright Act provides that deposits made under section 407 may be used to satisfy the registration deposit provisions under section 408, if all other registration conditions are met.4

    1 17 U.S.C. 407(a); see generally 37 CFR 202.19.

    2 17 U.S.C. 407(d).

    3See id.

    4Id. at 408(b). Although section 408 states that copies deposited pursuant to the mandatory deposit provision in section 407 may be used to satisfy the registration deposit requirement in section 408, in practice the Office treats copies of works submitted for registration as satisfying the mandatory deposit requirement (assuming the deposit requirements are the same), and not vice versa. 37 CFR 202.19(f)(1), 202.20(e); see 43 FR 763, 768 (Jan. 4, 1978).

    Deposits made to satisfy section 407 are for the “use or disposition of the Library of Congress” and must satisfy the “best edition” requirement. That is, such deposits must be of the edition, published in the United States at any time before the date of deposit, that the “Library of Congress determines to be most suitable for its purposes.” 5 These requirements are governed by section 202.19 and Appendix B of part 202 of the Office's regulations, which set forth rules and criteria, respectively, for the different types of works subject to the mandatory deposit requirement.

    5 17 U.S.C. 101; see also 17 U.S.C. 407(b).

    Certain categories of works are not subject to mandatory deposit. By definition, mandatory deposit requirements do not apply to unpublished works and foreign works that have not been published in any form in the United States. In addition, under section 407(c) of the Copyright Act, the Register of Copyrights can, by regulation, exempt any categories of material from section 407's mandatory deposit requirements or demand only one copy or phonorecord to provide a “satisfactory archival record of a work.” With section 407, Congress balanced different, important interests, including the “value of the copies or phonorecords to the collections of the Library of Congress” and “the burdens and costs to the copyright owner of providing [copies of the works].” 6 Under this authority, the Register has adopted a series of exemptions from the mandatory deposit requirement.7

    6 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 151 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5767.

    7See 37 CFR 202.19(c).

    B. Regulations Regarding Mandatory Deposit of Electronic-Only Materials

    In 2010, the Office codified its longstanding practice of excluding from mandatory deposit requirements all “[e]lectronic works published in the United States and available only online.” 8 (The Office is now referring to this category of works as “electronic-only” works, to better distinguish it from works that are published in both electronic and physical formats. The Office is also proposing changes to the regulations to adopt this clearer nomenclature.) The Office, however, also adopted an exception to this exemption, putting in place a demand-based mandatory deposit provision for electronic-only serials.9 An electronic-only serial is “an electronic work published in the United States and available only online, issued or intended to be issued on an established schedule in successive parts bearing numerical or chronological designations, without subsequent alterations, and intended to be continued indefinitely.” This category includes “periodicals, newspapers, annuals, and the journals, proceedings, transactions, and other publications of societies.” 10 The 2010 Interim Rule also stated that, any additional categories of electronic-only works would first be “identified as being subject to demand” through a rulemaking with notice and comment before the Office issues any actual demands for such works.11

    8 75 FR 3863, 3869 (Jan. 25, 2010) (“2010 Interim Rule”); 37 CFR 202.19(c)(5).

    9 75 FR at 3865-66.

    10 37 CFR 202.19(b)(4). “Electronic works” are themselves defined as “works fixed and published solely in an electronic format.” 37 CFR 202.24(c)(3).

    11 75 FR at 3866.

    C. 2016 Notice of Inquiry Regarding Expansion of Demand-Based Deposit

    As described in-depth in this rulemaking's 2016 NOI,12 the Office is interested in finalizing the 2010 Interim Rule, as well as adding a new category of online works—electronic-only books—to the demand-based mandatory deposit scheme. Although the NOI included online sound recordings as a potential additional category of works that could be subject to the mandatory deposit requirement, the Office has not included electronic-only sound recordings within the rule proposed in this current rulemaking. The Copyright Office is postponing further consideration of this issue until after the conclusion of the present rulemaking.

    12 81 FR 30505, 30506-08 (May 17, 2016).

    In the Office's NOI, it sought comments on four topics. First, the public was invited to opine on the efficacy of the 2010 Interim Rule, including whether it adequately serves the needs of the Library and other affected parties and whether it could serve as a good framework for adding additional categories of electronic works to the mandatory deposit system. Second, the NOI solicited comments on the Library's access policy as applied to both electronic-only serials and, potentially, to electronic-only books. The third topic asked about “information technology, security, and/or other requirements” that should apply to the receipt and storage of, and access to, electronic-only books. Fourth, the NOI requested comments on how the “best edition” requirements should be applied to the mandatory deposit of electronic-only books. The Copyright Office received fifteen comments on the proposed changes. While some of the comments praised the efforts to collect more works in the identified categories, others expressed reservations.

    D. 2018 Rule Regarding Public Access To Deposited Works

    In January 2018, the Office also issued a final rule updating its regulations governing the group registration and mandatory deposit of newspapers.13 Under that rule, newspaper publishers can submit groups of newspapers issues, in electronic format, pursuant to the group registration option.14 Copies of those newspaper issues are then delivered to the Library for its collections, and the rule specifies that those copies satisfy the mandatory deposit regulations.15 As part of that rule, the Office codified public access restrictions in a new section 202.18, specifying that access will be provided only to authorized users at Library of Congress premises and off-site to Library staff as part of their assigned duties via a secure connection.16 These access restrictions reflected informal restrictions that had been in place for electronic-only serials since 2010.17 In issuing the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Office emphasized that “over time the Library would like to expand [section 202.18] to address public access to digital registration deposits for other types of digital works” but that “[b]efore expanding such access, . . . the Office will issue separate rulemakings to notify the public.” 18

    13 83 FR 4144 (Jan. 30, 2018).

    14 37 CFR 202.4(e).

    15Id. at 202.19(d)(2)(ix).

    16Id. at 202.18.

    17 82 FR 51369, 51377 (Nov. 6, 2017).

    18Id.

    II. Discussion

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addresses issues raised in response to the NOI as well as additional issues raised by commenting parties. This rule aims to respond to the increase in publication and marketing of works in electronic-only digital forms.19 The Library's collections comprise the world's most comprehensive record of human creativity and knowledge and support the Library's role as the research arm of Congress. To help the Library continue to fulfill these responsibilities, the Copyright Office is proposing to amend the mandatory deposit rules and criteria to include electronic-only books.

    19 Libr. Copyright All. (“LCA”) Comments at 3; Nat'l Writers Union et al. Comments at 11; Univ. of Mich. Libr. Comments at 2; Univ. of Va. Libr. Comments at 2.

    Under this proposed rule, electronic-only books would be subject to mandatory deposit if a written demand is issued by the Copyright Office. The Office anticipates that, in some cases, rather than sending individual demands for each work, it will instead demand all of the published electronic-only works from particular publishers. Additionally, this proposal would make the 2010 Interim Rule concerning electronic-only works final, and amend the rule governing public access to electronic-only works to encompass electronic-only serials and electronic-only books received via mandatory deposit. Finally, with this rule the Office proposes specific “best edition” criteria for electronic-only books, and proposes amendments to the best edition criteria for electronic-only serials, modeled on the Library's Recommended Formats Statement.20

    20See Recommended Formats Statement, Libr. of Cong., https://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rfs/textmus.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2018).

    A. Electronic Deposit and the 2010 Interim Rule

    In its NOI, the Office asked for opinions on “the efficacy of the 2010 Interim Rule, including whether it adequately addresses the digital collection and preservation needs of the Library of Congress, whether it has adequately addressed the concerns of affected parties, and whether it is a good framework for further developing section 407.” 21 This question was aimed, in part, at eliciting concerns that should be addressed before the 2010 Interim Rule is made final. Comments responding to this question raised two main concerns: The perceived overbreadth of the 2010 Interim Rule and the need for a comprehensive Library of Congress digital collections strategy.

    21 81 FR at 30509.

    Those who voiced concerns over the broad scope of authority granted to demand electronic works suggested that expanding the Interim Rule to include electronic-only books has a potential “to impose widespread and burdensome deposit requirements,” especially on independent or self-publishers.22 The Office appreciates these concerns, but believes that the approach of selective demand-based deposit requirements, as a way to fulfill the Library's digital collections, will not be as burdensome as some assume. While the Library's collection authority is relatively broad, it does not have the desire or the means to collect all electronic-only books. In the context of electronic-only serials, the Library has responsibly exercised its authority to demand such works, without significant issue.

    22 Nat'l Writers Union et al. Comments at 15; see also Authors Guild Comments at 4.

    Commenters also suggested that mandatory deposit for electronic-only books would be premature as the Library has not publicly communicated a cohesive strategy for electronic deposits, and therefore, any such strategy could not be evaluated.23 These commenters cited reports such as those by the United States Government Accountability Office and the Library's Office of the Inspector General which made recommendations regarding the Library's digital collections and information technology. Some also pointed out the Inspector General's criticism that the Library lacked quantifiable performance measures for its electronic deposit and collections projects.24

    23 Copyright All. Comments at 2; Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. (“RIAA”) Comments at 8; Software & Info. Indus. Ass'n (“SIIA”) Comments at 2.

    24 Copyright All. Comments at 2-3.

    In early 2017, the Library of Congress addressed some of these concerns. In February, the Library adopted strategic steps related to future acquisition of digital content, including confirming the Library's desire to expand the electronic deposit program to include electronic-only books.25 In March 2017, the Library issued an updated information technology strategic plan, outlining its goals and objectives to be accomplished over the next five years. The Library has also added performance measures to strengthen its plans and to help ensure it meets its collections and information technology development goals. Further, the Library formed a new “eCollections Steering Group” to coordinate the development of its digital collection strategies. While the Inspector General still believes the Library needs a comprehensive digital strategic plan, it has acknowledged these early efforts.26

    25Collecting Digital Content at the Library of Congress, Libr. of Cong., 1-2 (Feb. 2017), https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/CollectingDigitalContent.pdf.

    26Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress, Libr. of Cong., 10 (Mar. 2017), https://www.loc.gov/portals/static/about/office-of-the-inspector-general/annual-reports/documents/March-2017-OIG-Semiannual-Report-to-Congress-5-17-17.pdf.

    While some of the Library's collection strategies will need to be further refined as time goes on, it is clear that the Library will rely on mandatory deposit of digital works as a core component of its overall strategy going forward. It is also clear that the existing mandatory deposit program for electronic-only serials has successfully furthered the Library's important goals and could readily serve as a model for electronic-only books. Indeed, the Office has been receiving copies of electronic books on a voluntary basis through special relief agreements for a number of years.27 While implementing mandatory deposit for electronic-only books would require an update to the Copyright Office's information technology systems, the regulatory framework needs to be in place by the time the Library is ready to demand and receive such works.

    27 Through special relief agreements, the Library has obtained free access to a number of publishers' online portals for use by patrons and received electronic copies of serials and books for archival purposes. These special relief agreements typically involve the deposit of electronic versions of works that are also published in print format, thereby saving publishers the burden and expense of having to send physical copies to satisfy mandatory deposit obligations.

    Some commenters suggested that voluntary agreements should be a preferred method of obtaining digital works.28 The Office notes that mandatory deposit does not preclude voluntary agreements, and the Interim Rule has not precluded the Library from negotiating such arrangements with regard to electronic-only serials. In fact, these voluntary arrangements came about only after the 2010 Interim Rule was implemented. Nor does the existence of these voluntary arrangements involving electronic-only serials preclude the Office from expanding mandatory deposit to include other categories of online works.

    28 Assoc. of Am. Pubs. (“AAP”) Comments at 10; SIIA Comments at 3-4.

    The University of Virginia asked the Office to reconsider the decision to limit the Office's ability to demand electronic-only serials to those issues published after the effective date of the Interim Rule.29 The Office declines this proposal as it would be burdensome for publishers to comply with such a retroactive regulation.30

    29 Univ. of Va. Libr. Comments at 5.

    30 Indeed, it is not clear whether section 407 even grants the Office the authority to issue such retroactive rules. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988) (“[A] statutory grant of legislative rulemaking authority will not, as a general matter, be understood to encompass the power to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is conveyed by Congress in express terms.”).

    Finally, one commenter asked whether the Library intends to expand its Surplus Books Program, a program where the Library donates physical books to qualifying educational institutions, to its eCollections strategy.31 The Library has no plans to expand that program to electronic works, and will only be demanding electronic-only books that it wishes to keep in its collections. Indeed, section 202.18 would establish the outer limits of public access to electronic-only books and serials received through mandatory deposit.

    31 AAP Comments at 7-8.

    B. Application of the 2010 Interim Rule to Electronic-Only Books

    The Office's NOI also invited comments on whether the 2010 Interim Rule provided a useful framework for mandatory deposit of electronic-only books.32 The Office received several thoughtful responses to this question from interested parties. Those who supported, or did not oppose, expansion of the 2010 Interim Rule noted the rising importance of the Library being able to acquire electronic-only works. The Authors Guild cited reports indicating that nearly a half million self-published electronic books are published each year.33 The Library Copyright Alliance (“LCA”) pointed out that, “[w]ithout mandatory deposit, works created in the digital age could be lost forever.” 34

    32 81 FR at 30509.

    33 Authors Guild Comments at 3 (discussing self-published books in the context of “The Growing Online-Only Book Market”).

    34 LCA Comments at 2.

    Commenters with concerns about the Library's eCollections strategy and expanding the 2010 Interim Rule to electronic-only books expressed skepticism regarding how electronic-only books would be defined and whether the rule would apply to print-on-demand works. Further, these commenters asserted that the Office and the Library have not yet completed some planned actions outlined in the 2010 Interim Rule. These planned actions included, for example, examining the feasibility of allowing rightsholders to provide website links for the Office to download deposits or engaging in additional consultation with rightsholders, including on issues involving transmission standards and the potential of downloading or emailing copies of deposited electronic works.35

    35 75 FR at 3866, 3868; AAP Comments at 13.

    In considering how to define “electronic-only books,” the Office notes that the Copyright Act itself does not contain a definition of “books,” but refers to them as “material objects” that may embody a literary work.36 Similarly, the Office's regulations simply contemplate that books are a tangible medium of expression for literary works.37 The Office received several helpful considerations on this topic. Some commenters noted that a definition could be in reference to the file format or medium of the work, such as works published in PDF or HTML format.38 Others noted that an electronic-only book could be defined with reference to the content of the work.39 Others suggested that the definition of an electronic-only book should include consideration of how the work is transmitted. For example, the Association of American Publishers (“AAP”) recommended that electronic-only books would include downloaded works but not works available “through online display, streaming, or apps.” 40 As the Authors Guild points out, “[a] vast amount of text is `published' online today that might qualify as a `book,' depending how `book' is defined.” 41

    36 17 U.S.C. 101.

    37See 37 CFR 202.16(b)(1)(iv) (describing a preregistration class of “[l]iterary works being prepared for publication in book form”); see also Hadley v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 819 F.2d 359, 361 (2d Cir. 1987) (noting, for the purposes of the Tax Code, “[t]here are many definitions of `book,' but a principal one relates to the tangible property consisting of a collection of written, printed, or blank pages fastened together along one edge, bound between covers into a volume”).

    38 Copyright All. Comments at 3.

    39 Nat'l Writers Union et al. Comments at 16.

    40 AAP Comments at 16.

    41 Authors Guild Comments at 2 (footnote omitted).

    As commenters correctly indicate, defining a book as the physical embodiment of a literary work does not translate neatly to the digital environment. It is clear to the Office that, through mandatory deposit, the Library wishes to acquire textual works that are marketed or presented as “electronic books” and other monographic works such as organizational reports and long-form essays; it does not intend to obtain blog posts, social media posts, and general web pages through that mechanism.42 The Office recently issued a rule governing deposits of “literary monographs” 43 and adopted a definition of that category of works for those purposes.44 With minor modification, that definition can also be adopted to define the category of works subject to mandatory deposit in this proposed rule. Accordingly, the Office proposes that an “electronic-only book” should be defined broadly as an electronic literary work published in one volume or a finite number of volumes published in the United States and available only online, with specific exclusions for certain types of works, including serials, audiobooks, computer programs, websites, blogs, and emails.

    42 The Library currently obtains website material through means other than mandatory deposit, such its web archiving program. See generally Library of Congress, Web Archiving, https://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/ (last visited Apr. 6, 2018).

    43 83 FR 2371 (Jan. 17, 2018).

    44 37 CFR 202.19(b)(5) (“The term literary monograph means a literary work published in one volume or a finite number of volumes. This category does not include serials, nor does it include legal publications that are published in one volume or a finite number of volumes that contain legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or other edicts of government.” (emphasis added)).

    For clarity's sake, the proposed definition specifies that electronic-only books would be subject to mandatory deposit only if they are available to the public as electronic copies—for example, through download. Electronic-only books accessed through online display or streaming would generally be excluded, unless they were “published” within the meaning of the Copyright Act.45

    45 17 U.S.C. 101 (“`Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.”).

    The Office believes that its definition of an electronic-only book balances the concerns of copyright owners who expressed concern about giving the Library sweeping discretion to demand various types of electronic works with the Library's reasonable need to obtain electronic works for its collections.

    In its comments on the earlier NOI, AAP sought to confirm that “the mandatory deposit exemption of `tests and answer material for tests when published separately from other literary works' is preserved even if the Interim Rule is expanded to ebooks available only online.” 46 To be clear, the existing exemption for tests and answer materials will continue to apply across the board, including tests and related material that are distributed solely online, but the Office does not believe that this exemption needs to be repeated in the regulatory language defining electronic-only books.

    46 AAP Comments at 16.

    Additional commenters noted potential issues that might arise with respect to works that are both available for download and print-on-demand.47 In particular, the concern appears to be that it will be difficult for publishers to determine whether such works are subject to the general exemption for electronic-only works (and the demand-based mandatory deposit scheme proposed here), or whether they are subject to affirmative mandatory deposit requirements. As a potential solution, the Authors Guild recommended that “books `initially' or `originally' published only online but also available in [print-on-demand] format” be essentially treated as works published “only” online, regardless of whether the book has actually been printed.48

    47See, e.g., Nat'l Writers Union et al. Comments at 17.

    48 Authors Guild Comments at 5.

    The issue defies easy resolution. It may be that a book is available to print on demand, but has not been actually printed by anyone, in which case it would be strange to conclude that the book has nonetheless been published in physical format. But it would be equally strange for a book to be subject to one mandatory regime or another depending on whether a consumer has actually obtained a printed copy on demand. Indeed, some print-on-demand copies may be printed privately, in consumers' homes, or at kiosks at brick-and-mortar bookstores, in which case it would be difficult to determine whether a physical copy has been made. The Office is aware that the same issue arises with some frequency with respect to electronic-only serials, many of which are available for print on demand. This issue potentially arises for other types of works as well.49 Accordingly, the growing availability of print-on-demand type services for works that are otherwise available online may cause broader uncertainty regarding the scope of the general exemption for electronic-only works.

    49 Eliot Van Buskirk, Tunecore, Amazon Set to Unveil On-Demand CD Sales, Wired (May 21, 2009), https://www.wired.com/2009/05/amazon-to-unveil-on-demand-cd-printing-service-with-tunecore/.

    On balance, the Office believes that the Authors Guild's approach is the most administrable for the Office and for publishers. The Proposed Rule thus provides—for all electronic-only works—that a work shall be deemed to be “available only online” even if physical copies or phonorecords have been made available on demand for individual consumers, so long as the work is otherwise available only online. In other words, if the work is only available online or if the work is only available in physical format to individual consumers on demand, it will be subject to the general exemption for online only works in section 202.19(c)(5). Electronic-only books and serials that meet those qualifications will only be subject to the on demand mandatory deposit scheme in section 202.24, not the affirmative mandatory deposit requirements in 202.19.

    C. Library Access Policies

    In its NOI, the Office also asked for opinions on the Library's access policy as applied to both electronic-only serials and, potentially, to electronic-only books.50

    50 81 FR at 30509.

    Commenters representing libraries and user groups generally supported increased access and found the Library's existing access policies for eserials too restrictive. They also noted that limiting access to two users is “not in accord with current practices in the library community” and that “[increased] access is an essential component of the Library's mission.” 51 Those representing creators voiced concerns that increased access, particularly to digital works, would bring increased risks of piracy or potential market substitution.52 Significantly, these commenters protested that the Library's access policy has not been codified in the regulations.53

    51 LCA Comments at 4; see also Univ. of Va. Libr. Comments at 5-6.

    52 Authors Guild Comments at 6.

    53 RIAA Comments at 11-12.

    As discussed above, in January 2018, the Office issued a rule that codified the rules 54 governing access to electronic copies of newspaper issues that are made part of the Library's collection through the group registration process.55 That rule aims to provide access to electronic works as similar as possible to the access provided to analog works, with some modifications to address the unique nature of digital works. The proposed rule modifies section 202.18 to apply the same access restrictions to electronic material obtained through mandatory deposit.

    54 37 CFR 202.18.

    55 83 FR at 4146.

    A number of comments expressed concern regarding the extent to which the Library informs patrons about copyright limitations.56 While the NOI pointed to “a set of fair use criteria in a short training manual” in the Library's Microform & Electronic Resources Center, meant to guide users when accessing electronic serials, commenters noted that such a manual could not be located.57 The Office confirmed with the Library that the manual was not a fair use training manual, but a short notice warning that Library patrons are personally liable for any copyright infringement. The Library has stated that it is fully committed to taking steps to prevent infringement of the material in its collections. At the same time, the Library believes that patrons must have sufficient access to the Library's collections to engage in legislative work, research, or activities protected by fair use. The proposed access policies balance these goals.

    56 Authors Guild Comments at 6; Nat'l Writers Union et al. Comments at 21-22.

    57 81 FR at 30508; AAP Comments at 12-13; Copyright All. Comments at 4.

    The University of Michigan Library suggested that the depositor should be asked whether any public licenses apply to the deposited works, to give the Library “more flexibility in providing access to the deposited copy of the work.” 58 The Office understands that this idea may be helpful as the Library's develops its overall eCollections strategy, but at this time, the Office believes collecting such information in the context of this rule will only impose administrative burdens on the collection of electronic works. The National Writers Union, Western Writers of America, and American Society of Journalists and Authors voiced concerns over whether the access rules had a provision to protect confidential information or trade secrets.59 The Office appreciates this concern, but notes that only published works will be subject to the demand requirements.

    58 Univ. of Mich. Libr. Comments at 4.

    59 Nat'l Writers Union et al. Comments at 16.

    D. Information Technology, Security, and Related Requirements

    The Office asked parties to “comment on the information technology, security, and/or other requirements that should apply to the Library's receipt and storage of, and public access to, any online-only books . . . collected under section 407.” 60 Some commenters suggested that the Library's information technology infrastructure and planning were not ready to accept electronic-only books, based on the status of the Library's security infrastructure in 2015.61

    60 81 FR at 30509.

    61See AAP Comments at 14-15.

    Since that time, the Library has taken major steps to address its information technology needs. The Librarian has appointed a permanent Chief Information Officer, who is responsible for information technology operations, strategy, and alignment with the Library's mission. The Library's aforementioned information technology strategic plan includes strategies to protect the Library's information technology systems, including following best practices for consistent security measures based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (“NIST's”) Risk Management Framework. The Library has implemented that Risk Management Framework and has developed a new Information Technology Contingency Plan template addressing NIST guidance and Library policy. It has also implemented an updated overarching System Security Plan policy, has updated existing System Security Plans, and continues comprehensive and effective security testing for all systems.

    While no security plan is flawless, the Library is encouraged that the existing system protecting electronic-only serials subject to mandatory deposit has not encountered security threats. The Library's efforts to improve information technology, including systems security, are ongoing and commenters will continue to be helpful to the Library in implementing its information technology plans going forward.62 The Office is reasonably relying on the Library's assurances regarding information technology security in moving this rulemaking forward.

    62 See, for example, Portico's detailed comments regarding issues such as server room temperature, staff access, and preferred file transfer and synchronization tools. Portico Comments at 3.

    E. “Best Edition” Requirements for Electronic-Only Serials and Electronic-Only Books

    The final question the Office asked in its NOI was how the “best edition” requirements should be applied to mandatory deposit of electronic-only books, including “whether and how the `best edition' criteria for electronic serials . . . or the guidelines from the Library's Recommended Formats Statement, might or might not be adapted [for the Best Edition Statement].” 63 The Library's Recommended Formats Statement encompasses the formats and related criteria which the Library prefers for the purposes of ensuring the preservation and long-term access of its collection; the Library uses the Recommended Formats Statement for its collection efforts outside of the Copyright Act. The Library's Recommended Formats Statement identifies six criteria for the works it covers, including: technical characteristics, formats, rarity and special features, completeness, metadata, and technological measures.64 In many instances the Best Edition Statement tracks, but does not mirror exactly, the Recommended Formats Statement. While the best edition of a work should be the edition published in the United States that the Library of Congress determines to be most suitable for its purposes, as with other aspects of any deposit requirement, deposit of such editions should not be overly burdensome to copyright owners. Thus, the goal in creating best edition criteria is to make depositing works as simple and inexpensive as possible while ensuring that the Library fulfills its role in acquiring and preserving the creative output of the nation.

    63 81 FR at 30509.

    64Recommended Formats Statement, Libr. of Cong., https://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rfs/textmus.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2018).

    As an initial matter, commenters voiced concerns that the best edition of electronic-only books would differ from the publication version of the electronic-only book.65 The statute, however, requires the deposit only of the best published edition of a work.66 It does not require the publisher or producer to create a special preservation copy simply for the benefit of the Library of Congress.

    65See AAP Comments at 16-17; Portico Comments at 4; SIIA Comments at 2.

    66 17 U.S.C. 101 (“The `best edition' of a work is the edition, published in the United States at any time before the date of deposit, that the Library of Congress determines to be most suitable for its purposes.” (emphasis added)).

    Relatedly, the Office does not agree with AAP's suggestion that books created solely in proprietary formats should be automatically exempt from the mandatory deposit requirements.67 To begin with, the Library doubts this will be an issue with respect to the kinds of works that it wishes to include in the Library's collections. But in the unlikely event that the Library seeks to acquire a work that is only published in a proprietary format that cannot be viewed by the Library, the Office will work with the publisher to identify a means to access the work.

    67 AAP Comments at 16-17.

    In responding to this inquiry, a few commenters addressed the viability of the Library's Recommended Formats Statement as an appropriate basis for the Best Edition Statement for electronic-only books.68 While the University of Michigan Library voiced general support for use of the Recommended Formats Statement,69 others offered input on that Statement's “formats” and “metadata” requirements as well as the “completeness” components. For instance, Portico suggested that several of the format and metadata standards found in the Recommended Formats Statement were acceptable, including XML-based markup formats (including BITS-, JATS-, and EPUB-compliant formats) and PDFs.70 AAP voiced concerns, however, that the desired metadata identified by the Recommended Formats Statement included more fields, including “creation date,” “place of publication,” and “contact information,” than are required by the ONIX for Books standard (“ONIX”), which they prefer.71 Portico offered additional helpful comments, suggesting that the Library should be able to accept metadata, such as a MARC record, apart from “rendition” material and that the Library “should encourage publishers to send ISBNs for all available formats of the book in the metadata record.” 72

    68 Only Portico indirectly addressed the use of the electronic serials' best edition statement as the basis for a Best Edition Statement for electronic books, when it stated during its analysis of security-related concerns that “academic electronic book content typically utilizes the same range of formats as electronic serial content.” Portico Comments at 2.

    69 Univ. of Mich. Libr. Comments at 4.

    70 Portico Comments at 2-3.

    71 AAP Comments at 17; see also Univ. of Mich. Libr. Comments at 4 (noting support for accepting ONIX metadata as opposed to the Library's web forms). ONIX is a XML-based standard for communicating metadata, created in part by the Association of American Publishers, and includes information such as title, author, ISBN, BISAC Subject Codes, and more. See ONIX for Books, Book Indus. Study Grp., http://bisg.org/page/ONIXforBooks (last visited Mar. 29, 2018).

    72 Portico Comments at 2-3.

    Based on this record, the Office believes that the Recommended Formats Statement is a viable basis for the Best Edition Statement with regards to format and metadata standards. Moreover, for purposes of consistency, the Office proposes to incorporate more of the requirements of the Recommended Formats Statement into the Best Edition Statement, for both electronic-only books and electronic-only serials.

    Importantly, to address AAP's concern, submitting metadata will be required only if the metadata has been distributed together with the published copy of the electronic-only book, alleviating parties' concerns that widely-used standards, such as the ONIX standard, will fall short of the metadata requirements. Publishers do not need to gather or generate additional metadata that has not been published with the electronic-only serial or book to comply with the Best Edition Statement.

    The University of Michigan Library suggested that if the Recommended Formats Statement is used as a basis for the Best Edition Statement, the “Completeness” section should be clarified to explain what is meant by the requirement to provide “[a]ll updates, supplements, releases, and supersessions published as part of the work and offered for sale or distribution . . . .” 73 The Office agrees with this suggestion and proposes adding clarifying language in the Best Edition Statement for both electronic-only books and electronic-only serials indicating that all updates, supplements, releases, and supersessions to a previously demanded and delivered electronic-only book or serial must be submitted by the publisher to the Office. Finally, commenters discussed the value of requiring works to be deposited without technological measures that control access or use of the work, as is currently the case for electronic-only serials.74 While the Office agrees that such technological protection measures provide significant security assurances,75 it also believes that encumbering deposited copies with such protections would conflict with the Library's purposes of preserving the works.76 The Office proposes that the existing requirement to remove technological measures that control access to or use of the work should remain a deposit requirement for electronic-only serials and should be included in the new regulation for electronic-only books.

    73 Univ. of Mich. Libr. Comments at 4-5 (quoting Recommended Formats Statement, Libr. of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rfs/textmus.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2018)).

    74 37 CFR pt. 202 app. B.IX.A.3.

    75See Authors Guild Comments at 6.

    76See Benetech Comments at 1; Univ. of Mich. Libr. Comments at 4; Univ. of Va. Libr. Comments at 6.

    III. Conclusion

    In summary, the proposed rule would chiefly do the following:

    (1) Create a new demand-based mandatory deposit scheme for electronic-only books, similar to that for electronic-only serials.

    (2) Define electronic-only books to be an electronic literary work published in one volume or a finite number of volumes published in the United States and available only online.

    (3) Create “best edition” requirements for electronic-only books, mirroring the Library's Recommended Formats Statement.

    (4) Specify for all electronic-only works that a work shall be deemed to be available only online even if physical copies can be produced for consumers on demand.

    (5) Clean up and clarify the existing rule on electronic-only serials, including the best edition requirements.

    The Copyright Office hereby seeks comment from the public on the amendments proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202

    Copyright.

    Proposed Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office proposes amending 37 CFR part 202 as follows:

    PART 202—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Amend § 202.18 as follows: a. In paragraph (a) add the words “and § 202.19, and transferred into the Library of Congress's collections,” after “under § 202.4(e)” in the first sentence. b. In paragraph (b), add the words “and § 202.19” after “under § 202.4(e)” in the first sentence. c. In paragraph (c), add the words “and § 202.19” after “under § 202.4(e)” in the first sentence. d. Add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 202.18 Access to electronic works.

    (f) Except as provided under special relief agreements entered into pursuant to § 202.19(e) or § 202.20(d), electronic works will be transferred to the Library of Congress for its collections and made available only under the conditions specified by this section.

    3. Amend § 202.19 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (b)(4). b. In paragraph (c)(5), add “electronic-only books and” after the phrase “This exemption includes”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 202.19 Deposit of published copies or phonorecords for the Library of Congress.

    (b) * * *

    (4) For purposes of paragraph (c)(5) of this section:

    (i) An electronic-only serial is serial as defined in § 202.3(b)(1)(v) that is published in electronic form in the United States and available only online.

    (ii) An electronic-only book is an electronic literary work published in one volume or a finite number of volumes published in the United States and available only online. This class excludes literary works distributed solely in phonorecords (e.g., audiobooks), serials (as defined in § 202.3(b)(1)(v)), computer programs, websites, blogs, and emails.

    (iii) A work shall be deemed to be available only online even if physical copies have been made on demand for individual consumers, so long as the work is otherwise available only online.

    4. Amend § 202.24 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove “works” and add in its place “electronic-only serials”. b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (a)(4) and (5), respectively. c. Add new paragraph (a)(3). d. In paragraph (b), remove “online-only” and add in its place “electronic-only”. e. Revise paragraph (c)(3).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 202.24 Deposit of published electronic works available only online.

    (a)* * *

    (3) Demands may be made only for electronic-only books published on or after EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE.

    (c) * * *

    (3) “Electronic-only” works are electronic works that are published and available only online.

    6. Amend Appendix B to part 202 as follows: a. Revise paragraph IX.

    The revision reads as follows:

    Appendix B to Part 202—“Best Edition” of Published Copyrighted Works for the Collections of the Library of Congress IX. Electronic-Only Works Published in the United States and Available Only Online

    For all deposits, technological measures that control access to or use of the work should be removed. In addition, the following encodings are listed in descending order of preference for all deposits in all categories below:

    1. UTF-8.

    2. UTF-16 (with BOM).

    3. US-ASCII.

    4. ISO 8859.

    5. All other character encodings.

    A. Electronic-Only Serials:

    1. Content Format:

    a. Serials-specific structured/markup format:

    (i) Content compliant with the NLM Journal Archiving (XML) Document Type Definition (DTD), with presentation stylesheet(s), rather than without NISO JATS: Journal Article Tag Suite (NISO Z39.96-201x) with XSD/XSL presentation stylesheet(s) and explicitly stated character encoding.

    (ii) Other widely used serials or journal XML DTDs/schemas, with presentation stylesheet(s), rather than without.

    (iii) Proprietary XML format for serials or journals (with documentation), with DTD/schema and presentation stylesheet(s), rather than without.

    b. Page-oriented rendition:

    (i) PDF/UA (Portable Document Format/Universal Accessibility; compliant with ISO 14289-1).

    (ii) PDF/A (Portable Document Format/Archival; compliant with ISO 19005).

    (iii) PDF (Portable Document Format, with searchable text, rather than without; highest quality available, with features such as searchable text, embedded fonts, lossless compression, high resolution images, device-independent specification of colorspace; content tagging; includes document formats such as PDF/X).

    c. Other structured or markup formats:

    (i) Widely-used serials or journal non-proprietary XML-based DTDs/schemas with presentation stylesheet(s).

    (ii) Proprietary XML-based format for serials or journals (with documentation) with DTD/schema and presentation stylesheet(s).

    (iii) XHTML or HTML, with DOCTYPE declaration and presentation stylesheet(s).

    (iv) XML-based document formats (widely used and publicly documented). With presentation stylesheets, if applicable. Includes ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) and OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500).

    d. PDF (web-optimized with searchable text).

    e. Other formats:

    (i) Rich text format.

    (ii) Plain text.

    (iii) Widely-used proprietary word processing or page-layout formats.

    (iv) Other text formats not listed here.

    2. Metadata Elements: If included with published version of work, descriptive data (metadata) as described below should accompany the deposited material:

    a. Title level metadata: Serial or journal title, ISSN, publisher, frequency, place of publication.

    b. Article level metadata, as relevant/or applicable: Volume(s), number(s), issue dates(s), article title(s), article author(s), article identifier (DOI, etc.).

    c. With other descriptive metadata (e.g., subject heading(s), descriptor(s), abstract(s)), rather than without.

    3. Completeness:

    a. All elements considered integral to the publication and offered for sale or distribution must be deposited—e.g., articles, table(s) of contents, front matter, back matter, etc. Includes all associated external files and fonts considered integral to or necessary to view the work as published.

    b. All updates, supplements, releases, and supersessions published as part of the work and offered for sale or distribution must be deposited and received in a regular and timely manner for proper maintenance of the deposit.

    B. Electronic-Only Books:

    1. Content Format:

    a. Book-specific structured/markup format, i.e., XML-based markup formats, with included or accessible DTD/schema, XSD/XSL presentation stylesheet(s), and explicitly stated character encoding:

    (i) BITS-compliant (NLM Book DTD).

    (ii) EPUB-compliant.

    (iii) Other widely-used book DTD/schemas (e.g., TEI, DocBook, etc.).

    b. Page-oriented rendition:

    (i) PDF/UA (Portable Document Format/Universal Accessibility; compliant with ISO 14289-1).

    (ii) PDF/A (Portable Document Format/Archival; compliant with ISO 19005).

    (iii) PDF (Portable Document Format; highest quality available, with features such as searchable text, embedded fonts, lossless compression, high resolution images, device-independent specification of colorspace; content tagging; includes document formats such as PDF/X).

    c. Other structured markup formats:

    (i) XHTML or HTML, with DOCTYPE declaration and presentation stylesheet(s).

    (ii) XML-based document formats (widely-used and publicly-documented), with presentation style sheet(s) if applicable. Includes ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) and OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500).

    (iii) SGML, with included or accessible DTD.

    (iv) Other XML-based non-proprietary formats, with presentation stylesheet(s).

    (v) XML-based formats that use proprietary DTDs or schemas, with presentation stylesheet(s).

    d. PDF (web-optimized with searchable text).

    e. Other formats:

    (i) Rich text format.

    (ii) Plain text.

    (iii) Widely-used proprietary word processing formats.

    (iv) Other text formats not listed here.

    2. Metadata Elements: If included with published version of work, descriptive data (metadata) as described below should accompany the deposited material:

    a. As supported by format (e.g., standards-based formats such as ONIX, XMP, MODS, or MARCXML either embedded in or accompanying the digital item): Title, creator, creation date, place of publication, publisher/producer/distributor, ISBN, contact information.

    b. Include if part of published version of work: Language of work, other relevant identifiers (e.g., DOI, LCCN, etc.), edition, subject descriptors, abstracts.

    3. Rarity and Special Features:

    a. Limited editions (including those with special features such as high resolution images.)

    b. Editions with the greatest number of unique features (such as additional content, multimedia, interactive elements.)

    4. Completeness:

    a. For items published in a finite number of separate components, all elements published as part of the work and offered for sale or distribution must be deposited. Includes all associated external files and fonts considered integral to or necessary to view the work as published.

    b. All updates, supplements, releases, and supersessions published as part of the work and offered for sale or distribution must be submitted and received in a regular and timely manner for proper maintenance of the deposit.

    Dated: April 6, 2018. Sarang Vijay Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07484 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0651; FRL-9976-90-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; GA; Permitting Revision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, on April 11, 2003. EPA is proposing to approve portions of a SIP revision which includes changes to Georgia's rules regarding emissions standards and permitting. This action is being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0651 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Wong, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, or Joel Huey, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Wong can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-8726 or via electronic mail at [email protected] Mr. Huey can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9104 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On April 11, 2003, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to EPA for approval that involves changes to Georgia's SIP regulations. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of the Georgia submission revising GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)—Permit by Rule Standards. This submission also seeks to revise Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn)—NO X Emissions from Large Stationary Gas Turbines and Rule 391-3-1-.02(5)—Open Burning. EPA is not taking action on the proposed changes to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn) and Rule 391-3-1-.02(5) at this time. On October 21, 2009, GA EPD submitted a letter withdrawing from the submittal a proposed revision to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(qqq)—Volatile Organic Compound From Extruded Polystyrene Products Manufacturing Utilizing a Blowing Agent. 1 On January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1206), EPA approved changes to Rule 391-3-1-.01—Definitions that were also included in the April 11, 2003, submittal.

    1 The October 21, 2009, letter is included in the docket for this action.

    II. Analysis of State's Submittal Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)—Permit by Rule Standards

    GA EPD's Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6 establishes “permit by rule” 2 standards for cotton ginning operations and applies to facilities with a potential to emit in excess of the Part 70 program major source thresholds. The rule provides that cotton ginning operations shall be deemed to have a “permit by rule” if they (1) maintain a log of the monthly production, and (2) limit annual production to 65,000 standard bales of cotton during any twelve consecutive months.3 The rule also stipulates that sources having potential emissions greater than major source thresholds even after meeting these conditions, or that are unable to meet these conditions, must obtain a title V operating permit pursuant to Georgia's Part 70 program. GA EPD's March 14, 2003, submittal would change the annual production threshold to qualify for a “permit by rule” from 65,000 standard bales of cotton ginned per year (bales/year) to 120,000 bales/year.

    2 Also known as an “exclusionary rule” or “prohibitory rule,” a “permit by rule” is an approach that State and local agencies can use to establish enforceable operational limits which ensure that a source's potential emissions are below the major source threshold. See, e.g., “Guidance an Enforceability Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP and § 112 Rules and General Permits,” Kathie A. Stein, Director, Air Enforcement Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, January 25, 1995.

    3 In addition, GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(a)2 requires that any facility wishing to operate under the cotton ginning “permit by rule” shall certify its qualification in writing to the permitting authority, and the permitting authority shall grant the conditions and terms of the “permit by rule” by Certification letter to the facility.

    Because of the mostly mechanical nature of the cotton ginning processes and the agricultural material handled, particulate matter (PM) is the primary regulated pollutant of concern. Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(q) uses a process weight calculation to establish allowable PM emission rates (in pounds per hour) from cotton gins based upon the number of bales processed per hour. In support of GA EPD's April 11, 2003, submittal, the State provided a technical rationale intending to show, based upon the allowable emission rate under Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(q), that increasing the cotton ginning “permit by rule” threshold of Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6 to 120,000 bales/year would still ensure that source emissions would not exceed the major source threshold.4 EPA notes, however, that an allowable emission rate alone does not constrain a source's “potential to emit,” which is the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4) and 40 CFR 70.2. In addition, the emission rate that is allowable under Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(q) changes according to a source's process rate (i.e., bales ginned per hour) at any particular time. Therefore, EPA's evaluation of potential cotton ginning emissions is based upon the Agency's review of available PM emission factors for cotton ginning operations, in particular emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5.5

    4 Email from Jimmy Johnston, GA EPD, to Stacey Harder, EPA Region 4, May 30, 2007.

    5 Since at least 1995, EPA has considered the regulated form of PM for title V purposes to be particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers, or PM10. See “Definition of Regulated Pollutant for Particulate Matter for Purposes of Title V,” Lydia N. Wegman, October 16, 1995, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/pmregdef.pdf. In 1997 EPA finalized new air quality standards to regulate particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers, or PM2.5. See 62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). The definition of “regulated air pollutant” in 40 CFR 70.2 includes any pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, including PM2.5.

    EPA's Compilation of Air Emission Factors, AP-42, lists emission factors for typical cotton ginning configurations 6 of 0.82 pound of PM10 per bale (for Configuration No. 1, gins with high-efficiency cyclones on all exhaust streams) and 1.2 pounds of PM10 per bale (for Configuration No. 2, gins with screened drums or cages on the lint cleaners and a battery condenser). But these are “D” and “E”-rated factors, meaning reliability of the factors is below average to poor. The AP-42 emission factors for cotton ginning were last updated in 1996 and do not include emission factors for PM2.5. EPA's 1998 “Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source Categories” (1998 PTE Guidance) 7 suggested possible prohibitory rule thresholds of 90,000 bales/year or 72,000 bales/year (for gins similar to Configuration No. 1 and Configuration No. 2, respectively). These numbers were derived by taking 90 percent (to provide a 10 percent safety margin) of the 100 tons per year (tpy) title V major source threshold and dividing by a “worst case” emission rate. The 90,000 bale/year and 72,000 bale/year thresholds were based upon emission factors of 2.0 pounds of PM10 per bale and 2.5 pounds of PM10 per bale, depending on the gin configuration, and were considered “very conservative (worse than the typical `worst-case').”

    6 Figure 9.7-1 of AP-42 shows a flow diagram of a typical cotton-ginning process, which includes an unloading system, No. 1 dryer and cleaner, No. 2 dryer and cleaner, No. 1 lint cleaner, No. 2 lint cleaner, mote fan, battery condenser and bailing system, master trash fan and overflow system.

    7 “Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source Categories,” John S. Seitz, April 14, 1998.

    EPA notes that there is more recent preliminary data to consider regarding cotton ginning emission factors. In an effort to develop PM emission factors that are representative of actual cotton ginning emissions, cotton gin associations across the U.S. funded a national study that was conducted during the period 2008-2012 and utilized data collection methodologies defined by EPA.8 Peer reviewed articles published on the data gathered from the study suggest a PM10 emission factor of close to 1.3 pounds per bale 9 and a PM2.5 emission factor of about 0.15 pound per bale 10 for the most common cotton gin configurations. Subsequently, an environmental scientist analyzed this national study data in light of the 1996 AP-42 data and EPA's 2013 emission factor development procedures 11 and developed a suggested PM10 emission factor of 1.0 pound per bale and a suggested PM2.5 emission factor of 0.10 pound per bale from typical cotton ginning operations.12

    8 Buser, M.D., Whitelock, D.P., Boykin, J.C., and Holt, G.A., Characterization of Cotton Gin Particulate Matter Emissions—Project Plan, Journal of Cotton Science, 16: 105-116 (2012), available at https://www.cotton.org/journal/2012-16/2/upload/JCS16-105.pdf.

    9 Boykin, J.C., Buser, M.D., Whitelock, D.P., and Holt, G.A., (multiple articles), Journal of Cotton Science, 18:173-182, 183-194, 195-206, 216-225, 248-257, 258-267, 300-308, and 338-347 (2014), available at http://www.cotton.org/journal/2014-18/index.cfm.

    10 Boykin, J.C., Buser, M.D., Whitelock, D.P., and Holt, G.A., (several articles), Journal of Cotton Science, 17:309-319, 320-332, 333-345, 357-367, 391-401; 402-413, 447-456, 489-499; and 357-367 (2013), available at http://www.cotton.org/journal/2013-17/index.cfm.

    11See generally Eastern Research Group, Inc., Recommended Procedures for Development of Emissions Factors and Use of the WebFIRE Database (No. EPA-453/D-13-001) (August 2013), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efpac/procedures/procedures81213.pdf.

    12See Thomas W. Moore, Proposed Updates for AP-42 Cotton Gin Emission Factors, p. 82 table 27b, M.S. Thesis, Oklahoma State University (May 2015).

    As noted above, GA EPD's March 14, 2003, submittal would change the cotton ginning “permit by rule” threshold from 65,000 bales/year to 120,000 bales/year. The approach of EPA's 1998 PTE Guidance for development of a “permit by rule” was to set thresholds that would provide a 10 percent margin of safety from the 100 tpy Part 70 program applicability criterion. Using Georgia's proposed cotton ginning “permit by rule” threshold of 120,000 bales/year, an emission factor of 1.5 pounds per bale would result in maximum annual emissions of 90 tpy. According to AP-42, typical cotton gin emission factors for PM10 fall into the range of 0.82 pound per bale to 1.2 pounds per bale, which results in estimated annual PM10 emissions of 49 tpy to 72 tpy from 120,000 bales ginned. And based upon data from the national study, a typical cotton gin emission factor is likely to be in the range of 1.0 pound per bale to 1.3 pounds per bale, which would result in estimated annual PM10 emissions in the range of 60 tpy to 78 tpy from 120,000 bales ginned. Thus, the level of annual PM10 emissions from typical cotton ginning operations, as suggested by emission factors from AP-42 and the national study, provides a significant margin of safety from the 100 tpy Part 70 program threshold. Estimated PM2.5 emissions would be much lower due to the significantly lower emission factor for that size indicator of total PM. This analysis supports approval of GA EPD's revision to its “permit by rule” threshold for cotton gins.

    EPA believes that GA EPD's revision to Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6 will not degrade air quality because it does not change the level of pollutant emissions allowable for cotton ginning operations under the SIP. The impact of the revision would be that cotton ginning operations which process cotton in the range of 65,000 bales/year to 120,000 bales/year (i.e., from the current “permit by rule” threshold to the new threshold) would now be able to choose to operate under a “permit by rule” rather than a standard operating permit as long as such sources maintain records of their production, in accordance with Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6(i)(I). In addition, all cotton ginning operations in Georgia will still be required to comply with the State's existing PM emission limit at Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(q), which remains unchanged and requires compliance with a numerical limit on PM emissions based on the number of bales ginned per hour. Further, EPA notes that there are currently no PM nonattainment areas in the State of Georgia and that cotton gins in the State are located primarily in areas which tend to have ambient PM concentrations well below the PM NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve this change to Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6 from GA EPD's April 11, 2003, submittal.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6—Cotton ginning operations, effective March 26, 2003, which revises permitting requirements for cotton ginning operations. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve a portion of the State of Georgia's April 11, 2003 submittal. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the change to GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.03(11)(b)6—Cotton ginning operations. EPA believes that the proposed change to the regulatory portion of the SIP is consistent with section 110 of the CAA and meets the regulatory requirements pertaining to SIPs. EPA also believes that the proposed change is consistent with CAA section 110(l), which states that the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 5, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07899 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0740; FRL-9976-81-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on November 11, 2017, for the purpose of establishing minor changes to the gasoline dispensing regulations, including adding clarifying language and effective and compliance dates and specifying the counties subject to the reporting requirement rule. EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee's November 11, 2017, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and with EPA's regulations and guidance.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0740 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On July 15, 2016, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision to EPA seeking to modify SIP requirements related to Stage II and Stage I vapor recovery systems. In relation to Stage II, TDEC sought the removal of the Stage II vapor recovery requirements from Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation TAPCR 1200-3-18-.24 through two mechanisms: (1) The addition of requirements for decommissioning; and (2) the phase out of the Stage II vapor recovery systems over a 3-year period from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2019, in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson Counties. TDEC also sought to amend the Stage I requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities by adopting by reference the federal requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC and removing from the SIP the state-specific language for Stage I vapor recovery.

    On September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64354), EPA approved in a final action, Tennessee's July 15, 2016, SIP revision that changed Tennessee Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Stage I and II Vapor Recovery, rule 1200-03-18-.24. to: (1) Allow for the removal of the Stage II requirement and the orderly decommissioning of Stage II equipment; and (2) incorporate by reference Federal rule 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, and remove certain non-state-specific requirements for the Stage I.

    II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    On November 11, 2017, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA seeking to add clarity for the benefit of the regulated community with gasoline dispensing facilities. Tennessee is making a minor change to its rules regarding gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) at subparagraph (1)(d) of rule 1200-03-18-.24—“For any GDF otherwise exempt from subparagraph (c) of this paragraph based on monthly throughput, if the GDF ever exceeds the applicability threshold specified in subparagraph (c) of this paragraph, it shall be subject to the requirements of subparagraph (c) of this paragraph and shall remain subject to those requirements even if its throughput later falls below the threshold. The owner or operator shall inform the Technical Secretary within 30 days following the exceedance.” The revision clarifies the meaning and application of subparagraph (1)(d) of rule 1200-03-18-.24 by adding the words “ever” and “and shall remain subject to those requirements” italicized above.

    In addition, this revision replaces the phrase “the effective date of this rule” with the actual effective date of the rule (July 14, 2016) and replaces “three years after effective date” with the actual date of the rule for compliance (August 14, 2019). Finally, this revision adds the list of counties (Davidson, Rutherford, Shelby, Sumner, Knox, Anderson, Williamson and Wilson) that need to report to their permitting authority (if they emit more than 25 tons in a calendar year) and the cross reference to the existing reporting requirement in rule 1200-03-18-.02 to simplify the issuances of notices of authorization under pending permit-by-rule provisions.

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The State's addition of clarifying language, specific dates for the gas dispensing rule's effective and compliance dates, as well as specifying the counties subject to the reporting requirement under the cross-referenced rule are approvable under section 110(l) because they merely clarify the application of the rule and are consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the TDEC Regulation section 1200-03-18-.24 entitled “Gasoline Dispensing Facilities-Stage I and II Vapor Recovery” effective August 31, 2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's November 11, 2017, SIP revision consisting of minor revisions to the gasoline dispensing regulations to add clarifying language, effective and compliance dates and to specify counties subject to reporting requirements under the cross-referenced rule. The revision changes TDEC Regulation 1200-03-18-.24, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities-Stage I and II Vapor Recovery, to provide greater clarity as to the application of the rule and the start and finish dates, as well as specifying which counties are subject to reporting requirements. EPA is proposing this approval because the Agency has made the preliminary determination that the revision is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 2, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07748 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0036] RIN 2127-AL05 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notification of availability of technical reports.

    SUMMARY:

    This notification announces the availability of documents supplementing NHTSA's March 2015 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, “Seat belt assembly anchorages.” The SNPRM proposed an alternative test procedure that would maintain the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks and specify zones for the placement of the blocks at preload. The agency has conducted additional research since the publication of the SNPRM. This notification announces the docketing and availability of this research.

    DATES:

    The documents referenced in this notification will be available in the docket as of April 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should state the docket number of this document.

    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9826.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-4583, fax 202-493-2739).

    Mr. John Piazza, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 30, 2012, the agency published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (77 FR 19155) that proposed to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, “Seat belt assembly anchorages,” to replace the current pelvic body block and the upper torso body block with a new Force Application Device (FAD). The rationale provided for the proposal included the FAD's ease of use, that it is representative of the human form, and that it provides a consistent test configuration and load path to the seat belt assembly anchorages without affecting the stringency of the compliance test.

    The agency received a number of comments on the NPRM that raised issues concerning the feasibility of the FAD proposal. In light of those comments, NHTSA published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11148). The SNPRM proposed, as an alternative to the FAD proposed in the NPRM, to maintain the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks and specify “zones” for the preload placement of the body blocks. In the SNPRM, the agency noted that it had initiated research to aid in the development of the zones bounding the initial placement for the current body blocks. This research has now been completed.

    The agency is docketing a variety of research reports. This research falls into three categories. The first category is additional research tests on passenger vehicles in order to evaluate the performance of the FAD in comparison to the body blocks in the same vehicle. The second category is research and testing performed to establish practical, repeatable, and validated zones for initial positioning (at preload) of the current FMVSS No. 210 body blocks (“Development of Positioning Zones for FMVSS No. 210 Body Blocks”). The third category is testing of the proposed FAD on buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) (Report Nos. 207/210-MGA-2013-001 and 207/210-MGA-2013-002). The objective of this testing was to determine whether the proposed FAD affects the stringency of FMVSS No. 210 compliance tests on heavy duty vehicle seats and to assess how the FAD performs in these tests.

    How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.

    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging into http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

    How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish DOT's Docket Management Facility to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket Management Facility will return the postcard by mail.

    How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

    How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments at DOT's Docket Management Facility at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the facility are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

    Authority:

    delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07132 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 RIN 0648-BH39 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 43 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) submitted Amendment 43 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 43 would allow for the harvest of red snapper in South Atlantic Federal waters by revising red snapper commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACL). The purpose of Amendment 43 is to minimize adverse socio-economic effects to fishermen and fishing communities that utilize red snapper as part of the snapper-grouper fishery, while preventing overfishing from occurring and continuing to rebuild the red snapper stock.

    DATES:

    Written comments on Amendment 43 must be received by June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on Amendment 43, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0148,” by either of the following methods:

    Electronic submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0148, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

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

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

    Electronic copies of Amendment 43 may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 43 includes an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and fishery impact statement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: frank.helie[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit FMPs or amendments to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the FMP or amendment is available for review and comment.

    Amendment 43 to the FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Council and, if approved, would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    Background

    Harvest of red snapper from South Atlantic Federal waters was prohibited in 2010 through a temporary interim rule and then through Amendment 17A to the FMP when the stock was determined to be overfished and undergoing overfishing (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 15, 2009)(74 FR 63673, December 4, 2009; 75 FR 76874, December 9, 2010). Amendment 17A also implemented a 35-year red snapper rebuilding plan that began in 2010, and set the red snapper stock ACL at zero. In 2013, Amendment 28 to the FMP established a process that allowed red snapper harvest (ACL greater than zero) if total removals (landings plus dead discards) were less than the acceptable biological catch (ABC) in the previous fishing year (78 FR 44461, July 24, 2013). Using the process established through Amendment 28, limited harvest of red snapper was allowed in 2012, 2013, and 2014. However, because the estimated total removals of red snapper exceeded the ABC in 2014, 2015, and 2016 due to estimates of red snapper discards that were incidentally harvested as bycatch while targeting other species, there was no allowable harvest in 2015 and 2016. In 2017, as a result of new scientific information regarding the red snapper stock, NMFS allowed limited commercial and recreational harvest of red snapper by a temporary rule through emergency action (82 FR 50839, November 2, 2017).

    Status of the Stock

    The most recent stock assessment for South Atlantic red snapper, SEDAR 41 (2017), was completed in 2016 and subsequently revised in 2017. SEDAR 41 (2017) evaluated data through 2014 and determined the red snapper stock was overfished and that overfishing was occurring. The stock assessment indicated that overfishing was occurring because the estimated fishing mortality based on the average over the last three years of the assessment represented in the model (2012-2014) exceeded the maximum fishing mortality threshold. Though limited red snapper harvest was allowed during those years, a large majority of the estimated fishing mortality occurred from very large and uncertain dead discard estimates when fishermen were targeting red snapper and species that co-occur with red snapper, such as vermilion snapper, gag, red grouper, black sea bass, gray triggerfish, greater amberjack, and scamp. The review of the SEDAR 41 stock assessment indicated the estimate of recreational discards was the greatest source on uncertainty in the stock assessment. It was acknowledged in the assessment that discarding of red snapper has increased over time due to changes in minimum landing size to 20 inches (51 cm) in 1992, increases in abundance of young fish from above-average year classes in some recent years, the introduction of the moratorium in 2010 and 2011, and the small commercial catch limits and recreational bag limits in the mini seasons for 2012 onwards. Because most of the catch is now discarded, the number of discards is dependent upon fisher recalls, and these estimates are expanded based on small sample size; thus, the quality of total fishery removals estimates is poor and uncertain, which will impact estimation of stock size and fishing mortality.

    In May 2016, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed SEDAR 41 (2017), and had an extensive discussion of the uncertainties associated with the assessment. The SSC stated that the assessment was based on the best scientific information available, but noted the assessment findings were highly uncertain regarding to what extent overfishing was occurring (i.e., the actual numerical value of the current fishing mortality estimate), and regarding the measures of discards. The SSC indicated that the most significant sources of uncertainty in the assessment include: The stock-recruitment relationship, natural mortality at age, the age structure of the unfished population, the composition and magnitude of recreational discards (where dead discards greatly outnumbered the landings during the years 2012 through 2014), and potential changes in catch per unit effort (CPUE). The SSC developed its ABC recommendations based on SEDAR 41, and the total ABC recommendation for 2018 is 53,000 red snapper.

    The projections of yield streams used in SEDAR 41 (2017) included both landings and dead discards, which were added to obtain an estimate of the total removals. The SSC divided its 53,000 fish ABC recommendation into landed fish (18,000) and discarded fish (35,000). Because of the recent closures in the fishery, in January 2017, the Council requested that the NMFS Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) provide red snapper projections under the assumption that all fish caught are subsequently discarded, believing that such projections would be more informative for management. The SEFSC advised the Council in February 2017 that the requested projections were not appropriate for management because the uncertainty in the stock assessment inhibits the ability to set an ABC that can be effectively monitored. The SEFSC further stated in an April 2017 letter to the Council, that the use of an ABC based primarily on fishery discards for monitoring the effectiveness of management action is likely ineffective due to the high level of uncertainty in measures of discards. NMFS has determined that given the extreme uncertainty associated with the red snapper recreational discard estimates, it is not appropriate to rely on those discard estimates for the management of red snapper, and the division of the SSC's ABC recommendation of 53,000 fish into landed fish and discarded fish is unwarranted.

    The results of SEDAR 41 (2017) using data through 2014, indicated that the red snapper stock was still overfished but was rebuilding in accordance with the rebuilding plan. NMFS sent the Council a letter on March 3, 2017, noting these results, the SEFSC's concerns regarding the substantial uncertainty in the assessment, and advising the Council that sufficient steps had been taken to address overfishing of red snapper while continuing to rebuild the stock through harvest prohibitions in 2015 and 2016. This determination is supported by a significant increase in stock biomass since 2010 to levels not seen since the 1970's, and increasing abundance of older age classes (SEDAR 41 2017). Additional support comes from fishery-independent information collected through the Southeast Reef Fish Survey (SERFS) program, and the East Coast Fisheries Independent Monitoring information conducted by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). According to the SERFS, the relative abundance (CPUE) of red snapper has increased since 2009, reaching the highest level observed in the entire time series (1990-2016) in 2016. In addition, the SERFS program notified the Council at the December 2017 meeting that red snapper relative abundance, as measured through fishery-independent monitoring, increased 18 percent from 2016 to 2017. According to the results of FWCC's study, CPUE for red snapper for hook gear (surveyed in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017) and the standardized index of abundance (surveyed from 2014-2017) was highest in 2017. The FWCC data also showed a greater number of large red snapper and a broader range of ages in recent years, which suggests rebuilding progress of the red snapper stock. Additionally, the increase in relative abundance of red snapper indicated by the fishery-independent CPUE indices has taken place despite landings during the limited seasons in 2012-2014 and despite the large number of estimated red snapper dead discards during harvest restrictions for red snapper since 2010.

    As a result of the new scientific information regarding the red snapper stock, NMFS allowed limited harvest of red snapper beginning November 2, 2017, by a temporary rule through emergency action (82 FR 50839, November 2, 2017). The amount of harvest authorized in the temporary rule was equivalent to the amount of observed landings in the 2014 fishing season. Amendment 43 would allow the same amount of harvest annually beginning in 2018. Therefore, NMFS determined that allowing that same amount of harvest that occurred in 2014 is unlikely to result in overfishing or change the red snapper rebuilding time period. NMFS has determined that Amendment 43 is based on the best scientific information available. Additionally, the ACL proposed in Amendment 43 is less than the ABC provided by the SSC from SEDAR 41, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standard 1 Guidelines. See 16 U.S.C. 1852(h)(6), 50 CFR 600.310(f)(4)(i).

    Action Contained in Amendment 43

    Based on the actions in Amendment 28, the FMP currently contains total ABCs that are then divided, with one component for landings and another for discards. Beginning in 2018, Amendment 43 would change the process for determining the red snapper ACL and allowable harvest that was established in Amendment 28. Limited commercial and recreational harvest would be allowed by implementing a total ACL of 42,510 fish, which is based on the landings observed during the limited red snapper season in 2014. This ACL is less than the SSC's most recent total ABC recommendation of 53,000 red snapper, and is less than the 79,000 fish landings component of the 135,000 fish total ABC projection for 2018 in Amendment 28. The total ACL is divided into a commercial sector ACL of 124,815 lb (56,615 kg), round weight, and a recreational sector ACL of 29,656 fish, based on the current sector allocation ratio developed by the Council for red snapper (28.07 percent commercial and 71.93 percent recreational). The commercial sector's ACL is set in pounds of fish because the commercial sector reports landings in weight, and therefore, weight is a more accurate representation of commercial landings. For the commercial sector, one red snapper is equivalent to 9.71 lb (4.40 kg), round weight. The ACL for the recreational sector is specified in numbers of fish, because the Council determined that numbers of fish are a more reliable estimate for that sector than specifying the ACL in weight of fish. Because surveys that estimate recreational landings collect information on numbers of fish and convert those numbers to weights using biological samples that are sometimes limited, the Council believes that there can be uncertainty in estimates of recreational landings by weight.

    NMFS and the Council have specified several management measures that function as accountability measures (AMs) to constrain red snapper harvest to these ACLs, including limited commercial and recreational red snapper seasons. The harvest of red snapper would begin in July, with the opening and closing of the recreational sector specified before the recreational season begins and would consist of weekends only (Friday, Saturday, Sunday). The commercial red snapper season would close when the commercial ACL is met or projected to be met. The length of the recreational red snapper season would be projected and announced before the start of the season, based on catch rate estimates from previous years. In addition to authorizing commercial and recreational harvest by setting sector ACLs and AMs, Amendment 43 would retain the current commercial trip limit of 75 lb (34 kg), gutted weight, and the recreational bag limit of 1 fish per person per day. No size limits would be implemented for either sector through Amendment 43 in an effort to decrease regulatory discards (fish returned to the water because they are below the minimum size limit). The NMFS Regional Administrator has the authority to delay the opening of red snapper fishing seasons in the event of a tropical storm or hurricane affecting the area of the Council's jurisdiction.

    Proposed Rule for Amendment 43

    A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 43 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, Amendment 43, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.

    Consideration of Public Comments

    The Council has submitted Amendment 43 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 43 must be received by June 15, 2018. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 43 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 43. Comments received after the comment periods will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on Amendment 43 or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 11, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07866 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 73 Monday, April 16, 2018 Notices COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Kentucky Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kentucky Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Monday April 30, 2018, for continuing committee discussion of potential project topics.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:00 EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 1-888-820-9416, conference ID: 7615340.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hinton, DFO, at [email protected] or 404-562-7006.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 1-888-820-9416, conference ID: 7615340. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by April 27, 2018. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

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

    Agenda Welcome and attendance of advisory committee members Dr. Betty Griffin, Chairman/Jeff Hinton, Regional Director, USCCRSRO Kentucky Advisory Committee update/discussion of potential project topics Dr. Betty Griffin, Chairman, Advisory Committee Open Comment Advisory Committee Public Participation Adjournment Dated: April 11, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07841 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC). The Committee advises the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, the Directors of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Friday, June 1, 2018. You may access the online registration form with the following link: https://www.regonline.com/fesac_june2018_meeting. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. An agenda will be accessible before the meeting at the following link: https://www.census.gov/fesac.

    DATES:

    June 8, 2018. The meeting will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Conference Center, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20746.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James R. Spletzer, Designated Federal Official, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Research and Methodology Directorate, Room 5K175, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-4069, email: [email protected] For TTY callers, please call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 and give them the above listed number. This service is free and confidential.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the FESAC are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee advises the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, the Directors of the BEA and the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's BLS, on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2).

    The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comments and questions. Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing at least three days before the meeting to the Designated Federal Official named above.

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Designated Federal Official as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

    Due to security protocols and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.

    Ron S. Jarmin, Associate Director for Economic Programs, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07796 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Meeting AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) will hold a public meeting on Thursday, May 3, 2018, from 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). Members will hear from Federal innovation and entrepreneurship policymakers and discuss potential policies that would foster innovation, increase the rate of technology commercialization, and catalyze the creation of jobs in the United States. Topics to be covered include increasing early-stage high-growth company exports, increased economic dynamism through innovation and entrepreneurship, apprenticeships in entrepreneurship and high-growth technology sectors, alignment of federal innovation and entrepreneurship policies and programs, and the principles set forth in NACIE's recommendation entitled “Making America Competitive through Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Productivity.”

    DATES:

    Thursday, May 3, 2018; Time: 1:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    Herbert Clark Hoover Building (HCHB), 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230, Room 58026. The entrance to HCHB is located on the west side of 14th St. NW between D St. NW and Constitution Ave. NW, and a valid government-issued ID is required to enter the building. Please note that pre-clearance is required to both attend the meeting in person and make a statement during the public comment portion of the meeting. Please limit comments to five minutes or less and submit a brief statement summarizing your comments to Craig Buerstatte (see contact information below) no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on Friday, April 27, 2018.

    Teleconference: Teleconference and/or web conference connection information will be published prior to the meeting along with the agenda on the NACIE website at https://www.eda.gov/oie/nacie/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NACIE, established by Section 25(c) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3720(c)), and managed by EDA's Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIE), is a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that provides advice directly to the Secretary of Commerce. NACIE's advice focuses on transformational policies and programs that aim to accelerate innovation and increase the rate at which research is translated into companies and jobs, including through entrepreneurship and the development of an increasingly skilled, globally competitive workforce. Comprised of successful entrepreneurs, innovators, angel investors, venture capitalists, and leaders from the nonprofit and academic sectors, NACIE has presented to the Secretary recommendations throughout the research-to-jobs continuum on topics including improving access to capital, growing and connecting entrepreneurial ecosystems, increasing small business-driven research and development, and understanding the workforce of the future. In its advisory capacity, NACIE also serves as a vehicle for ongoing dialogue with the innovation, entrepreneurship, and workforce development communities.

    The final agenda for the meeting will be posted on the NACIE website at http://www.eda.gov/oie/nacie/ prior to the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent questions and comments concerning the NACIE's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Craig Buerstatte (see contact information below). Those unable to attend the meetings in person but wishing to listen to the proceedings can do so via teleconference or web conference (see above). Copies of the meeting minutes will be available by request within 90 days of the meeting date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Craig Buerstatte, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Room 78018, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; email: [email protected]; telephone: +1 202 482 8001; fax: +1 202 273 4781. Please reference “NACIE May 2018 Meeting” in the subject line of your correspondence.

    Dated: April 10, 2018. Craig Buerstatte, Acting Director, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07855 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Stephen Edward Smith, Inmate Number: 30819-408, FCI LA Tuna, P.O. Box 3000, Anthony, NM 88021; Order Denying Export Privileges

    On April 13, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Stephen Edward Smith (“Smith”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”), among other crimes. Specifically, Smith was convicted of knowingly and willfully exporting and causing to be exported from the United States to Hong Kong a Tikka Sporter .223 Rem Semi-automatic rifle and two silencers, which are items designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Smith was sentenced to 102 months in prison, with credit for time served, three years of supervised release, a criminal fine of $150,050 and a $300 special assessment, and ordered to forfeit $59,550 to the United States.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”), 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Act or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his/her conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39005 (Aug. 16, 2017)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Smith's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Smith to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Smith.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Smith's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Smith's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Smith had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until April 13, 2027, Stephen Edward Smith, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 30819-408, FCI LA Tuna, P.O. Box 3000, Anthony, NM 88021, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (“the Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Smith by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Smith may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Smith and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until April 13, 2027.

    Issued this 6th day of April, 2018. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07802 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Peter Steve Plesinger, Inmate Number: 28514-408, FCI Terminal Island, P.O. Box 3007, San Pedro, CA 90733 Order Denying Export Privileges

    On April 26, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Peter Steve Plesinger (“Plesinger”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”), among other crimes. Specifically, Plesinger was convicted of knowingly and willfully exporting and causing to be exported from the United States to Hong Kong two Ruger SR22 semi-automatic pistols, two silencers, and 1000 rounds of ammunition, which are items designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Plesinger was sentenced to 87 months in prison, with credit for time served, three years of supervised release and a $300 special assessment, and ordered to forfeit $64,500 to the United States.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”), 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Act or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his/her conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39005 (Aug. 16, 2017)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Plesinger's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Plesinger to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Plesinger.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Plesinger's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Plesinger's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Plesinger had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until April 26, 2027, Peter Steve Plesinger, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 28514-408, FCI Terminal Island, P.O. Box 3007, San Pedro, CA 90733, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (“the Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Plesinger by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Plesinger may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Plesinger and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until April 26, 2027.

    Issued this 6th day of April, 2018. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07804 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Earl Henry Richmond, 2731 E Eba Court, Green Valley, AZ 85614; Order Denying Export Privileges

    On December 2, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Earl Henry Richmond (“Richmond”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Richmond was convicted of knowingly and intentionally conspiring with others to knowingly and willfully export from the United States to Hong Kong ammunition and firearms designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, including .22 and, 223 caliber ammunition and a Ruger 10/20 rifle, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Richmond was sentenced to probation for a term of three years, a fine of $2,000 and a $100 special assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act (“EAA” or “the Act”), 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued pursuant to the Act or the Regulations in which the person had an interest at the time of his/her conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)) (“EAA” or “the Act”). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39005 (Aug. 16, 2017)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Richmond's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Richmond to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Richmond.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Richmond's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Richmond's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Richmond had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until December 2, 2026, Earl Henry Richmond, with a last known address of 2731 E Eba Court, Green Valley, AZ 85614, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (“the Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Richmond by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Richmond may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to Richmond and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 2, 2026.

    Issued this 6th day of April 2018. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07801 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-838] Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from Italy is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), during the period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Effective April 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Bethea, 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) 482-1491.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On November 22, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV and the preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances, in part, in the antidumping duty (AD) investigation of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy.1 Commerce postponed the final LTFV determination.2 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. As a result, the revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now April 9, 2018.3 Commerce invited comments from interested parties on the Preliminary Determination. 4 The petitioners,5 Dalmine, S.p.A. (Dalmine), and Metalfer, S.p.A. (Metalfer) filed case and rebuttal briefs.6 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.7 The Issues and 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 it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 55561 (November 22, 2017) (Preliminary Determination).

    2Id.

    3See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    4See Memorandum, “Briefing Schedule for Final Determination,” dated February 23, 2018.

    5 ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, PTC Alliance Corp., Plymouth Tube Co. USA, Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman Industries, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).

    6See Metalfer's Letter, “Metalfer's Case Brief,” dated March 2, 2018 (Metalfer's Case Brief); Petitioners' Letter, “Case Brief of Petitioners,” dated March 5, 2018 (Petitioners' Case Brief); Dalmine's Letter, “Case Brief of Dalmine S.p.A. and Tenaris Global Services U.S.A. Corporation,” dated March 5, 2018 (Dalmine's Case Brief).

    7See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation of Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Italy,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy. In the Preliminary Determination, 8 we set a separate briefing schedule on scope issues for interested parties.9 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.10 On December 4, 2017, the petitioners withdrew a portion of their comments regarding the scope language.11 Commerce addressed all scope comments received in the Final Scope Decision Memorandum and made changes to the scope that appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 12 A full description of the scope is contained at Appendix I to this notice.

    8See Preliminary Determination.

    9Id., 82 FR at 55562. The scope case briefs were due five days after the publication of the preliminary less than fair value determinations for China, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, and Switzerland in the Federal Register, and the rebuttal briefs were due three days after the due date for the scope case briefs, i.e., Monday, November 27, 2017 and Thursday, November 30, 2017.

    10See Memorandum, “Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Switzerland: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated November 15, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    11See the petitioners' letter, “Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing from Germany et al.—EN-10305-3,” dated December 4, 2017.

    12See Memorandum, “Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Switzerland: Scope Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations: Final Scope Decision Memorandum,” dated December 4, 2017 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce conducted the cost and sales verifications of Dalmine in Dalmine, Italy, and Houston, Texas, between December 12, 2017, and February 13, 2018. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents. Following the Preliminary Determination, Metalfer withdrew its participation in the investigation as a mandatory respondent and did not participate in verification.13

    13See Metalfer's Letter, “Metalfer's Withdrawal of Participation as Mandatory Respondent,” dated December 8, 2017.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    In the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce found that critical circumstances existed for Dalmine and Metalfer, but not for all other producers or exporters. Commerce received no comments concerning the preliminary critical circumstances determination. For this final determination, while Commerce continues to find that, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, critical circumstances exist for Dalmine and Metalfer and do not exist for “all other” producers or exporters, Commerce has made changes to its analysis because, as discussed below, Commerce has determined that for both Dalmine and Metalfer, the use of adverse facts available is warranted in determining a margin for these companies. For further discussion of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

    Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied on facts available with adverse inferences to assign an estimated weighted-average dumping margin to Dalmine and Metalfer, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 776(b) of the Act. For further information, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to our analysis. As noted above, we are now applying adverse facts available in determining margins for the mandatory respondents. For a discussion of these and other changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for individually investigated exporters and producers, excluding any margins that are zero or de minimis or any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In contrast to the Preliminary Determination, we cannot apply the methodology described in section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act to calculate the “all-others” rate because the margin for both individually-investigated respondents in the final determination was determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In cases where no weighted-average dumping margins other than zero, de minimis, or those determined entirely under section 776 of the Act have been established for individually examined entities, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, Commerce averages the margins calculated by the petitioners in the petition and applies the result to “all-other” entities not individually examined.14 Consistent with our practice, we assigned as the “all-others” rate, the simple average of the three dumping margins provided in the petition, which is 47.87 percent.

    14See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 21909, 21912 (April 23, 2008), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 38986, 38987 (July 8, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (Sodium Nitrite from Germany Final Determination).

    Final Determination Margins

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter or producer Estimated weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Dalmine, S.p.A 68.95 Metalfer, S.p.A 68.95 All-Others 47.87
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, for this final determination, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy, as described in the Appendix I to this notice, produced or exported by Dalmine and Metalfer, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 24, 2017, (90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination), because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist with regard to imports from, produced, or exported by Dalmine and Metalfer.

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of cold-drawn mechanical tubing, as described in Appendix I of this notice, produced or exported by “all-other” entities which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 22, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.

    Furthermore, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    These instructions will stay in effect until further notice.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction or APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: April 9, 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 I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) of circular cross-section, 304.8 mm or more in length, in actual outside diameters less than 331 mm, and regardless of wall thickness, surface finish, end finish or industry specification. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is a tubular product with a circular cross-sectional shape that has been cold-drawn or otherwise cold-finished after the initial tube formation in a manner that involves a change in the diameter or wall thickness of the tubing, or both. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may be produced from either welded (e.g., electric resistance welded, continuous welded, etc.) or seamless (e.g., pierced, pilgered or extruded, etc.) carbon or alloy steel tubular products. It may also be heat treated after cold working. Such heat treatments may include, but are not limited to, annealing, normalizing, quenching and tempering, stress relieving or finish annealing. Typical cold-drawing methods for subject merchandise include, but are not limited to, drawing over mandrel, rod drawing, plug drawing, sink drawing and similar processes that involve reducing the outside diameter of the tubing with a die or similar device, whether or not controlling the inside diameter of the tubing with an internal support device such as a mandrel, rod, plug or similar device. Other cold-finishing operations that may be used to produce subject merchandise include cold-rolling and cold-sizing the tubing.

    Subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is typically certified to meet industry specifications for cold-drawn tubing including but not limited to:

    (1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specifications ASTM A-512, ASTM A-513 Type 3 (ASME SA513 Type 3), ASTM A-513 Type 4 (ASME SA513 Type 4), ASTM A-513 Type 5 (ASME SA513 Type 5), ASTM A-513 Type 6 (ASME SA513 Type 6), ASTM A-519 (cold-finished);

    (2) SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) specifications SAE J524, SAE J525, SAE J2833, SAE J2614, SAE J2467, SAE J2435, SAE J2613;

    (3) Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) AMS T-6736 (AMS 6736), AMS 6371, AMS 5050, AMS 5075, AMS 5062, AMS 6360, AMS 6361, AMS 6362, AMS 6371, AMS 6372, AMS 6374, AMS 6381, AMS 6415;

    (4) United States Military Standards (MIL) MIL-T-5066 and MIL-T-6736;

    (5) foreign standards equivalent to one of the previously listed ASTM, ASME, SAE, AMS or MIL specifications including but not limited to:

    (a) German Institute for Standardization (DIN) specifications DIN 2391-2, DIN 2393-2, DIN 2394-2);

    (b) European Standards (EN) EN 10305-1, EN 10305-2, EN 10305-4, EN 10305-6 and European national variations on those standards (e.g., British Standard (BS EN), Irish Standard (IS EN) and German Standard (DIN EN) variations, etc.);

    (c) Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) JIS G 3441 and JIS G 3445; and

    (6) proprietary standards that are based on one of the above-listed standards.

    The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may also be dual or multiple certified to more than one standard. Pipe that is multiple certified as cold-drawn mechanical tubing and to other specifications not covered by this scope, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    For purposes of this scope, the place of cold-drawing determines the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Subject merchandise that is subject to minor working in a third country that occurs after drawing in one of the subject countries including, but not limited to, heat treatment, cutting to length, straightening, nondestructive testing, deburring or chamfering, remains within the scope of this investigation.

    All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. Merchandise that meets the physical description of cold-drawn mechanical tubing above is within the scope of the investigation even if it is also dual or multiple certified to an otherwise excluded specification listed below. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this investigation:

    (1) cold-drawn stainless steel tubing, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (2) products certified to one or more of the ASTM, ASME or American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications listed below:

    • ASTM A-53;

    • ASTM A-106;

    • ASTM A-179 (ASME SA 179);

    • ASTM A-192 (ASME SA 192);

    • ASTM A-209 (ASME SA 209);

    • ASTM A-210 (ASME SA 210);

    • ASTM A-213 (ASME SA 213);

    • ASTM A-334 (ASME SA 334);

    • ASTM A-423 (ASME SA 423);

    • ASTM A-498;

    • ASTM A-496 (ASME SA 496);

    • ASTM A-199;

    • ASTM A-500;

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VII. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether Applying Partial AFA to Dalmine for the Preliminary Determination was appropriate Comment 2: Whether Commerce Used Aberrational Values in the Application of Partial AFA to Dalmine for the Preliminary Determination Comment 3: Whether Commerce Had a Ministerial Error in the Program Calculating Dalmine's Margin for the Preliminary Determination Comment 4: Whether Commerce Properly Applied Its Differential Pricing Methodology in Selecting Dalmine's Cash Deposit Rate Comment 5: Whether Commerce Can Rely on Dalmine's U.S. and Home Market Sales Responses Comment 6: Whether Commerce Can Rely on Dalmine's Cost Response for the Final Determination Comment 7: Whether Commerce Should Apply Total Adverse Facts Available to Dalmine for the Final Determination Comment 8: Commerce's Selection of the Total Adverse Facts Available Rate for Metalfer VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-07848 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC) Public Meeting AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, DOC.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an Open Meeting of a Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC).

    DATES:

    The teleconference meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 30, 2018 from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The deadline for members of the public to register or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the teleconference is 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 23, 2018. The deadline for members of the public to request auxiliary aids is 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place via teleconference. The address to register and obtain call-in information; submit comments; or request auxiliary aids is: Ms. Tracy Gerstle, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 or email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tracy Gerstle, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-0810; Fax: 202-482-5665; email: [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will take place on April 30 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT. The general meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 2:45-3:00 p.m. EDT. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting are required to register in advance. Those interested in attending must provide notification by Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. EDT, via the contact information provided above. This teleconference is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at (202) 482-0810 no less than one week prior to the meeting. Requests received after this date will be accepted, but it may not be possible to accommodate them.

    Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received by Monday, April 23, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. EDT to ensure transmission to the members before the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.

    Topic to be considered: During the April 30, 2018 meeting the three ETTAC subcommittees will discuss their top priorities for this charter period, with the goal of finalizing the ETTAC's recommendations for the Secretary of Commerce, for their current two year charter, which ends in August 2018. Topics under discussion include optimizing the U.S. Government's trade promotion programs, identifying market access barriers, pros and cons of existing trade agreements, and discussing foreign procurement policy, including issues with financing mechanisms, localization requirements and non-tariff barriers. The ETTAC's subcommittees are: Trade Promotion and Export Market Development, Professional Services and Infrastructure Advancement, and Trade Policy and American Competitiveness.

    Background: The ETTAC is mandated by Section 2313(c) of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4728(c), to advise the Environmental Trade Working Group of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, through the Secretary of Commerce, on the development and administration of programs to expand U.S. exports of environmental technologies, goods, services, and products. The ETTAC was originally chartered in May of 1994. It was most recently re-chartered until August 2018.

    Dated: April 10, 2018. Man Cho, Deputy Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2018-07861 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-441-801] Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From Switzerland: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from Switzerland is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination.” The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable April 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 22, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Switzerland,1 and on January 3, 2018, we published an Amended Preliminary Determination. 2 The petitioners in this investigation are ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, Plymouth Tube Co. USA, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc. and Zekelman Industries, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). The mandatory respondents in this investigation are Benteler Rothrist AG (Benteler Rothrist) and Mubea Präzisionsstahlrohr AG (MPST) and Mubea Inc. (collectively, Mubea). A complete summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

    1See Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing from Switzerland: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 55571 (November 22, 2017) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Switzerland” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). See also Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Switzerland: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 346 (January 3, 2018) (Amended Preliminary Determination); Memorandum, “Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel (Cold Drawn Mechanical Tubing) from Switzerland: Benteler Rothrist AG (Benteler Rothrist),” dated December 21, 2017 (Benteler Rothrist's Ministerial Error Memorandum); and, Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Switzerland: Ministerial Error Allegations in the Preliminary Determination,” dated December 21, 2017 (Mubea's Ministerial Error Memorandum).

    2 See Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Switzerland: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 346 (January 3, 2018) (Amended Preliminary Determination); Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Switzerland: Ministerial Error Allegations in the Preliminary Determination,” dated December 21, 2017 (Ministerial Error Memorandum).

    3See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Switzerland of Switzerland,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available 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 B-8024 of Commerce's main building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic version are identical in content.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Switzerland. Commerce did not receive any scope comments subsequent to the Preliminary Determination and, therefore, the scope has not been updated since the Preliminary Determination. See Appendix I of this notice.

    Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce verified the sales and cost data reported by Benteler Rothrist and Mubea for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this proceeding are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties and responded to by Commerce in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached at Appendix II.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for AKP and LG Chem since the Preliminary Determination. These changes are discussed in the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, Commerce calculated a dumping margin for the individually investigated exporters/producers of the subject merchandise. Consistent with sections 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, Commerce also calculated an estimated “all-others” rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for individually investigated exporters and producers, excluding any margins that are zero or de minimis or any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. We calculated the all-others rate using a weighted average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below.4

    4See memorandum to the file, “Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from Switzerland from the Republic of Switzerland: Calculation of All—Others' Rate in the Final Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Determination Margins

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margins
  • (percent)
  • Benteler Rothrist AG (Benteler Rothrist) 12.50 Mubea Präzisionsstahlrohr AG (MPST) 30.48 All-Others 13.55
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of any public announcement of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of all appropriate entries of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Switzerland, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 22, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Further, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above.

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, for this final determination, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Switzerland, as described in the Appendix I to this notice, produced or exported by LDC and “all other” exporters and producers not individually examined, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 22, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Furthermore, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Switzerland no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: April 9, 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 I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) of circular cross-section, 304.8 mm or more in length, in actual outside diameters less than 331 mm, and regardless of wall thickness, surface finish, end finish or industry specification. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is a tubular product with a circular cross-sectional shape that has been cold-drawn or otherwise cold-finished after the initial tube formation in a manner that involves a change in the diameter or wall thickness of the tubing, or both. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may be produced from either welded (e.g., electric resistance welded, continuous welded, etc.) or seamless (e.g., pierced, pilgered or extruded, etc.) carbon or alloy steel tubular products. It may also be heat treated after cold working. Such heat treatments may include, but are not limited to, annealing, normalizing, quenching and tempering, stress relieving or finish annealing. Typical cold-drawing methods for subject merchandise include, but are not limited to, drawing over mandrel, rod drawing, plug drawing, sink drawing and similar processes that involve reducing the outside diameter of the tubing with a die or similar device, whether or not controlling the inside diameter of the tubing with an internal support device such as a mandrel, rod, plug or similar device. Other cold-finishing operations that may be used to produce subject merchandise include cold-rolling and cold-sizing the tubing.

    Subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is typically certified to meet industry specifications for cold-drawn tubing including but not limited to:

    (1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specifications ASTM A-512, ASTM A-513 Type 3 (ASME SA513 Type 3), ASTM A-513 Type 4 (ASME SA513 Type 4), ASTM A-513 Type 5 (ASME SA513 Type 5), ASTM A-513 Type 6 (ASME SA513 Type 6), ASTM A-519 (cold-finished);

    (2) SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) specifications SAE J524, SAE J525, SAE J2833, SAE J2614, SAE J2467, SAE J2435, SAE J2613;

    (3) Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) AMS T-6736 (AMS 6736), AMS 6371, AMS 5050, AMS 5075, AMS 5062, AMS 6360, AMS 6361, AMS 6362, AMS 6371, AMS 6372, AMS 6374, AMS 6381, AMS 6415;

    (4) United States Military Standards (MIL) MIL-T-5066 and MIL-T-6736;

    (5) foreign standards equivalent to one of the previously listed ASTM, ASME, SAE, AMS or MIL specifications including but not limited to:

    (a) German Institute for Standardization (DIN) specifications DIN 2391-2, DIN 2393-2, DIN 2394-2);

    (b) European Standards (EN) EN 10305-1, EN 10305-2, EN 10305-4, EN 10305-6 and European national variations on those standards (e.g., British Standard (BS EN), Irish Standard (IS EN) and German Standard (DIN EN) variations, etc.);

    (c) Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) JIS G 3441 and JIS G 3445; and

    (6) proprietary standards that are based on one of the above-listed standards.

    The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may also be dual or multiple certified to more than one standard. Pipe that is multiple certified as cold-drawn mechanical tubing and to other specifications not covered by this scope, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    For purposes of this scope, the place of cold-drawing determines the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Subject merchandise that is subject to minor working in a third country that occurs after drawing in one of the subject countries including, but not limited to, heat treatment, cutting to length, straightening, nondestruction testing, deburring or chamfering, remains within the scope of the investigation.

    All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. Merchandise that meets the physical description of cold-drawn mechanical tubing above is within the scope of the investigations even if it is also dual or multiple certified to an otherwise excluded specification listed below. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this investigation:

    (1) cold-drawn stainless steel tubing, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (2) products certified to one or more of the ASTM, ASME or American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications listed below:

    • ASTM A-53;

    • ASTM A-106;

    • ASTM A-179 (ASME SA 179);

    • ASTM A-192 (ASME SA 192);

    • ASTM A-209 (ASME SA 209);

    • ASTM A-210 (ASME SA 210);

    • ASTM A-213 (ASME SA 213);

    • ASTM A-334 (ASME SA 334);

    • ASTM A-423 (ASME SA 423);

    • ASTM A-498;

    • ASTM A-496 (ASME SA 496);

    • ASTM A-199;

    • ASTM A-500;

    • ASTM A-556;

    • ASTM A-565;

    • API 5L; and

    • API 5CT

    except that any cold-drawn tubing product certified to one of the above excluded specifications will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this investigation.

    The products subject to the investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.31.3000, 7304.31.6050, 7304.51.1000, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.50.5030. Subject merchandise may also enter under numbers 7306.30.1000 and 7306.50.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: The Inclusion of Sample Sales in Benteler Rothrist's Margin Calculation Comment 2: Identification of Missing Information for Certain of Benteler Rothrist's U.S. and Comparison Market Sales Comment 3: Use of the Average-to-Average Methodology for Benteler Rothrist's Margin Calculation Comment 4: Margin Offsets for Section 232 Duties Comment 5: Mubea's Reported Date of Sale in the Third-Country Comment 6: Application of AFA to Mubea for the Cohen's d Test Due to Inaccurate Reporting of Customer Locations Comment 7: Commerce Should Calculate the Margin Based on Transfer Prices From MPST in Switzerland to Mubea, Inc. in the United States Comment 8: Mubea's Startup Adjustment for the U.S. Further Manufacturing Operations Comment 9: Calculation of Mubea, Inc.'s General and Administrative Expense for Further Manufacturing in the United States Comment 10: Unreconciled Difference in Reconciliation Between Financial Records and the Reported Cost Database for Mubea Comment 11: Revisions and Minor Corrections to Mubea's Response VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-07853 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-873] Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation (POI) April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Pulongbarit or 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) 482-4031 or (202) 482-5307, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 22, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty (AD) investigation of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India.1 On January 9, 2018, Commerce published the Amended Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.2 Commerce invited comments from interested parties on the Preliminary Determination. 3 The petitioners, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, Plymouth Tube Co. USA, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman Industries, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), and the two mandatory respondents, Goodluck India Limited (Goodluck), and Tube Products of India, Ltd. a unit of Tube Investments of India Limited (collectively, TPI) filed case and rebuttal briefs. Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. As a result, the revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now April 9, 2018.4

    1See Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 55567 (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from India: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 83 FR 1021 (Amended Preliminary Determination).

    3See Memorandum, “Antidumping Investigation of Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing from India: Case Brief Schedule,” February 8, 2018.

    4See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.5 The Issues and 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 to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    5See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from India,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum or IDM).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.6 On December 4, 2017, the petitioners withdrew a portion of their comments regarding the scope language.7 Commerce addressed all scope comments received in the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.8

    6See Memorandum, “Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Switzerland: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated November 15, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    7See the petitioners' letter, “Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing from Germany et al.—EN-10305-3,” dated December 4, 2017.

    8See Memorandum, “Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Switzerland: Scope Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations: Final Scope Decision Memorandum,” dated December 4, 2017 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), between November and December 2017, Commerce conduced a verification of the sales and cost data reported by Goodluck and TPI. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    For purposes of this final determination, Commerce determined Goodluck's margin on the basis of facts available with adverse inferences, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1), 776(a)(2)(B)-(C), and 776(b) of the Act. For further information, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) and 735(c)(5) of the Act provide that in the final determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Because TPI is the only respondent in this investigation for which Commerce calculated a company-specific rate which is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts available, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for TPI as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

    Final Determination Margins

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter or producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit rate (adjusted for offset(s)) (percent)
    Goodluck India Limited 33.80* 33.70 Tube Products of India, Ltd. a unit of Tube Investments of India Limited (collectively, TPI) 8.26 5.87 All-Others 8.26 5.87 * (AFA)
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed with respect to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the public announcement of this final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). With respect to Goodluck, because Commerce relied on facts available with adverse inferences, there are no calculations to disclose.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 22, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce has offset the estimated weighted- average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate. Any such adjusted cash deposit rate may be found in the “Final Determination Margins” section, above.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 352.210(c).

    Dated: April 9, 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 I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) of circular cross-section, 304.8 mm or more in length, in actual outside diameters less than 331mm, and regardless of wall thickness, surface finish, end finish or industry specification. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is a tubular product with a circular cross-sectional shape that has been cold-drawn or otherwise cold-finished after the initial tube formation in a manner that involves a change in the diameter or wall thickness of the tubing, or both. The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may be produced from either welded (e.g., electric resistance welded, continuous welded, etc.) or seamless (e.g., pierced, pilgered or extruded, etc.) carbon or alloy steel tubular products. It may also be heat treated after cold working. Such heat treatments may include, but are not limited to, annealing, normalizing, quenching and tempering, stress relieving or finish annealing. Typical cold-drawing methods for subject merchandise include, but are not limited to, drawing over mandrel, rod drawing, plug drawing, sink drawing and similar processes that involve reducing the outside diameter of the tubing with a die or similar device, whether or not controlling the inside diameter of the tubing with an internal support device such as a mandrel, rod, plug or similar device. Other cold-finishing operations that may be used to produce subject merchandise include cold-rolling and cold-sizing the tubing.

    Subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing is typically certified to meet industry specifications for cold-drawn tubing including but not limited to:

    (1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specifications ASTM A-512, ASTM A-513 Type 3 (ASME SA513 Type 3), ASTM A-513 Type 4 (ASME SA513 Type 4), ASTM A-513 Type 5 (ASME SA513 Type 5), ASTM A-513 Type 6 (ASME SA513 Type 6), ASTM A-519 (cold-finished);

    (2) SAE International (Society of Automotive Engineers) specifications SAE J524, SAE J525, SAE J2833, SAE J2614, SAE J2467, SAE J2435, SAE J2613;

    (3) Aerospace Material Specification (AMS) AMS T-6736 (AMS 6736), AMS 6371, AMS 5050, AMS 5075, AMS 5062, AMS 6360, AMS 6361, AMS 6362, AMS 6371, AMS 6372, AMS 6374, AMS 6381, AMS 6415;

    (4) United States Military Standards (MIL) MIL-T-5066 and MIL-T-6736;

    (5) foreign standards equivalent to one of the previously listed ASTM, ASME, SAE, AMS or MIL specifications including but not limited to:

    (a) German Institute for Standardization (DIN) specifications DIN 2391-2, DIN 2393-2, DIN 2394-2);

    (b) European Standards (EN) EN 10305-1, EN 10305-2, EN 10305-3, EN 10305-4, EN 10305-6 and European national variations on those standards (e.g., British Standard (BS EN), Irish Standard (IS EN) and German Standard (DIN EN) variations, etc.);

    (c) Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) JIS G 3441 and JIS G 3445; and

    (6) proprietary standards that are based on one of the above-listed standards.

    The subject cold-drawn mechanical tubing may also be dual or multiple certified to more than one standard. Pipe that is multiple certified as cold-drawn mechanical tubing and to other specifications not covered by this scope, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    For purposes of this scope, the place of cold-drawing determines the country of origin of the subject merchandise. Subject merchandise that is subject to minor working in a third country that occurs after drawing in one of the subject countries including, but not limited to, heat treatment, cutting to length, straightening, nondestruction testing, deburring or chamfering, remains within the scope of this investigation.

    All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. Merchandise that meets the physical description of cold-drawn mechanical tubing above is within the scope of the investigation even if it is also dual or multiple certified to an otherwise excluded specification listed below. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this investigation:

    (1) cold-drawn stainless steel tubing, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (2) products certified to one or more of the ASTM, ASME or American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications listed below:

    • ASTM A-53;

    • ASTM A-106;

    • ASTM A-179 (ASME SA 179);

    • ASTM A-192 (ASME SA 192);

    • ASTM A-209 (ASME SA 209);

    • ASTM A-210 (ASME SA 210);

    • ASTM A-213 (ASME SA 213);

    • ASTM A-334 (ASME SA 334);

    • ASTM A-423 (ASME SA 423);

    • ASTM A-498;

    • ASTM A-496 (ASME SA 496);

    • ASTM A-199;

    • ASTM A-500;

    • ASTM A-556;

    • ASTM A-565;

    • API 5L; and

    • API 5CT

    except that any cold-drawn tubing product certified to one of the above excluded specifications will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this investigation.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.31.3000, 7304.31.6050, 7304.51.1000, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.50.5030. Subject merchandise may also enter under numbers 7306.30.1000 and 7306.50.1000. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination V. Use of Adverse Facts Available VI. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Treatment of Goodluck's Sales with Misreported Product Characteristics Comment 2: Application of Total AFA to Goodluck Comment 3: TPI Scrap Adjustment Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should Accept TPI's Minor Corrections Presented at the TPI's Sales Verification Comment 5: Adjustments to G&A and Financial Expenses Comment 6: TPI's Grade Reporting Comment 7: TPI Home Market Billing Adjustments Comment 8: TPI's Freight Reporting Comment 9: TPI's Date of Sale VII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-07851 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Applicable April 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on Commerce's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, except for the reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (China), Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (e.g., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (e.g., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (Q&V) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Respondent Selection—Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From Taiwan and China

    In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents selected for individual examination in the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from Taiwan and China, Commerce intends to select respondents, for those two reviews, based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V Questionnaires. Further, Commerce intends to limit the number of Q&V Questionnaires issued in those two reviews, based on CBP data for U.S. imports of solar cells and/or solar modules. We note that the units used to measure U.S. import quantities of solar cells and solar modules in CBP data are “number;” however, it would not be meaningful to sum the number of imported solar cells and the number of imported solar modules in attempting to determine the volume of subject merchandise exported by Taiwanese exporters. Moreover, we also have concerns regarding inconsistencies in the unit of measure used to report CBP data for solar modules exported from China. Therefore, Commerce may limit the number of Q&V Questionnaires issued based on the import values in CBP data, which will serve as a proxy for imported quantities. Parties subject to these two antidumping duty administrative reviews of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products to which Commerce does not send a Q&V Questionnaire may file a response to the Q&V Questionnaire by the applicable deadline if they desire to be included in the pool of companies from which Commerce will select mandatory respondents. The Q&V Questionnaire will be available on Commerce's website at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The responses to the Q&V Questionnaire must be received by Commerce no later than 21 days after the publication of this initiation notice. Please be advised that due to the time constraints imposed by the statutory and regulatory deadlines for antidumping duty administrative reviews, Commerce does not intend to grant any extensions for the submission of responses to the Q&V Questionnaire. Parties will be given the opportunity to comment on the CBP data used by Commerce to limit the number of Q&V Questionnaires issued. We intend to place CBP data on the record within five days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after placement of the CBP data on the record.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when Commerce will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that Commerce does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

    All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to Commerce no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

    3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

    For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

    Furthermore, companies to which Commerce issues Q&V Questionnaires in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China must submit a timely and complete response to the Q&V Questionnaire, in addition to a timely and complete Separate Rate Status Application or Separate Rate Certification in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, Commerce will not give consideration to any timely Separate Rate Status Application or Separate Rate Certification made by parties to whom Commerce issued a Q&V Questionnaire but who failed to respond in a timely manner to the Q&V Questionnaire.

    Exporters subject to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China to which Commerce does not send a Q&V Questionnaire may receive consideration for separate-rate status if they file a timely Separate Rate Application or a timely Separate Rate Certification without filing a response to the Q&V Questionnaire. All information submitted by respondents in the antidumping duty administrative review of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China is subject to verification. As noted above, the Separate Rate Certification, the Separate Rate Application, and the Q&V Questionnaire will be available on Commerce's website on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than February 28, 2019.

    Period to be
  • reviewed
  • Antidumping Duty Proceedings Brazil: Stainless Steel Bar, A-351-825 2/1/17-1/31/18 Villares Metals S.A. India: Stainless Steel Bar, A-533-810 2/1/17-1/31/18 Venus Group Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited Jindal Stainless Limited Laxcon Steels Limited India: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-533-840 2/1/17-1/31/18 Abad Fisheries Akshay Food Impex Private Limited Alashore Marine Exports (P) Ltd. Albys Agro Private Limited Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Allanasons Ltd. Alpha Marine Amarsagar Seafoods Exports Private Limited AMI Enterprises Amulya Seafoods Ananda Aqua Applications/Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Limited/Ananda Foods Ananda Enterprises (India) Private Limited Angelique Intl Anjaneya Seafoods Apex Frozen Foods Private Limited Aquatica Frozen Foods Global Pvt. Ltd. Arya Sea Foods Private Limited Asvini Exports Asvini Fisheries Ltd./Asvini Fisheries Private Limited Avanti Feeds Limited/Avanti Frozen Foods Private Limited Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited B-One Business House Pvt. Ltd. B R Traders Baby Marine Exports Baby Marine International Baby Marine Sarass Baby Marine Ventures Balasore Marine Exports Private Limited Bay Seafoods Bell Exim Pvt. Ltd. Bhatsons Aquatic Products Bhavani Seafoods Bijaya Marine Products Blue-Fin Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Bluepark Seafoods Private Ltd. Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd. BMR Exports BMR Industries Private Limited Britto Seafood Exports Pvt Ltd. C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd. Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. Canaan Marine Products Capithan Exporting Co. Cargomar Private Limited Castlerock Fisheries Ltd. Chakri Fisheries Private Limited Chemmeens (Regd) Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div.) Choice Trading Corporation Private Limited Coastal Aqua Coastal Corporation Ltd. Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. Continental Fisheries India Pvt. Ltd. Coreline Exports Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Crystal Sea Foods Private Limited D2 D Logistics Private Limited Damco India Private Limited Delsea Exports Pvt. Ltd. Devi Fisheries Limited/Satya Seafoods Private Limited/Usha Seafoods/Devi Aquatech Private Limited Devi Marine Food Exports Private Ltd./Kader Exports Private Limited/Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products Private Limited/Universal Cold Storage Private Limited Devi Sea Foods Limited Diamond Seafoods Exports/Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Kadalkanny Frozen Foods/Theva & Company Esmario Export Enterprises Exporter Coreline Exports Falcon Marine Exports Limited/K.R. Enterprises Febin Marine Foods Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd. G A Randerian Ltd. Gadre Marine Exports Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd. Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd. Geo Seafoods Goodwill Enterprises Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd. Green House Agro Products Growel Processors Private Limited GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd. Hari Marine Private Limited Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd. Harmony Spices Pvt. Ltd. HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd. Hindustan Lever, Ltd. Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd. Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at APM—Mafco Yard, Sector—18, Vashi, Navi, Mumbai—400 705, India). Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka, Porbandar, Gujarat, 360 575, India). HN Indigos Private Limited Hyson Logistics and Marine Exports Private Limited IFB Agro Industries Ltd. Indian Aquatic Products Indo Aquatics Indo Fisheries Indo French Shellfish Company Private Limited Innovative Foods Limited International Freezefish Exports Interseas ITC Limited, International Business ITC Ltd. Jagadeesh Marine Exports Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Jinny Marine Traders Jiya Packagings K V Marine Exports Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exp. India Pvt. Ltd. Kanch Ghar Karunya Marine Exports Private Limited Kaushalya Aqua Marine Product Exports Private Limited Kay Kay Exports Kings Marine Products KNC Agro Limited Koluthara Exports Ltd. Landauer Ltd. Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd. Magnum Estates Limited Magnum Export Magnum Sea Foods Limited Malabar Arabian Fisheries Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd. Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd. Mangala Seafoods Mangala Sea Products Marine Harvest India Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Milesh Marine Exports Private Limited Milsha Agro Exports Pvt. Ltd. Monsun Foods Pvt Ltd. MTR Foods Munnangi Sea Foods Pvt. Limited N.C. John & Sons (P) Ltd. Naga Hanuman Fish Packers Naik Frozen Foods Private Limited Naik Oceanic Exports Private Limited Naik Seafoods Ltd. Neeli Aqua Private Limited Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited Nezami Rekha Sea Foods Private Limited NGR Aqua International Nila Sea Foods Exports Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Nine Up Frozen Foods Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd. Oceanic Edibles International Limited Paragon Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Paramount Seafoods Parayil Food Products Pvt., Ltd. Pasupati Aquatics Private Limited Penver Products Pvt. Ltd. Pesca Marine Products Pvt. Ltd. Pijikay International Exports P Ltd. Pisces Seafood International Pravesh Seafood Private Limited Premier Exports International Premier Marine Foods Premier Marine Products Private Limited Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd. R V R Marine Products Limited Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. Rafiq Naik Exports Private Limited Raju Exports Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd. Razban Seafoods Ltd. RBT Exports RDR Exports RF Exports Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rohi Marine Private Ltd. Royal Marine Impex Private Limited RSA Marines S & S Seafoods S. A. Exports S Chanchala Combines Safa Enterprises Sagar Foods Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sagar Samrat Seafoods Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sai Sea Foods Salvam Exports (P) Ltd. Samaki Exports Prviate Limited Sanchita Marine Products Private Limited Sandhya Aqua Exports Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sandhya Marines Limited Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd. Sarveshwari Exports Sea Foods Private Limited Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Selvam Exports Private Limited Sharat Industries Ltd. Sharma Industries Shimpo Exports Pvt. Ltd. Shimpo Seafoods Private Limited Shiva Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. Shree Datt Aquaculture Farms Pvt. Ltd. Shroff Processed Food & Cold Storage P Ltd. Silver Seafood Sita Marine Exports Southern Tropical Foods Pvt. Ltd. Sowmya Agri Marine Exports Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd. Srikanth International Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited Star Organic Foods Incorporated Star Organic Foods Private Limited Sterling Foods Sun Agro Exim Sun-Bio Technology Ltd. Sunrise Aqua Food Exports Supran Exim Private Limited Suryamitra Exim Pvt. Ltd. Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. TBR Exports Pvt Ltd. Teekay Marine P. Ltd. The Waterbase Limited Triveni Fisheries P Ltd.U & Company Marine Exports Ulka Sea Foods Private Limited Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd. Unitriveni Overseas V V Marine Products V.S. Exim Pvt Ltd. Vasai Frozen Food Co. Vasista Marine Veejay Impex Veerabhadra Exports Private Limited Veronica Marine Exports Private Limited Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd. Vinner Marine Vitality Aquaculture Pvt., Ltd. Wellcome Fisheries Limited West Coast Fine Foods (India) Private Limited West Coast Frozen Foods Private Limited Z A Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Italy: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A-475-828 2/1/17-1/31/18 Filmag Italia, SpA Tectubi Raccordi S.p.A. Malaysia: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A-557-809 2/1/17-1/31/18 Pantech Stainless & Alloy Industries Sdn. Bhd. Superinox Max Fittings Industry Sdn. Bhd Mexico: Large Residential Washers, A-201-842 2/1/17-1/31/18 Electrolux Home Products Corp. N.V. Electrolux Home Products de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Oman: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe 4, A-523-812 6/8/16-11/30/17 Republic of Korea: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate, A-580-836 2/1/17-1/31/18 Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. Hyundai Steel Company Republic of Korea: Large Residential Washers, A-580-868 2/1/17-1/31/18 LG Electronics, Inc. Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-552-802 2/1/17-1/31/18 A & CDN Foods Co., Ltd. Amanda Seafood Co., Ltd. An Huy B.T Co. Ltd. Anh Koa Seafood Anh Minh Quan Joint Stock Company Asia Food Stuffs Import Export Co., Ltd. Au Vung One Seafood Processing Import & Export Joint Stock Company Au Vung Two Seafood Processing Import & Export Joint Stock Company B.O.P Company Limited B.O.P. Limited Co. Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company (“Bac Lieu Fis”) Bac Lieu Fisheries JSC Ben Tre Forestry and Aquaproduct Import Export Joint Stock Company (“Faquimex”) Ben Tre Forestry and Aquaproduct Import-Export Joint Stock Company (FAQUIMEX) Bentre Aquaproduct Import & Export Joint Stock Company Bentre Aquaproduct Import & Export Joint Stock Company (Aquatex Bentre) Bien Dong Seafood Co., Ltd. BIM Foods Joint Stock Company BIM Seafood Joint Stock Company Binh Dong Fisheries Joint Stock Company Binh Thuan Import—Export Joint Stock Company (THAIMEX) C.P. Vietnam Corporation Ca Mau Agricultural Products and Foodstuff Imp-Exp Joint Stock Company (Agrimexco Camau) Ca Mau Frozen Seafood Joint Stock Company (“Seaprimexco Vietnam”) Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (“Seaprimexco Vietnam”) Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (Seaprimexco Vietnam) Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (“Cadovimex”) Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Co. (“CADOVIMEX”) Cafatex Corporation Cam Ranh Seafoods Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (Camimex) Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import-Export Corporation (“CAMIMEX”) Camau Seafood and Service Joint Stock Company (“CASES”) Camau Seafood Processing and Service Joint Stock Corporation (and its affiliates, Kien Giang Branch—Camau Seafood Processing & Service Joint Stock Corporation, collectively “CASES”) Camau Seafood Processing and Service Joint Stock Corporation (Cases) Camau Seafood Processing and Service Joint-Stock Corporation, Kien Giang Branch. Can Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company (“CAFISH”) Can Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company (CAFISH) Cholimex Food Joint Stock Company CJ Cau Tre Foods Joint Stock Company CJ Freshway (FIDES Food System Co., Ltd.) Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (“COFIDEC”) Cong Ty Tnhh Thong Thuan (Thong Thuan) Cuulong Seaproducts Company (“Cuulong Seapro”) Cuulong Seaproducts Company (“Cuu Long Seapro”) Cuulong Seaproducts Company (Cuulong Seapro) Danang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation (SEADANANG) Dong Do Profo., Ltd. Dong Hai Seafood Limited Company Dong Phuong Seafood Co., Ltd. Duc Cuong Seafood Trading Co., Ltd. Fimex VN Fine Foods Company (FFC) Fine Foods Company (FFC) (Ca Mau Foods & Fishery Export Joint Stock Company) Frozen Seafoods Factory No.32 Gallant Dachan Seafood Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean Viet Nam Co. Ltd. Green Farms Joint Stock Company Green Farms Seafoods Joint Stock Company Hai Viet Corporation (“HAVICO”) Hai Viet Corporation (HAVICO) Hanh An Trading Service Co., Ltd. Hanoi Seaproducts Import & Export Joint Stock Corporation (Seaprodex Hanoi) Hoa Trung Seafood Corporation (HSC) Hoang Phuong Seafood Factory HungHau Agricultural Joint Stock Company Huynh Huong Seafood Processing Huynh Huong Trading and Import-Export Joint Stock Company Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (“INCOMFISH”) Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (Incomfish) JK Fish Co., Ltd. Kaiyo Seafood Joint Stock Company Khai Minh Trading Investment Corporation Khanh Hoa Seafoods Exporting Company (KHASPEXCO) Khanh Sung Co., Ltd Kim Anh Co., Ltd (“Kim Anh”) Kim Anh Company Limited Lam Son Import-Export Foodstuff Company Limited (Lamson Fimexco) Long Toan Frozen Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company Minh Bach Seafood Company Limited Minh Cuong Seafood Import Export Processing Joint Stock Company (“MC Seafood”) Minh Cuong Seafood Import-Export Processing (“MC Seafood”) Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (“Minh Hai Jostoco”) Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (Minh Hai Jostoco) Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (“Seaprodex Minh Hai”) Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (Seaprodex Minh Hai) Minh Phu Seafood Corporation 5 My Son Seafoods Factory Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd Namcan Seaproducts Import Export Joint Stock Company (Seanamico) New Wind Seafood Co., Ltd. NGO BROS Seaproducts Import-Export One Member Company Limited (“NGO BROS Company”) Ngo Bros Seaproducts Import-Export One Member Company Limited (“Ngo Bros. Co., Ltd.”) Ngo Bros Seaproducts Import-Export One Member Company Limited (Ngo Bros) Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock Company Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock Company (“Ngoc Tri”) Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (“Nha Trang Fisco”) Nha Trang Seafoods Nha Trang Seaproduct Company Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (and its affiliates NT Seafoods Corporation, Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock Company, NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (collectively “Nha Trang Seafoods Group”) Nhat Duc Co., Ltd. Nigico Co., Ltd. Phu Cuong Jostoco Corp. Phu Cuong Jostoco Seafood Corporation Phu Minh Hung Seafood Joint Stock Company Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp. Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp., Ltd. QNL One Member Co., Ltd (“QNL”) Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd. Quoc Ai Seafood Processing Import Export Co., Ltd. Quoc Toan Seafood Processing Factory (Quoc Toan PTE) Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trade and Import-Export Co., Ltd. (“Quoc Viet Co. Ltd.”) Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd. Quy Nhon Frozen Seafoods Joint Stock Company Saigon Aquatic Product Trading Joint Stock Company (APT Co.) Saigon Food Joint Stock Company Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (“FIMEX VN”) (and its factory “Sao Ta Seafoods Factory”) Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (FIMEX VN) Seafood Joint Stock Company No.4 Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory Seavina Joint Stock Co. Seavina Joint Stock Company Seaprimexco Vietnam Seaprodex Minh Hai Sea Minh Hai Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (“STAPIMEX”) Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (STAPIMEX) South Ha Tinh Seaproducts Import-Export Joint Stock Company Special Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company (SEASPIMEX VIETNAM) T & P Seafood Company Limited Tacvan Frozen Seafood Processing Export Company Tacvan Frozen Seafood Processing Export Company (Tacvan Seafoods Co.) Tacvan Seafoods Company (“TACVAN”) Tai Kim Anh Seafood Joint Stock Corporation Tai Kim Anh Seafood Joint Stock Corporation (“TAIKA Seafood Corporation”) Tai Kim Anh Seafood Joint Stock Corporation (TAIKA Seafood Corporation) Taika Seafood Corporation Tai Nguyen Seafood Co., Ltd. Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd. (“TPP Co., Ltd.”) Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd. (TPP Co. Ltd.) Tan Thanh Loi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Taydo Seafood Enterprise Thanh Doan Sea Products Import & Export Processing Joint Stock Company Thadimexco Thanh Doan Sea Products Import & Export Processing Joint-Stock Company (THADIMEXCO) Thien Phu Export Seafood Processing Company Limited Thinh Hung Co., Ltd. Thong Thuan—Cam Ranh Seafood Joint Stock Company Thong Thuan—Cam Ranh Seafood Joint Stock Company (T&T Cam Ranh) Thong Thuan Cam Ranh Seafood Joint Stock Company (“T&T Cam Ranh”) Thong Thuan Company Limited Thong Thuan Company Limited (“T&T”) Thong Thuan Company Limited (T&T) Thong Thuan Seafood Company Limited Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation (“Thuan Phuoc Corp”) Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation and its separate factories Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32, Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory, and My Son Seafoods Factory (collectively “Thuan Phuoc Corp.”) Trang Corporation (Vietnam) Trang Khan Seafood Co., Ltd. Trang Khanh Seafood Co., Ltd Trang Khanh Seafood Company Limited Trong Nhan Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Trong Nhan”) Trong Nhan Seafood Company Limited Trung Son Corp Trung Son Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation (“UTXICO”) (and its branch Hoang Phuong Seafood Factory and Hoang Phong Seafood Factory) UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation (UTXICO) Viet Foods Co., Ltd. Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (“Viet Foods”) Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. Ltd (“Viet I-Mei”) Viet Nam Seaproducts—Joint Stock Company Viet Phu Foods and Fish Corp. Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation (“Vina Cleanfood”) Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation (Vina Cleanfood) Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. Vietnam Fish-One Co., Ltd. Vinh Hoan Corp. Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Kau Cantho Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Steel Wire Garment Hangers, A-552-812 2/1/17-1/31/18 Angang Clothes Rack Manufacture Co. Asmara Home Vietnam B2B Co., Ltd. Capco Wai Shing Viet Nam Co. Ltd. Cong Ty Co Phan Moc Ao CTN Co. Ltd. C.T.N. International Ltd. CTN Limited Company Cty Tnhn Mtv Xnk My Phuoc Cty Thnh San Xuat My Phuoc Long An Factory Dai Nam Group Dai Nam Investment JSC Diep Son Hangers Co. Ltd. Diep Son Hangers One Member Co. Ltd. Dong Nam A Co. Ltd. Dong Nam A Hamico Joint Stock Company Dong Nam A Trading Co. EST Glory Industrial Ltd. Focus Shipping Corp. Godoxa Vietnam Co. Ltd. Godoxa Viet Nam Ltd. HCMC General Import and Export Investment Joint Stock Company Hongxiang Business and Product Co., Ltd. Huqhu Co., Ltd. Infinite Industrial Hanger Limited Infinite Industrial Hanger Co. Ltd. Ju Fu Co. Ltd. Linh Sa Hamico Company, Ltd. Long Phung Co. Ltd. Lucky Cloud (Vietnam) Hanger Co. Ltd. Minh Quang Hanger Minh Quang Steel Joint Stock Company Moc Viet Manufacture Co., Ltd. Nam A Hamico Export Joint Stock Co. Nghia Phoung Nam Production Company Nguyen Haong Vu Co. Ltd. N-Tech Vina Co. Ltd. NV Hanger Co., Ltd. Quoc Ha Production Trading Services Co. Ltd. Quyky Co., Ltd Quyky Group Quyky-Yangle International Co., Ltd. S.I.I.C. South East Asia Hamico Exports JSC T.J. Co. Ltd. TJ Group Tan Dihn Enterprise Tan Dinh Enterprise Tan Minh Textile Sewing Trading Co., Ltd. Thanh Hieu Manufacturing Trading Co. Ltd. The Xuong Co. Ltd. Thien Ngon Printing Co., Ltd. Top Sharp International Trading Limited Triloan Hangers, Inc. Tri-State Trading Trung Viet My Joint Stock Company Truong Hong Lao—Viet Joint Stock Co., Ltd. Uac Co. Ltd. Viet Anh Imp-Exp Joint Stock Co. Viet Hanger Viet Hanger Investment, LLC Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock Company Vietnam Sourcing VNS VN Sourcing Yen Trang Co., Ltd. Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Utility Scale Wind Towers, A-552-814 2/1/17-1/31/18 CS Wind Group 6 Vina Halla Heavy Industries Ltd. UBI Tower Sole Member Company Ltd. Taiwan: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products, A-583-853 2/1/17-1/31/18 AU Optronics Corporation Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd. Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd. Boviet Solar Technology Co., Ltd. Canadian Solar Inc. Canadian Solar International, Ltd. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. Canadian Solar Solutions Inc. EEPV CORP. E-TON Solar Tech. Co., Ltd. Gintech Energy Corporation Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. Inventec Energy Corporation Inventec Solar Energy Corporation Kyocera Mexicana S.A. de C.V. Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. Lof Solar Corp. Motech Industries, Inc. Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. Sino-American Silicon Products Inc. Solartech Energy Corporation Sunengine Corporation Ltd. Sunrise Global Solar Energy Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. TSEC Corporation Vina Solar Technology Co., Ltd. Win Win Precision Technology Co., Ltd. Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd. Yingli Green Energy International Trading Company Limited Thailand: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-549-822 2/1/17-1/31/18 A Foods 1991 Co., Limited/May Ao Foods Co., Ltd.7 A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd. A.P. Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd. ACU Transport Co., Ltd. Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd. Apex Maritime (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Apitoon Enterprise Industry Co., Ltd. Asian Alliance International Co., Ltd. Applied DB Ind. Asian Seafood Coldstorage (Sriracha) Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd./Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Limited/STC Foodpak Ltd. Assoc. Commercial Systems B.S.A. Food Products Co., Ltd. Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd. C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd. C.P. Mdse C.P. Merchandising Co., Ltd./Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd./Klang Co., Ltd./Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd./Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd. C.P. Retailing and Marketing Co., Ltd. C.P. Intertrade Co. Ltd. Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Century Industries Co., Ltd. Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd. Charoen Pokphand Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chonburi LC Chue Eie Mong Eak Commonwealth Trading Co., Ltd. Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. C.P.F. Food Products Co., Ltd. Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Crystal Seafood Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd. Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Dynamic Intertransport Co., Ltd. Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd. F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Findus (Thailand) Ltd. Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Gallant Seafoods Corporation Global Maharaja Co., Ltd. Golden Sea Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Golden Seafood International Co., Ltd. Golden Thai Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Good Fortune Cold Storage Co. Ltd. Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Gulf Coast Crab Intl. H.A.M. International Co., Ltd. Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. Handy International (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Heng Seafood Limited Partnership Heritrade HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd. High Way International Co., Ltd. I.S.A. Value Co., Ltd. I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd. Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd. Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd. K & U Enterprise Co., Ltd. K Fresh K. D. Trading Co., Ltd. K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd. KF Foods Ltd. Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd. Kibun Trdg. Kingfisher Holdings Ltd. Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand) Company, Ltd. Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd. Leo Transports Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd. Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd. Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd. Mahachai Marine Foods Co., Ltd. Marine Gold Products Ltd.8 Merit Asia Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Merkur Co., Ltd. Ming Chao Ind Thailand N&N Foods Co., Ltd. N.R. Instant Produce Co., Ltd. Namprik Maesri Ltd. Part. Narong Seafood Co., Ltd. Nongmon SMJ Products Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Thai-Ger Marine Co., Ltd. Pacific Fish Processing Co., Ltd. Pacific Queen Co., Ltd. Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd./Chaophraya Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Okeanos Co., Ltd./Okeanos Food Co., Ltd./Takzin Samut Co., Ltd./Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd.9/Thai Union Group Public Co., Ltd./Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd.10 Pakpanang Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd. Penta Impex Co., Ltd. Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine Piti Seafood Co., Ltd. Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd. Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd. Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd. Rayong Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd. S2K Marine Product Co., Ltd. S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd. S&P Aquarium S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd. S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd. S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd. and/or S. Khonkaen Food Ind. Public S.K. Foods (Thailand) Public Co. Limited Samui Foods Company Limited SB Inter Food Co., Ltd. SCT Co., Ltd. Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd. SEA NT'L CO., LTD. Seafresh Fisheries/Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd. Search and Serve Sethachon Co., Ltd. Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shing Fu Seaproducts Development Co. Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd. Siam Haitian Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd. Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd. Siam Union Frozen Foods Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd. Smile Heart Foods SMP Food Products, Co., Ltd. Southport Seafood Co., Ltd. Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Starfoods Industries Co., Ltd. Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd. Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd./Surat Seafoods Public Co., Ltd. Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd. Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd. Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd. T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd. Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd. Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd. Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Chaiwarut Company Limited Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd. Thai Hanjin Logistics Co., Ltd. Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd. Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd. Thai Patana Frozen Thai Pak Exports Co., Ltd. Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd. Thai Union Manufacturing Company Limited Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd. Thai Yoo Ltd., Part. The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd./Bright Sea Co., Ltd. Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd. Transamut Food Co., Ltd. Tung Lieng Tradg. United Cold Storage Co., Ltd. V. Thai Food Product Co., Ltd. Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd. Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd. Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. ZAFCO TRDG The People's Republic of China: Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products, A-570-010 2/1/17-1/31/18 BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd./Yangcheng Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. Hefei JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. Perlight Solar Co., Ltd. Ri Shen Products (SZ) Ltd. Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Letsolar Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd. Sol-lite Manufacturing Company Limited Sunny Apex Development Ltd. Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-570-893 2/1/17-1/31/18 Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.11 Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd. Allied Pacific (HK) Co., Ltd. Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. Beihai Anbang Seafood Co., Ltd. Beihai Boston Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Beihai Tianwei Aquatic Food Co. Ltd. Changli Luquan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Dalian Beauty Seafood Company Ltd. Dalian Haiqing Food Co., Ltd. Dalian Home Sea International Trading Co., Ltd. Dalian Rich Enterprise Group Co., Ltd. Dalian Shanhai Seafood Co., Ltd. Dalian Taiyang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Dandong Taihong Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Fujian Chaohui Group Fujian Chaohui Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. Fujian Chaohui International Trading Co., Ltd. Fujian Dongshan County Shunfa Aquatic Product Co., Ltd. Fujian Dongya Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Fujian Fuding Seagull Fishing Food Co., Ltd. Fujian Hainason Trading Co., Ltd. Fujian Haohui Import & Export Co., Ltd. Fujian Hongao Trade Development Co. Fujian Rongjiang Import and Export Co., Ltd. Fujian Tea Import & Export Co., Ltd. Fujian Zhaoan Haili Aquatic Co., Ltd. Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. Fuqing Dongwei Aquatic Products Ind. Fuqing Dongwei Aquatic Products Industry Co., Ltd. Fuqing Longhua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd. Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean Group Guangdong Foodstuffs Import & Export (Group) Corporation Guangdong Gourmet Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Guangdong Jinhang Food Co., Ltd. Guangdong Universal Aquatic Food Co. Guangdong Wanshida Holding Corp. Guangdong Wanya Foods Fty. Co., Ltd. HaiLi Aquatic Product Co., Ltd. Zhaoan Fujian Hainan Brich Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd. Huazhou Xinhai Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. Leizhou Bei Bu Wan Sea Products Co., Ltd. Longhai Gelin Foods Co., Ltd. Maoming Xinzhou Seafood Co., Ltd. New Continent Foods Co., Ltd. North Seafood Group Co. Olanya (Germany) Ltd. Penglai Huiyang Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Qingdao Fusheng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. Qingdao Yihexing Foods Co., Ltd. Qinhuangdao Gangwan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd.12 Rizhao Rongxing Co. Ltd. Rizhao Smart Foods Company Limited Rongcheng Yinhai Aquatic Product Co., Ltd. Rushan Chunjiangyuan Foodstuffs Co. Savvy Seafood Inc. Shanghai Zhoulian Foods Co., Ltd. Shantou Freezing Aquatic Product Foodstuffs Co. Shantou Jiazhou Food Industrial Co., Ltd. Shantou Jintai Aquatic Product Industrial Co., Ltd. Shantou Longsheng Aquatic Product Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Shantou Ocean Best Seafood Corporation Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Co., Ltd. Shantou Wanya Foods Fty. Co., Ltd. Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.13 Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company Thai Royal Frozen Food Zhanjiang Co., Ltd. Xiamen Granda Import and Export Co., Ltd. Yangjiang Dawu Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Yangjiang Haina Datong Trading Co. Yantai Wei Cheng Food Co., Ltd. Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd. Zhangzhou Donghao Seafoods Co., Ltd. Zhangzhou Xinhui Foods Co., Ltd. Zhangzhou Xinwanya Aquatic Product Co., Ltd. Zhangzhou Yanfeng Aquatic Product & Foodstuff Co., Ltd. Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd. Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Products Freezing Plant Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.14 Zhanjiang Jinguo Marine Foods Co., Ltd. Zhanjiang Longwei Aquatic Products Industry Co., Ltd. Zhanjiang Newpro Foods Co., Ltd. Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd.15 Zhanjiang Universal Seafood Corp. Zhaoan Yangli Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Xinwang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. Zhoushan Genho Food Co., Ltd. Zhoushan Green Food Co., Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Certain Preserved Mushrooms, A-570-851 2/1/17-1/31/18 Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Multilayered Wood Flooring, A-570-970 12/1/16-11/30/17 Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited and Double F Limited 16 The People's Republic of China: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes, A-570-929 2/1/17-1/31/18 5-Continent Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Acclcarbon Co., Ltd. Allied Carbon (China) Co., Limited Anssen Metallurgy Group Co., Ltd. Apex Maritime (Dalian) Co., Ltd. Asahi Fine Carbon (Dalian) Co., Ltd. Assi Steel Co. Ltd. Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. Beijing International Trade Co., Ltd. Beijing Kang Jie Kong Cargo Agent Expeditors (Tianjin Branch) Beijing Shougang Huaxia International Trade Co. Ltd. Beijing Xinchengze Inc. Beijing Xincheng Sci-Tech. Development Inc. Brilliant Charter Limited Carbon International Chang Cheng Chang Electrode Co., Ltd. Chengde Longhe Carbon Factory Chengdelh Carbonaceous Elements Factory Chengdu Jia Tang Corp. Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd. China Carbon Graphite Group Inc. China Industrial Mineral & Metals Group China Shaanxi Richbond Imp. & Exp. Industrial Corp. Ltd. China Xingyong Carbon Co.n Ltd. CIMM Group Co., Ltd. Dalian Carbon & Graphite Corporation Dalian Hongrui Carbon Co., Ltd. Dalian Honest International Trade Co., Ltd. Dalian Horton International Trading Co., Ltd. Dalian LST Metallurgy Co., Ltd. Dalian Shuangji Co., Ltd. Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Dandong Xinxin Carbon Co. Ltd. Datong Carbon Datong Xincheng Carbon Co., Ltd. Datong Xincheng New Material Co., Dechang Shida Carbon Co., Ltd De Well Container Shipping Corp. (Dewell Group) Dewell Group Dignity Success Investment Trading Co., Ltd. Double Dragon Metals and Mineral Tools Co.o Ltd. Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd. Fangda Lanzhou Carbon Joint Stock Company Co. Ltd. Foset Co., Ltd. Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. Fushun Oriental Carbon Co., Ltd. GES (China) Co. Ltd. GR Industrial Corporation Grafworld International Inc. Gold Success Group Ltd. Grameter Shipping Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Branch) Guangdong Highsun Yongye (Group) Co., Ltd. Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. Haimen Shuguang Carbon Industry Co., Ltd. Handan Hanbo Material Co., Ltd. Hanhong Precision Machinery Co., Ltd. Hebei Long Great Wall Electrode Co., Ltd. Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd. Heico Universal (Shanghai) Distribution Co., Ltd. Heilongiiang Xinyuan Carbon Co. Ltd. Henan Sanli Carbon Products Co., Ltd. Henan Sihai Import and Export Co., Ltd. Hohhot Muzi Carbon Trade Co., Ltd. Hopes (Beijing) International Co., Ltd. Huanan Carbon Factory Hunan Mec Machinery and Electronics Imp. & Exp. Corp. Hunan Yinguang Carbon Factory Co., Ltd. Inner Mongolia QingShan Special Graphite and Carbon Co., Ltd. Inner Mongolia Xinghe County Hongyuan Electrical Carbon Factory Jiangsu Yafei Carbon Co., Ltd. Jiaozuo Zhongzhou Carbon Products Co., Ltd. Jichun International Trade Co., Ltd. of Jilin Province Jiexiu Juyuan Carbon Co., Ltd. Jiexiu Ju-Yuan & Coaly Co., Ltd. Jilin Carbon Graphite Material Co., Ltd. Jilin Carbon Import and Export Company Jilin Songiiang Carbon Co Ltd. Jinneng Group Co., Ltd. Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material Co., Ltd. JL Group Kaifeng Carbon Company Ltd. KASY Logistics (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. Kimwan New Carbon Technology and Development Co., Ltd. Kingstone Industrial Group Ltd. L & T Group Co., Ltd. Laishui Long Great Wall Electrode Co. Ltd. Lanzhou Carbon Co., Ltd. Lanzhou Carbon Import & Export Corp. Lanzhou Hailong Technology Lanzhou Ruixin Industrial Material Co., Ltd. Lianxing Carbon Qinghai Co., Ltd. Lianxing Carbon Science Institute Lianxing Carbon (Shandong) Co., Ltd. Lianyungang Jianglida Mineral Co., Ltd. Lianyungang Jinli Carbon Co., Ltd. Liaoning F'enghua Trasteel Industry Co., Ltd. Liaoyang Carbon Co. Ltd. Linghai Hongfeng Carbon Products Co., Ltd. Linyi County Lubei Carbon Co., Ltd. Maoming Yongye (Group) Co., Ltd. MBI Beijing International Trade Co., Ltd. Nantong Dongiin New Energy Co., Ltd. Nantong Falter New Energy Co., Ltd. Nantong River-East Carbon Joint Stock Co., Ltd. Nantong River-East Carbon Co., Ltd. Nantong Yangtze Carbon Corp. Ltd. Nantong Yanzi Carbon Co. Ltd. Oracle Carbon Co., Ltd. Orient (Dalian) Carbon Resources Developing Co., Ltd. Orient Star Transport International, Ltd. Oriental Carbon Co. Limited Peixian Longxiang Foreign Trade Co. Ltd. Pudong Trans USA,Inc. (Dalian Offïce) Qingdao Grand Graphite Products Co., Ltd. Qingdao Haosheng Metals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Quingdao Haosheng Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Qingdao Liyikun Carbon Development Co., Ltd. Qingdao Likun Graphite Co., Ltd. Qingdao Ruizhen Carbon Co., Ltd. Qingdao Yijia E.T.I. I/E Co., Ltd. Qingdao Youyuan Metallurgy Material Limited Company (China) Ray Group Ltd. Rex International Forwarding Co., Ltd. Rt Carbon Co., Ltd. Ruitong Carbon Co., Ltd. Sangraf Energy Technology Co., Ltd. Sea Trade International, Inc. Seamaster Global Forwarding (China) Shandong Basan Carbon Plant Shandong Zibo Continent Carbon F'actory Shanghai Carbon International Trade Co., Ltd. Shanghai GC Co., Ltd Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. Shanghai P.W. International Ltd. Shanghai Shen-Tech Graphite Material Co., Ltd. Shanghai Topstate International Trading Co., Ltd. Shanxi Cimm Donghai Advanced Carbon Co., Ltd. Shanxi Datong Energy Development Co., Ltd. Shanxi Foset Carbon Co. Ltd. Shanxi Jiexiu Import and Export Co., Ltd. Shanxi Jinneng Group Co., Ltd. Shanxi Yunheng Graphite Electrode Co., Ltd. Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Shida Carbon Group Shijaizhuang Carbon Co., Ltd. Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory Sichuan 5-Continent Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. Sichuan Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. Sichuan Shida Trading Co., Ltd. Sichuan GMT International Inc. Sinicway International Logistics Ltd. Sino Industries Enterprise Ltd. Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd. Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co. Ltd. Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd. Sinosteel Sichuan Co., Ltd. SMMC Group Co., Ltd. Sure Mega (Hong Kong) Ltd. Tangshan Kimwan Special Carbon & Graphite Co., Ltd. Tengchong Carbon Co., Ltd. T.H.I. Global Holdings Corp. T.H.I. Group (Shanghai), Ltd. Tianjin (Teda) Iron & Steel Trade Co., Ltd. Tianjin Kimwan Carbon Technology and Development Co., Ltd. Tianjin Yue Yang Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd. Tianzhen Jintian Graphite Electrodes Co., Ltd. Tielong (Chengdu) Carbon Co., Ltd. UK Carbon & Graphite United Carbon Ltd. United Trade Resources, Inc. Weifang Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd. World Trade Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd. XC Carbon Group Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd. Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Plant Xinghe Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd. Xinghe Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., Ltd. Xinyuan Carbon Co., Ltd. Xuanhua Hongli Refractory and Mineral Company Xuchang Minmetals & Industry Co., Ltd. Xuzhou Carbon Co., Ltd. Xuzhou Electrode Factory Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Products Co., Ltd. Yangzhou Qionghua Carbon Trading Ltd. Yixing Huaxin Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. Youth Industry Co., Ltd. Zhengzhou Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material Co., Ltd. Zibo Continent Carbon Factory Zibo DuoCheng Trading Co., Ltd. Zibo Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd. Zibo Wuzhou Tanshun Carbon Co., Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Uncovered Innerspring Units, A-570-928 2/1/17-1/31/18 Comfort Coil Technology Sdn. Bhd. Foshan Nanhai Jolyspring The People's Republic of China: Utility Scale Wind Towers, A-570-981 2/1/17-1/31/18 Alstom Sizhou Electric Power Equipment Co., Ltd. AUSKY (Shandong) Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. AVIC International Renewable Energy Co., Ltd. Baotou Titan Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd. Bashi Yuexin Logistics Development Co., Ltd. CATIC International Trade & Economic Development Ltd. Chengde Tianbao Machinery Co., Ltd. Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd. China WindPower Group CleanTech Innovations Inc. CNR Wind Turbine Co., Ltd. CS Wind China Co., Ltd. CS Wind Corporation CS Wind Tech (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Dajin Heavy Industry Corporation Greenergy Technology Co., Ltd. Guangdong No. 2 Hydropower Engineering Co., Ltd. Guodian United Power Technology Baoding Co., Ltd. Harbin Hongguang Boiler Group Co., Ltd. Hebei Ningqiang Group Hebei Qiangsheng Wind Equipment Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Baolong Electromechanical Mfg. Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Baolong Tower Tube Manufacture Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Taihu Boiler Co., Ltd. Jiangyin Hengrun Ring Farging Co., Ltd. Jilin Miracle Equipment Manufacturing Engineering Co., Ltd. Jilin Tianhe Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Jilin Mingmen Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd.) Jinan Railway Vehicles Equipment Co., Ltd. Nanjing Jiangbiao Group Co., Ltd. Nantong Dongtai New Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. Nantong Hongbo Windpower Equipment Co., Ltd. Ningxia Electric Power Group Ningxia Yinxing Energy Co. Ningxia Yinyi Wind Power Generation Co., Ltd. Qingdao GeLinTe Environmental Protection Equipment Co., Ltd. Qingdao Ocean Group Qingdao Pingcheng Steel Structure Co., Ltd. Qingdao Tianneng Electric Power Engineering Machinery Co., Ltd. Qingdao Wuxiao Group Co., Ltd. Renewable Energy Asia Group Ltd. SDV China Nanjing Shandong Endless Wind Turbine Technical Equipment Co., Ltd. Shandong Iraeta Heavy Industry Shandong Zhongkai Wind Power Equipment Manufacturers, Ltd. Shanghai Aerotech Trading International Shanghai GE Guangdian Co., Ltd. Shanghai Taisheng Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd. Shenyang Titan Metal Co., Ltd. Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. Suihua Wuxiao Electric Power Equipment Co., Ltd. Titan (Lianyungang) Metal Product Co., Ltd. Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. Vestas Wind Technology (China) Wuxiao Steel Tower Co., Ltd. Xinjiang Huitong (Group) Co., Ltd. Zhangjiagang Zhiyi Medical Health Countervailing Duty Proceedings Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Steel Wire Garment Hangers, C-552-813 1/1/17-12/31/17 Angang Clothes Rack Manufacture Co. Asmara Home Vietnam B2B Co., Ltd. Capco Wai Shing Viet Nam Co. Ltd. Cong Ty Co Phan Moc Ao CTN Co. Ltd. C.T.N. International Ltd. CTN Limited Company Cty Tnhn Mtv Xnk My Phuoc Cty Thnh San Xuat My Phuoc Long An Factory Dai Nam Group Dai Nam Investment JSC Diep Son Hangers Co. Ltd. Diep Son Hangers One Member Co. Ltd. Dong Nam A Co. Ltd. Dong Nam A Hamico Joint Stock Company Dong Nam A Trading Co. EST Glory Industrial Ltd. Focus Shipping Corp. Godoxa Vietnam Co. Ltd. Godoxa Viet Nam Ltd. HCMC General Import and Export Investment Joint Stock Company Hongxiang Business and Product Co., Ltd. Huqhu Co., Ltd. Infinite Industrial Hanger Limited Infinite Industrial Hanger Co. Ltd. Ju Fu Co. Ltd. Linh Sa Hamico Company, Ltd. Long Phung Co. Ltd. Lucky Cloud (Vietnam) Hanger Co. Ltd. Minh Quang Hanger Minh Quang Steel Joint Stock Company Moc Viet Manufacture Co., Ltd. Nam A Hamico Export Joint Stock Co. Nghia Phoung Nam Production Company Nguyen Haong Vu Co. Ltd. N-Tech Vina Co. Ltd. NV Hanger Co., Ltd. Quoc Ha Production Trading Services Co. Ltd. Quyky Co., Ltd Quyky Group Quyky-Yangle International Co., Ltd. S.I.I.C. South East Asia Hamico Exports JSC T.J. Co. Ltd. TJ Group Tan Dihn Enterprise Tan Dinh Enterprise Tan Minh Textile Sewing Trading Co., Ltd. Thanh Hieu Manufacturing Trading Co. Ltd. The Xuong Co. Ltd. Thien Ngon Printing Co, Ltd. Top Sharp International Trading Limited Triloan Hangers, Inc. Tri-State Trading Trung Viet My Joint Stock Company Truong Hong Lao—Viet Joint Stock Co., Ltd. Uac Co. Ltd. Viet Anh Imp-Exp Joint Stock Co. Viet Hanger Viet Hanger Investment, LLC Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock Company Vietnam Sourcing VNS VN Sourcing Yen Trang Co., Ltd. Republic of Korea: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate, C-580-837 1/1/17-12/31/17 Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. Hyundai Steel Company The People's Republic of China: Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products, C-570-011 1/1/17-12/31/17 Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. Hefei JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. Ri Shen Products (SZ) Ltd. Risen Energy Co., Ltd. Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Letsolar Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd. Sol-Lite Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Sunny Apex Development Ltd. Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Utility Scale Wind Towers, C-570-982 1/1/17-12/31/17 Alstom Sizhou Electric Power Equipment Co., Ltd. AUSKY (Shandong) Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. AVIC International Renewable Energy Co., Ltd. Baotou Titan Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd. Bashi Yuexin Logistics Development Co., Ltd. CATIC International Trade & Economic Development Ltd. Chengde Tianbao Machinery Co., Ltd. Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd. China WindPower Group CleanTech Innovations Inc. CNR Wind Turbine Co., Ltd. CS Wind China Co., Ltd. CS Wind Corporation CS Wind Tech (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Dajin Heavy Industry Corporation Greenergy Technology Co., Ltd. Guangdong No. 2 Hydropower Engineering Co., Ltd. Guodian United Power Technology Baoding Co., Ltd. Harbin Hongguang Boiler Group Co., Ltd. Hebei Ningqiang Group Hebei Qiangsheng Wind Equipment Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Baolong Tower Tube Manufacture Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Baolong Electromechanical Mfg. Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Taihu Boiler Co., Ltd. Jiangyin Hengrun Ring Farging Co., Ltd. Jilin Miracle Equipment Manufacturing Engineering Co., Ltd. Jilin Tianhe Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Jilin Mingmen Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd.) Jinan Railway Vehicles Equipment Co., Ltd. Nanjing Jiangbiao Group Co., Ltd. Nantong Dongtai New Energy Equipment Co., Ltd. Nantong Hongbo Windpower Equipment Co., Ltd. Ningxia Electric Power Group Ningxia Yinxing Energy Co. Ningxia Yinyi Wind Power Generation Co., Ltd. Qingdao GeLinTe Environmental Protection Equipment Co., Ltd. Qingdao Ocean Group Qingdao Pingcheng Steel Structure Co., Ltd. Qingdao Tianneng Electric Power Engineering Machinery Co., Ltd. Qingdao Wuxiao Group Co., Ltd. Renewable Energy Asia Group Ltd. SDV China Nanjing Shandong Endless Wind Turbine Technical Equipment Co., Ltd. Shandong Iraeta Heavy Industry Shandong Zhongkai Wind Power Equipment Manufacturers, Ltd. Shanghai Aerotech Trading International Shanghai GE Guangdian Co., Ltd.