Federal Register Vol. 83, No.98,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 98 (May 21, 2018)

Page Range23349-23573
FR Document

83_FR_98
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 23573 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Stabilization of IraqPDF
83 FR 23461 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 23492 - Sunshine Act Meetings NoticePDF
83 FR 23491 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency MeetingPDF
83 FR 23420 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy and the Republic of Turkey: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination for the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duty Orders for Italy and the Republic of TurkeyPDF
83 FR 23417 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy, the Republic of Korea, Spain, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determinations for Spain and the Republic of TurkeyPDF
83 FR 23492 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 23367 - Safety Zone; Navy Underwater Detonation (UNDET) Exercises, GUPDF
83 FR 23371 - Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, ILPDF
83 FR 23400 - Safety Zone; Philippine Sea, RotaPDF
83 FR 23435 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 23398 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FLPDF
83 FR 23523 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping RequirementsPDF
83 FR 23362 - Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TXPDF
83 FR 23402 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
83 FR 23441 - Applications for New Awards; Education Research and Special Education Research Grant ProgramsPDF
83 FR 23408 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fulton Terminals Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 23441 - Applications for New Awards; Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018-Emergency Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education ProgramPDF
83 FR 23374 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fulton Terminals Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 23480 - Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan; Western Travis County Public Utility Agency Raw Water Transmission Main, Travis County, TexasPDF
83 FR 23409 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 23395 - Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Cambridge, MDPDF
83 FR 23493 - Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Survey of Nonparticipating Single Premium Group Annuity RatesPDF
83 FR 23458 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 23522 - Resolute Capital Partners Fund IV, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of InterestPDF
83 FR 23491 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: 2019-2021 IMLS Grant Performance Report FormsPDF
83 FR 23412 - Office of Engineering and Technology, International, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus Seek Comment for Report on the Feasibility of Allowing Commercial Wireless Services, Licensed or Unlicensed, To Use or Share Use of the Frequencies Between 3.7-4.2 GHzPDF
83 FR 23479 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Dispute Resolution ProgramPDF
83 FR 23478 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation InformationPDF
83 FR 23471 - Request for Information for the Development of the Fiscal Year 2021-2023 Trans-NIH Strategic Plan for HIV and HIV-Related ResearchPDF
83 FR 23482 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, FLPDF
83 FR 23483 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Bess Bower Dunn Museum of Lake County, Libertyville, IL (Previously Known as the Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL)PDF
83 FR 23481 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MAPDF
83 FR 23422 - Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
83 FR 23424 - Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Partial Rescission of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
83 FR 23416 - Honey From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 23522 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Giacometti” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 23502 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23487 - Procedures for Participating in the Appeals Process for the 2020 Census Local Update of Census Addresses Operation (LUCA)PDF
83 FR 23457 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Yuhuang Chemical Company, Inc. Methanol Plant, St James Parish LouisianaPDF
83 FR 23433 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 23438 - Notice of Intended DisintermentPDF
83 FR 23366 - Safety Zone; St. Clair Shores Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, St. Clair Shores, MIPDF
83 FR 23438 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 23428 - Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
83 FR 23378 - Hearing Aid Compatibility StandardsPDF
83 FR 23380 - Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and CertificationsPDF
83 FR 23524 - Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB Agency Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection Request: Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air TransportPDF
83 FR 23459 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Pasadena Refining System, Pasadena Refinery, Harris County, TexasPDF
83 FR 23529 - Notice of Open Public HearingPDF
83 FR 23415 - Current Mandatory Business SurveysPDF
83 FR 23531 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Minority VeteransPDF
83 FR 23450 - Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver; Merit Energy Company, LLC, Lambda Energy Resources, LLCPDF
83 FR 23450 - Notice of Annual Change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods; Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992PDF
83 FR 23452 - Notice of Applications Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, Recommendations, and Prescriptions; S.D. Warren CompanyPDF
83 FR 23455 - Notice of Application for Amendment of License To Extend Operational Dates for Volitional Upstream Fish Passage and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests; Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, Merimil Limited PartnershipPDF
83 FR 23451 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-537); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
83 FR 23457 - Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations CompanyPDF
83 FR 23446 - Notice of Applications; Portland Natural Gas Transmission SystemPDF
83 FR 23369 - Safety Zone; Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival, Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MIPDF
83 FR 23364 - Safety Zone; Grosse Pointe War Memorial Red, White, and Blue Gala Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe, MIPDF
83 FR 23427 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Marine Debris Program Performance Progress ReportPDF
83 FR 23427 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23428 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23440 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23477 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Crewman's Landing PermitPDF
83 FR 23523 - Bayway Terminal Switching Company, L.L.C.-Modified Certificate of Public Convenience and NecessityPDF
83 FR 23528 - Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Grant Program; Availability of 2019 Grant Application PackagePDF
83 FR 23527 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
83 FR 23530 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Certification of Lessons CompletedPDF
83 FR 23530 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Notice of Change in Student StatusPDF
83 FR 23528 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
83 FR 23437 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-CPSC Playground Surfaces SurveyPDF
83 FR 23466 - Blood Products Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 23463 - Cytomegalovirus in Transplantation: Developing Drugs To Treat or Prevent Disease; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 23461 - Establishing Effectiveness for Drugs Intended To Treat Male Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism Attributed to Nonstructural Disorders; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 23467 - Advisory Committee; Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
83 FR 23392 - Special Local Regulation; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MDPDF
83 FR 23456 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
83 FR 23449 - Notice of Complaint; Alabama Municipal Electric Authority and Cooperative Energy v. Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company and Southern Company Services, Inc.PDF
83 FR 23457 - Western Area Power Administration; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 23454 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 23447 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 23454 - Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments; Transmission Planning Within the California Independent System Operator Corporation; California Public Utilities Commission, Northern California Power Agency, City and County of San Francisco, State Water Contractors, Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Southern California Edison CompanyPDF
83 FR 23464 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified Risk ClaimsPDF
83 FR 23468 - Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 23484 - Silicon Metal From ChinaPDF
83 FR 23476 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23475 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23382 - Grocery Manufacturers Association; Denial of Food Additive PetitionPDF
83 FR 23358 - Final Determination Regarding Partially Hydrogenated OilsPDF
83 FR 23494 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Proposed Operation of the Perth Mint Physical Gold ETF TrustPDF
83 FR 23513 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 2.12 To Add References to Cboe Options and C2PDF
83 FR 23497 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule Related to Its PULSe WorkstationPDF
83 FR 23506 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe CDS Clearing Stress Testing PolicyPDF
83 FR 23521 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule Related to Its PULSe WorkstationPDF
83 FR 23503 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Fees Schedule in Connection With the Exchange's Planned Migration of Standard Third-Friday Options on the S&P 500 Index to the Hybrid Trading System From the Hybrid 3.0 SystemPDF
83 FR 23515 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
83 FR 23498 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material to Rule 706 To Harmonize Its Sponsored Access Rules With Those of Its AffiliatesPDF
83 FR 23517 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material to Rule 706 To Harmonize Its Sponsored Access Rules With Those of Its AffiliatesPDF
83 FR 23509 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material to Rule 706 To Harmonize Its Sponsored Access Rules With Those of Its AffiliatesPDF
83 FR 23360 - Delegation of AuthorityPDF
83 FR 23485 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Armaments ConsortiumPDF
83 FR 23361 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, ORPDF
83 FR 23486 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-International Electronics Manufacturing InitiativePDF
83 FR 23470 - Recruitment of Sites for Assignment of National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program ParticipantsPDF
83 FR 23486 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Advanced Engine FluidsPDF
83 FR 23424 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 23476 - Notice of Public Workshop on Consistent Implementation of Regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI (Global 0.50% Sulfur Cap)PDF
83 FR 23361 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), Wrightsville Beach, NC and Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NCPDF
83 FR 23372 - Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources; New Source ReviewPDF
83 FR 23430 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; “Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees”PDF
83 FR 23485 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-3D PDF Consortium, Inc.PDF
83 FR 23407 - Air Plan Approvals; Tennessee: Revisions to Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
83 FR 23492 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
83 FR 23469 - Mary C. Holloway; Order Revoking a Proposed Order of DebarmentPDF
83 FR 23414 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 23473 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 23474 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 23473 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 23475 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 23473 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 23474 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 23472 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 23414 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23381 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Glen Ullin, NDPDF
83 FR 23355 - Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft CorporationPDF
83 FR 23486 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit RequirementsPDF
83 FR 23534 - Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Operator QualificationPDF
83 FR 23349 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell) HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 23460 - Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Draft Supplemental Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Elmer's Island Access Project ModificationPDF
83 FR 23525 - Notice of Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Agency Request To Modify Existing Information Collections: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) and Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Credit ProgramsPDF
83 FR 23351 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF

Issue

83 98 Monday, May 21, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23414 2018-10675 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes Under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: 3D PDF Consortium, Inc., 23485 2018-10689 Cooperative Research Group on Advanced Engine Fluids, 23486 2018-10698 International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative, 23486 2018-10700 National Armaments Consortium, 23485-23486 2018-10702 Army Army Department NOTICES Intended Disinterment, 23438 2018-10772 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 23435-23437 2018-10809 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Determinations: Current Mandatory Business Surveys, 23415-23416 2018-10759 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Oregon Advisory Committee, 23414-23415 2018-10684 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Wrightsville Beach, NC and Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC, 23361-23362 2018-10695 Willamette River at Portland, OR, 23361 2018-10701 Safety Zones: Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL, 23371-23372 2018-10822 Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX, 23362-23364 2018-10804 Grosse Pointe War Memorial Red, White, and Blue Gala Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe, MI, 23364-23365 2018-10749 Navy Underwater Detonation Exercises, Guam, 23367-23369 2018-10823 Safety Zone; Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival, Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI, 23369-23371 2018-10750 St. Clair Shores Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, St. Clair Shores, MI, 23366-23367 2018-10771 PROPOSED RULES Drawbridge Operations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FL, 23398-23400 2018-10808 Safety Zones: Philippine Sea, Rota, 23400-23402 2018-10819 Special Local Regulations: Choptank River, Cambridge, MD, 23395-23398 2018-10795 North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD, 23392-23395 2018-10730 NOTICES Meetings: Public Workshop on Consistent Implementation of Regulation, 23476-23477 2018-10696 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 23433-23435 2018-10773 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Playground Surfaces Survey, 23437-23438 2018-10736 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23440-23441 2018-10745 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 23438-23440 2018-10770
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018—Emergency Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education Program; Correction, 23441 2018-10799 Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs, 23441-23446 2018-10802 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources; New Source Review, 23372-23374 2018-10691 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fulton Terminals Superfund Site, 23374-23378 2018-10798 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Jersey; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate Transport Provisions, 23402-23407 2018-10803 Tennessee: Revisions to Ambient Air Quality Standards, 23407-23408 2018-10688 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. Superfund Site, 23409-23412 2018-10796 Deletion of the Fulton Terminals Superfund Site, 23408-23409 2018-10800 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects, 23458-23459 2018-10793 Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program: Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Pasadena Refining System, Pasadena Refinery, Harris County, TX, 23459 2018-10761 Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Yuhuang Chemical Company, Inc. Methanol Plant, St James Parish Louisiana, 23457-23458 2018-10774 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Draft Supplemental Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Elmer's Island Access Project Modification, 23460-23461 2018-10112 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, 23461 2018-10937 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Helicopters, 23349-23351 2018-10491 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 23351-23355 2018-09732 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 23355-23358 2018-10581 PROPOSED RULES Establishment of Class E Airspace: Glen Ullin, ND, 23381-23382 2018-10654 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, 23380 2018-10765 Hearing Aid Compatibility Standards, 23378-23380 2018-10767 PROPOSED RULES Report on the Feasibility of Allowing Commercial Wireless Services, Licensed or Unlicensed, To Use or Share Use of the Frequencies Between 3.7-4.2 GHz, 23412-23413 2018-10787 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23451-23452 2018-10753 Annual Change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods, 23450-23451 2018-10756 Applications: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Merimil Limited Partnership, 23455-23456 2018-10754 Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, 23446-23447 2018-10751 S.D. Warren Co., 23452-23454 2018-10755 Combined Filings, 23447-23449, 23454-23455 2018-10725 2018-10726 Complaints: Alabama Municipal Electric Authority and Cooperative Energy v. Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co., Gulf Power Co., Mississippi Power Co., Southern Co. Services, Inc., 23449-23450 2018-10728 Filings: Western Area Power Administration, 23457 2018-10727 Meetings: Transmission Planning Within the California Independent System Operator Corp.; et al v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., et al, 23454 2018-10724 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: KCP and L Greater Missouri Operations Co., 23457 2018-10752 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 23456-23457 2018-10729 Requests for Waivers: Merit Energy Company, LLC; Lambda Energy Resources, LLC, 23450 2018-10757 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Western Travis County Public Utility Agency Raw Water Transmission Main, Travis County, TX; Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, 23480-23481 2018-10797 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Final Determinations: Partially Hydrogenated Oils, 23358-23359 2018-10714 PROPOSED RULES Food Additive Petitions: Grocery Manufacturers Association, 23382-23392 2018-10715 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified Risk Claims, 23464-23466 2018-10723 Charter Renewals: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee, 23467 2018-10731 Debarment Orders: Mary C. Holloway; Revoking a Proposed Order of Debarment, 23469-23470 2018-10685 Guidance: Cytomegalovirus in Transplantation: Developing Drugs To Treat or Prevent Disease, 23463-23464 2018-10733 Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs, 23468-23469 2018-10722 Establishing Effectiveness for Drugs Intended To Treat Male Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism Attributed to Nonstructural Disorders, 23461-23463 2018-10732 Meetings: Blood Products Advisory Committee, 23466-23467 2018-10734 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Recruitment of Sites for Assignment of National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program Participants, 23470-23471 2018-10699 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Dispute Resolution Program, 23479 2018-10786 Public Housing Agency Executive Compensation Information, 23478-23479 2018-10785 Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2019-2021 IMLS Grant Performance Report Forms, 23491-23492 2018-10788 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23527-23528 2018-10737 2018-10738 2018-10741 Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Grant Program; Availability of 2019 Grant Application Package, 23528-23529 2018-10742 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy and the Republic of Turkey, 23420-23422 2018-10880 Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy, the Republic of Korea, Spain, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom, 23417-23420 2018-10879 Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 23424 2018-10779 Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China, 23424-23427 2018-10697 Honey From the People's Republic of China, 23416-23417 2018-10778 Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India, 23422-23424 2018-10780 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Silicon Metal From China, 23484-23485 2018-10718 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

RULES Delegation of Authority: Central Authority or Competent Authority, 23360-23361 2018-10703
Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Procedures for Participating in the Appeals Process for the 2020 Census Local Update of Census Addresses Operation, 23487-23491 2018-10775 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements, 23486-23487 2018-10567 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23491 2018-10901 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 23492 2018-10686 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 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23523-23524 2018-10805 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 23472-23473 2018-10676 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 23474 2018-10681 National Cancer Institute, 23473-23474 2018-10677 2018-10678 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 23473-23475 2018-10679 2018-10680 National Institute of Mental Health, 23473 2018-10682 Requests for Information: Development of the Fiscal Year 2021-2023 Trans-NIH Strategic Plan for HIV and HIV-Related Research, 23471-23472 2018-10784 National Labor National Labor Relations Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23492 2018-10936 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23427-23428 2018-10746 2018-10747 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Marine Debris Program Performance Progress Report, 23427-23428 2018-10748 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Bess Bower Dunn Museum of Lake County, Libertyville, IL, 23483-23484 2018-10782 Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, FL, 23482-23483 2018-10783 Repatriation of Cultural Items: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 23481-23482 2018-10781 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23492-23493 2018-10865 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Operator Qualification, 23534-23569 2018-10559 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23428-23430 2018-10768 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees, 23430-23433 2018-10690 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Survey of Nonparticipating Single Premium Group Annuity Rates, 23493-23494 2018-10794 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Iraq; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of May 18, 2018), 23571-23573 2018-11015 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23502-23503 2018-10776 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 23513-23515 2018-10712 Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., 23521-23522 2018-10709 Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., 23515-23517 2018-10707 Cboe Exchange, Inc., 23497-23498, 23503-23506 2018-10708 2018-10711 ICE Clear Europe, Ltd., 23506-23509 2018-10710 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 23509-23512 2018-10704 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 23517-23520 2018-10705 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 23498-23502 2018-10706 NYSE Arca, Inc., 23494-23497 2018-10713 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Exemptions Under the Small Business Investment Act: Resolute Capital Partners Fund IV, LP, 23522 2018-10792 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Giacometti, 23522-23523 2018-10777 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23475-23476 2018-10716 2018-10717 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Modified Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity: Bayway Terminal Switching Company, LLC, 23523 2018-10743 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing and Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act Credit Programs, 23525-23527 2018-10033 Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport, 23524-23525 2018-10763
Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Crewman's Landing Permit, 23477-23478 2018-10744 U.S. China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission NOTICES Hearings, 23529-23530 2018-10760 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certification of Lessons Completed, 23530-23531 2018-10740 Notice of Change in Student Status, 23530 2018-10739 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, 23531-23532 2018-10758 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Labor Department, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 23534-23569 2018-10559 Part III Presidential Documents, 23571-23573 2018-11015 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 98 Monday, May 21, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0667; Product Identifier 2016-SW-053-AD; Amendment 39-19281; AD 2018-10-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Model 407 helicopters. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the tail rotor (TR) driveshaft segment assemblies and a torque check of the TR adapter retention nuts. This AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight failure of the TR drive system. The actions of this AD are intended to detect and correct an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 25, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of June 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0667.

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-2017-0667; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the Transport Canada AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

On July 7, 2017, at 82 FR 31535, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Model 407 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting each TR driveshaft segment assembly for rotational and axial play between the adapter and the TR driveshaft. The NPRM also proposed a one-time verification of the installation torque of each adapter retention nut. The proposed requirements were intended to detect a loose TR driveshaft splined connection, which if not corrected could result in wear in the splines, failure of the TR drive system, and subsequent loss of directional control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. CF-2016-21, dated July 7, 2016 (AD CF-2016-21), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Model 407 helicopters. Transport Canada advises that a Model 407 helicopter experienced in-flight failure of the TR drive system, which resulted in loss of directional control. According to Transport Canada, the splines connecting the adapter part number (P/N) 406-040-328-105 to the shaft assembly P/N 407-040-330-107 were “severely worn and no longer capable of performing their function.” The investigation revealed other Model 407 helicopters with the same axial and radial play or looseness of some splined connections. AD CF-2016-21 states that these parts should be clamped together with threaded fasteners with no detectable looseness. Transport Canada advises that undetected looseness at the splined connection could result in wear of the parts and eventual loss of directional control of the helicopter.

For these reasons, AD CF-2016-21 requires a repetitive inspection of the TR driveshaft assemblies for play and a one-time torque verification of the TR adapter retention nuts.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service has changed its organization structure. The new structure replaces product directorates with functional divisions. We have revised some of the office titles and nomenclature throughout this Final rule to reflect the new organizational changes. Additional information about the new structure can be found in the Notice published on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34564).

Comments

After our NPRM was published, we received comments from two commenters.

Request

Westwind Helicopters questioned the need for the AD. In support, it stated that the AD inspections are identical to the periodic and progressive inspections in the Bell maintenance manual and to the one-time inspection in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 407-16-113, dated February 12, 2016 (ASB 407-16-113). The commenter noted the AD would result in multiple documentation requirements for operators for the same maintenance item. The commenter did not request a change to the AD.

We partially agree. The commenter is correct that the AD may result in additional documentation. However, while an operator may incorporate the procedures described in the Bell maintenance manuals and ASB into its maintenance program, not all operators are required to do so. In order for the inspections to become mandatory, and to correct the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM, the FAA must issue an AD.

Bell requested that a statement be added to the AD that accomplishing the Bell ASB meets the intent of the AD and that no further action is required.

We partially agree. Operators may take credit for inspections previously accomplished in accordance with ASB 407-16-113 under paragraph (d) of the AD. However, we disagree that no further action is required because this AD requires repetitive inspections of the TR driveshaft, whereas ASB 407-16-113 specifies a one-time inspection.

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by Transport Canada, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed ASB 407-16-113, which specifies procedures for inspecting the TR driveshaft assemblies for noticeable rotational or axial play between each adapter and TR driveshaft. ASB 407-16-113 also specifies procedures for performing a torque check of each TR adapter retention nut on the four TR driveshaft segments.

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.

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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate this AD affects 667 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, inspecting the TR driveshaft segments and adapters for play requires about 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85, and a cost of $56,695 to the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Determining the torque of the four adapter retention nuts requires about 3 work-hours for a cost per helicopter of $255 and a cost of $170,085 to the U.S. fleet.

If required, repairing a worn driveshaft adapter would require about 3 work-hours, and required parts cost about $1,259, for a cost per helicopter of $1,514.

Replacing an adapter retention nut requires about 1 work-hour, and required parts cost are negligible, for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $56,695 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-10-06 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell): Amendment 39-19281; Docket No. FAA-2017-0667; Product Identifier 2017-SW-053-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Bell Model 407 helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a loose tail rotor (TR) driveshaft splined connection, which if not corrected could result in wear in the splines, failure of the TR drive system, and subsequent loss of directional control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective June 25, 2018.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

For helicopters with less than 4,000 hours time-in-service (TIS), within 100 hours TIS, and for helicopters with 4,000 or more hours TIS, within 50 hours TIS:

(1) Inspect each TR driveshaft segment assembly for rotational and axial play between the adapter and the TR driveshaft at the four positions depicted in Figure 1 of Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 407-16-113, dated February 12, 2016 (ASB 407-16-113). If there is any axial or rotational play, remove the adapter from the TR driveshaft segment assembly and inspect the adapter, washers, and TR driveshaft for damage. Replace the adapter retention nut and apply a torque of 30 to 50 inch-pounds (5.7 to 7.9 Nm). Replace any part with damage or repair the part if the damage is within the maximum repair damage limitations.

(2) Determine the torque of each TR adapter retention nut at each of the four segment assembly positions depicted in Figure 1 of Bell ASB 407-16-113. If the torque is less than 30 inch-pounds (5.7 Nm), remove the adapter from the TR driveshaft segment assembly and inspect the adapter, washers, and TR driveshaft for damage. Replace the adapter retention nut and apply a torque of 30 to 50 inch-pounds (5.7 to 7.9 Nm). Replace any part with damage or repair the part if the damage is within the maximum repair damage limitations.

(3) Repeat the actions specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 330 hours TIS.

(f) Special Flight Permits

Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(h) Additional Information

The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No. CF-2016-21, dated July 7, 2016. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2017-0667.

(i) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6510 Tail Rotor Drive Shaft.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bell Alert Service Bulletin 407-16-113, dated February 12, 2016.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.

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

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 7, 2018. Lance T. Gant, Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10491 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0907; Product Identifier 2017-NM-069-AD; Amendment 39-19274; AD 2018-09-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fractured rudder pedal tubes on the pilot-side rudder bar assembly. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the rudder pedal tubes for cracking and corrective actions if necessary. Replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies terminates the inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 25, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0907.

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-2017-0907; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2017 (82 FR 48668) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fractured rudder pedal tubes on the pilot-side rudder bar assembly. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the rudder pedal tubes for cracking and corrective actions if necessary. Replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies terminates the inspections. We are issuing this AD to address cracking of the pilot-side rudder pedal tubes. Loss of pilot rudder pedal input during flight could result in reduced yaw controllability of the airplane. Loss of pilot rudder pedal input during takeoff or landing could lead to a runway excursion.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-09, dated February 22, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

There have been two in-service reports of fractured rudder pedal tubes installed on the pilot-side rudder bar assembly on CL-600-2B19 aeroplanes. Laboratory examination of the fractured rudder pedal tubes found that in both cases, the fatigue cracks initiated at the aft taper pin holes where the connecting rod fitting is attached. Fatigue testing of the rudder pedal tubes confirmed that the fatigue cracking is due to loads induced during parking brake application. Therefore, only the rudder pedal tubes on the pilot's side are vulnerable to fatigue cracking as the parking brake is primarily applied by the pilot.

Loss of pilot rudder pedal input during flight would result in reduced yaw controllability of the aeroplane. Loss of pilot rudder pedal input during takeoff or landing may lead to a runway excursion.

This [Canadian] AD mandates initial and repetitive [detailed visual or eddy current] inspections [for cracking] of both pilot-side rudder pedal tubes, part number (P/N) 600-90204-3 until the terminating action in Part III of this [Canadian] AD is accomplished [i.e., replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies].

Corrective actions include replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies 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-2017-0907.

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.

Requests To Correct Errors in Certain Service Information Citations

Bombardier and NetJets both requested that typographical errors in certain service bulletin citations be corrected. Bombardier stated that in the NPRM, Bombardier “Service Bulletin 605-27-008” should be cited as Bombardier “Service Bulletin 650-27-008.” NetJets stated that Bombardier “Service Bulletin 605-27-002” should be cited as Bombardier “Service Bulletin 650-27-002.”

We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We agree with NetJets' request to correct the typographical error in the preamble and paragraph (g)(6) of this AD by removing the incorrect citation and including the correct citation, which is Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-27-002, dated June 30, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016.

We do not agree with Bombardier's request because a typographical error does not exist in our citation of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-008, dated March 31, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016. We contacted the commenter, and the company representative agreed that there is not a typographical error. Therefore, no change was made to this AD in this regard.

Request To Change the Order of Certain Service Information in the Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51 Paragraph

During a phone conversation between Bombardier and the FAA that occurred during the NPRM comment period, Bombardier requested that the order of certain service information in “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” be rearranged. Specifically, the commenter requested that Service Bulletin 605-27-008, dated March 31, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016, be listed above Service Bulletin 650-27-002, dated June 30, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016. The commenter stated that chronologically Bombardier issued Service Bulletin 605-27-008, dated March 31, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016, before issuing Service Bulletin 650-27-002, dated June 30, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016.

We agree to clarify. While we recognize the benefit of listing service information in chronological order based on publication dates, we are required by the Office of Federal Register (OFR) to list service information within the incorporated by reference (IBR) paragraph of the AD regulatory text (i.e. paragraph (n) of this AD) according to the document name. For consistency, the IBR material is listed in the same alphanumerical sequence within the 1 CFR part 51 paragraph of the AD preamble text. In this case, as stated previously, we have changed a certain citation, and that change places the service information in the alphanumeric order shown within this AD, which also addresses the commenter's request.

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 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 AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier has issued the following service information. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the rudder pedal tubes for cracking, replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies, and repair. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Service Bulletin 600-0770, including Appendix A, both Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

• Service Bulletin 601-0643, including Appendix A, both Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

• Service Bulletin 604-27-037, including Appendix A, Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

• Service Bulletin 605-27-008, including Appendix A, Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

• Service Bulletin 650-27-002, dated June 30, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016.

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 141 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
  • Inspections 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 per inspection cycle $0 $850 per inspection cycle $119,850 per inspection cycle.

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $8,564 $8,734

    We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for any on-condition repairs specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-09-17 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19274; Docket No. FAA-2017-0907; Product Identifier 2017-NM-069-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 25, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc., airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 1004 through 1085 inclusive.

    (2) Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive.

    (3) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive, S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive, S/Ns 5701 through 5988 inclusive, and S/Ns 6050 through 6099 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fractured rudder pedal tubes on the pilot-side rudder bar assembly. We are issuing this AD to address cracking of the pilot-side rudder pedal tubes. Loss of pilot rudder pedal input during flight could result in reduced yaw controllability of the airplane. Loss of pilot rudder pedal input during takeoff or landing could lead to a runway excursion.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Part Marking

    At the applicable time specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, do a detailed or eddy current inspection of both pilot-side rudder pedal tubes for cracking, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this AD. If no cracking is found, before further flight, mark the part in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this AD. Repeat the detailed or eddy current inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight cycles if a detailed inspection was performed, or 1,000 flight cycles if an eddy current inspection was performed. Repeat the inspection until the terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished.

    (1) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, S/Ns 1004 through 1085 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0770, including Appendix A, both Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (2) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 3001 through 3066 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0643, including Appendix A, both Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (3) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, S/Ns 5001 through 5194 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0643, including Appendix A, both Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (4) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-037, including Appendix A, Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (5) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, S/Ns 5701 through 5988 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-008, including Appendix A, Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (6) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, S/Ns 6050 through 6099 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-27-002, dated June 30, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016.

    ER21MY18.000 (h) Corrective Actions

    (1) If any cracking is found around the aft tapered holes during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this AD.

    (2) If any other damage (e.g., corrosion) is found, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (i) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) Replacement—No Terminating Action

    Replacement of both pilot-side rudder bar assemblies using Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0770, dated August 31, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0643, dated August 31, 2015; is not a terminating action for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (l) 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 if any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-09, dated February 22, 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-2017-0907.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0770, including Appendix A, both Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0643, including Appendix A, both Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-037, including Appendix A, Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-008, including Appendix A, Revision 01, both dated March 31, 2016.

    (v) Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-27-002, dated June 30, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016.

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

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

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

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 27, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-09732 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0874; Product Identifier 2015-SW-082-AD; Amendment 39-19282; AD 2018-10-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-76C helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the engine collective position transducer (CPT). This AD was prompted by reports of wear of the CPT that has resulted in several One Engine Inoperative (OEI) incidents. The actions of this AD are intended to detect and prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 25, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of June 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected] You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0874.

    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-2017-0874; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nick Rediess, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7159; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    On September 14, 2017, at 82 FR 43195, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model S-76C helicopters with a Turbomeca, S.A., Arriel 2S1 or Arriel 2S2 engine with an engine CPT part number (P/N) 76900-01821-104 installed. The NPRM was prompted by 20 reports of OEI incidents resulting from wear of a CPT. One of these incidents resulted in a rejected takeoff to an unprepared site.

    The NPRM proposed to require initial and recurring inspections of each CPT by measuring resistance, linearity resistance movement, and differential voltage, and depending on the outcome of the inspections, replacing the CPT. The proposed requirements were intended to detect wear of a CPT prior to it causing an OEI condition and possible emergency landing.

    Comments

    After our NPRM was published, we received comments from Sikorsky.

    Request To Include an Additional Part to the AD

    Sikorsky requested the AD also apply to engine CPT P/N 76900-01821-105. In support of this request, Sikorsky stated that engine CPT P/N 76900-01821-105 is a new replacement for engine CPT P/N 76900-01821-104, which does not differ substantially from engine CPT P/N 76900-01821-104 and therefore should be subject to the periodic inspections.

    We partially agree. While engine CPT P/N 76900-01821-105 may be subject to the same unsafe condition because of design similarity, adding this part would increase the scope of the AD. Therefore, we plan to publish another NPRM for P/N 76900-01821-105 to give the public an opportunity to comment on those requirements.

    Request To Remove a Test Box From the AD

    Sikorsky requested we remove Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 and only allow the use of Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043 to comply with the AD. In support of this request, Sikorsky stated it considers Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 obsolete because Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043 is easier to use and provides less subjective results.

    We disagree. The proposed AD provided procedures for both test boxes for the repetitive inspections. While Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043 may be more efficient, the use of Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 also addresses the unsafe condition. We do not find justification for requiring operators who have Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 to upgrade or replace their test box. However, we have revised the initial inspection requirements of the AD to allow the use of Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043 as an option. We have also revised the repetitive inspection procedures to allow the use of updated testing procedures for Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043, which had not been issued at the time we published the proposed AD, as an option.

    Lastly, Sikorsky requested we revise the unsafe condition to more accurately describe that it would be a momentary OEI condition. In support, Sikorsky stated that the unsafe condition statement in the proposed AD could be misinterpreted as an in-flight shutdown or engine failure. For this particular CPT failure, Sikorsky stated normal engine operation is restored within approximately two seconds without the need for any specific action by the pilot.

    We agree and have made the requested change accordingly.

    FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

    Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 76-73-8, Revision A, dated December 4, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8A), which specifies a one-time inspection of total resistance, linearity resistant movement, excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the CPTs using CPT Text Box P/N 76700-40009-042.

    We reviewed Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-07, dated August 17, 2016 (TR 73-07), which specifies procedures for removing, installing, and adjusting the CPTs, and inspections of total resistance, linearity resistant movement, excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the CPTs. TR 73-07 also divides the procedures by CPT Test Box P/N by providing separate procedures for test boxes modified by Sikorsky Special Service Instructions (SSI) No. 76-96, dated August 19, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    We also reviewed Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-08, dated September 20, 2017 (TR 73-08), which updates the procedures in TR 73-07. TR 73-08 does not divide the procedures by CPT Test Box P/N as it eliminates the procedures for CPT Text Box P/N 76700-40009-042. TR 73-08 omits obsolete figures and it provides inspection results as pass or fail.

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

    Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter ASB 76-73-8, Basic Issue, dated August 21, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8). ASB 76-73-8 contains the same procedures as ASB 76-73-8A; however, ASB 76-73-8A updates Sikorsky's contact information for submitting a purchase order.

    We also reviewed Sikorsky SA 4047-76C-2-1, Temporary Revision No. 5-181, dated August 21, 2015 (TR 5-181); Task 5-20-00 of Sikorsky Airworthiness Limitations and Inspection Requirements, Publication No. SA 4047-76C-2-1, Revision 24, dated December 15, 2015 (Task 5-20-00); and Section 73-22-04 of Chapter 73 Engine Fuel and Control, of Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Revision 31, dated December 15, 2015 (Section 73-22-04). TR 5-181 specifies adding CPT inspections referenced in Section 73-22-04 to the 300-hour inspection checklist contained in Task 5-20-00.

    We reviewed Sikorksy Safety Advisory No. SSA-S76-11-0002, dated May 17, 2011. This service information provides precautionary instructions to minimize hazardous situations that might result from an unreliable CPT.

    We also reviewed Sikorsky SSI No. 76-96, dated August 19, 2016, which specifies procedures to modify CPT Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 and re-identify it as P/N 76700-40009-043. This one-time modification reduces the instructions to inspect the CPT and improves the inspection accuracy.

    We reviewed Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, dated July 24, 2015, and SSI No. 76-87A, Revision A, dated August 21, 2015. These SSIs specify a one-time inspection of total resistance, linearity resistant movement, excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the CPTs using CPT Text Box P/N 76700-40009-042.

    Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Sikorsky ASB 76-73-8A, TR 73-07, and TR 73-08 specify using and returning Sikorsky's CPT data sheet and any failed CPT to Sikorsky. This AD does not.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 90 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

    The inspections will take about 3.75 work-hours for an estimated cost of $319 per helicopter and $28,710 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing a CPT will take about 6 work-hours and parts will cost $3,072 for an estimated replacement cost of $3,582.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-10-07 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-19282; Docket No. FAA-2017-0874; Product Identifier 2015-SW-082-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76C helicopters, certificated in any category, with a Turbomeca, S.A., Arriel 2S1 or Arriel 2S2 engine with an engine collective position transducer (CPT) part number 76900-01821-104 installed.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a CPT. This condition could result in a reduction in power to one engine resulting in an annunciated momentary One Engine Inoperative (OEI) condition and subsequent emergency landing.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 25, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

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

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 130 hours time-in-service (TIS):

    (i) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the measured resistance is not within tolerance by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(8)(b), of Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8, Revision A, dated December 4, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8A), if using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 or by following paragraph 3.B.(11) of Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-08, dated September 20, 2017 (TR 73-08), if using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043. You are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or submit a data sheet to Sikorsky.

    (ii) Measure the linearity resistance movement of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if there is a linear abnormality or change in resistance that is not within tolerance by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.D.(1) through 3.D.(14)(b), of ASB 76-73-8A, if using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 or by following paragraph 3.B.(12) of TR 73-08, if using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043. You are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or submit a data sheet to Sikorsky.

    (iii) Measure the differential voltage of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the measured voltage is not within tolerance by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.E. through 3.G.(1) of ASB 76-73-8A, if using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 or by following paragraph 3.B.(13) of TR 73-08, if using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043. You are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or submit a data sheet to Sikorsky.

    (2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS:

    (i) If using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042:

    (A) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraph 4.B.(11) of Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-07, dated August 17, 2016 (TR 73-07), except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.

    (B) Measure the linearity resistance movement of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the movement exceeds tolerance by following paragraphs 4.B.(12)(a) through 4.B.(13)(f) of TR 73-07, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.

    (C) Measure the differential voltage of each CPT by following paragraphs 4.B.(14) through 4.B.(15)(h) of TR 73-07, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet. If the maximum voltage is greater than 100 millivolts or the minimum voltage is less than −100 millivolts, replace the CPT.

    (ii) For helicopters using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043:

    (A) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraph 5.B.(11) of TR 73-07 or paragraph 3.B.(11) of TR 73-08, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.

    (B) Measure the resistance linearity of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraph 5.B.(12) of TR 73-07 or paragraph 3.B.(12) of TR 73-08, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.

    (C) Measure the differential voltage of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraphs 5.B.(13)(a) through 5.B.(13)(k) of TR 73-07 or paragraph 3.B.(13) of TR 73-08, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.

    (f) Credit for Previous Actions

    Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the procedures specified in Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8, Basic Issue, dated August 21, 2015; Sikorsky Special Service Instruction SSI No. 76-87, dated July 24, 2015; or Sikorsky Special Service Instruction SSI No. 76-87, Revision A, dated August 21, 2015, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Nick Rediess, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7159; email [email protected]

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

    (h) Additional Information

    Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8, Basic Issue, dated August 21, 2015; Sikorsky SA 4047-76C-2-1, Temporary Revision No. 5-181, dated August 21, 2015; Task 5-20-00 of Sikorsky Airworthiness Limitations and Inspection Requirements, Publication No. SA 4047-76C-2-1, Revision 24, dated December 15, 2015; Section 73-22-04 of Chapter 73 Engine Fuel and Control, of Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Revision 31, dated December 15, 2015; Sikorksy Safety Advisory No. SSA-S76-11-0002, dated May 17, 2011; Sikorsky Special Service Instruction (SSI) No. 76-96, dated August 19, 2016; Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, dated July 24, 2015; and Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, Revision A, dated August 21, 2015, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected] You may review a copy of this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7600, Engine Controls.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8, Revision A, dated December 4, 2015.

    (ii) Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-07, dated August 17, 2016.

    (iii) Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-08, dated September 20, 2017.

    (3) For Sikorsky service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected]

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

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 9, 2018. Lance T. Gant, Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10581 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 172 [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1317] Final Determination Regarding Partially Hydrogenated Oils AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification; declaratory order; extension of compliance date.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on the available scientific evidence and the findings of expert scientific panels, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) made a final determination that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), which are the primary dietary source of industrially produced trans fatty acids (IP-TFA), are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for any use in human food. In a declaratory order announcing our final determination, we set a compliance date of June 18, 2018. We are now extending the compliance date for certain uses of PHOs.

    DATES:

    Compliance dates: See sections II and III of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1309, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34650), we issued a final determination that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that PHOs are GRAS for any use in human food. Because PHOs are the primary dietary source of IP-TFA, FDA's evaluation of the GRAS status of PHOs centered on the trans fatty acid component of these fats and oils. We based our determination on available scientific evidence and the findings of expert scientific panels establishing the health risks associated with the consumption of trans fat. FDA's determination identified significant human health risks, namely an increased risk of coronary heart disease, associated with the consumption of trans fat (78 FR 67169 at 67172; 80 FR 34650 at 34659).

    The order established a 3-year compliance date, to June 18, 2018, to allow time for food manufacturers using PHOs to identify suitable replacement ingredients for PHOs and to reformulate and modify labeling of affected products. The 3-year compliance date was also intended to allow time for submission and review and, if applicable requirements were met, approval of food additive petitions for uses of PHOs for which industry or other interested individuals believe that safe conditions of use may be prescribed. Finally, this compliance date was also intended to give manufacturers time to exhaust existing inventories and give distributors and retailers time to distribute products with PHOs (80 FR 34650 at 34669). We based the compliance date on the information available, including comments on the proposed order (80 FR 34650 at 34668 to 34669).

    In the 2015 final order, we stated that food that is adulterated may be subject to seizure and distributors, manufacturers, and other parties responsible for such food may be subject to injunction. We also reminded distributors and other members of the food industry that they have an obligation to ensure that the food they manufacture, distribute, sell, or otherwise market complies with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (80 FR 34650 at 34655).

    In the Federal Register of October 28, 2015 (80 FR 65978), we published a document announcing that we had filed a food additive petition submitted by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) seeking approval for certain uses of PHOs in or on select foods. We initially filed the food additive petition on October 1, 2015. GMA subsequently amended their food additive petition, and it was re-filed on March 7, 2017. The amended food additive petition requested that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of PHOs in certain food applications. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we have published a document announcing our denial of this food additive petition.

    For purposes of this document extending the compliance date for certain uses of PHOs, we refer to the specified uses of PHOs in GMA's food additive petition as the “petitioned uses” and all other uses of PHOs not authorized by FDA as “non-petitioned uses.” We refer to “manufacturing” in this document as making food from one or more ingredients, or synthesizing, preparing, treating, modifying or manipulating food, including food crops or ingredients. See 21 CFR 1.227.

    On March 23, 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, (Pub. L. 115-141) was enacted into law. Section 738 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, provided that no PHOs, as defined in our declaratory order, shall be deemed unsafe within the meaning of section 409(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348(a)) and no food that is introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce that bears or contains a partially hydrogenated oil shall be deemed adulterated under sections 402(a)(1) or (a)(2)(C)(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(1) or (a)(2)(C)(i)) by virtue of bearing or containing a partially hydrogenated oil, until June 18, 2018.

    II. Extension of the Compliance Date for Certain Uses

    We have been informed by a number of trade associations representing many segments of the food industry that they have replaced the PHO uses that are not covered by the food additive petition (the non-petitioned uses) and thus will be able to stop using PHOs by the June 18, 2018, compliance date (Ref. 1). However, the trade associations also have informed us that, due to shelf lives ranging from 3 to 24 months, a variety of products containing non-petitioned uses of PHOs will be in distribution on, and for some time after, the compliance date in the final order (Ref. 1). In addition, the trade associations have informed us that, if we deny the food additive petition, they will need additional time beyond June 18, 2018, to remove and replace the petitioned uses and deplete the product in distribution (Refs. 1 and 2). FDA has considered these requests as well as the health benefits of removing the uses of PHOs in food manufacturing and is revising the compliance date for certain uses.

    A. Non-Petitioned Uses

    Foods manufactured after June 18, 2018 with non-petitioned uses of PHOs may be subject to enforcement action by FDA. Based on the recent industry information, FDA understands additional time is needed for products manufactured (domestically and internationally) before June 18, 2018, to work their way through distribution. Therefore, we are extending the compliance date of food products that were manufactured before June 18, 2018, with non-petitioned uses of PHO. The new compliance date for these products is January 1, 2020. After January 1, 2020, such foods may be subject to enforcement action by FDA. FDA believes an 18-month extension is appropriate given the range of shelf lives brought to our attention and the 3-year original compliance date.

    B. Petitioned Uses

    In light of our denial of GMA's food additive petition, we acknowledge that the food industry needs additional time to identify suitable replacement substances for the petitioned uses of PHOs and that the food industry may not have done so for the petitioned uses while the petition was under our review. Industry has indicated that 12 months could be a reasonable timeframe for reformulation activities (Ref 1). Therefore, we are extending the compliance date to June 18, 2019, for the manufacturing of food with the petitioned uses of PHOs. Food manufactured with the petitioned uses after June 18, 2019, may be subject to enforcement action by FDA.

    The petitioned uses are as follows:

    • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a solvent or carrier, or a component thereof, for flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, and coloring agents intended for food use, provided the PHOs in the solvent or carrier contribute no more than 150 parts per million (ppm) (150 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)) IP-TFA to the finished food as consumed;

    • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a processing aid, or a component thereof, provided the PHOs in the processing aid contribute no more than 50 ppm (50 mg/kg) IP-TFA to the finished food as consumed;

    • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a pan release agent for baked goods at levels up to 0.2 grams/100 grams (0.2 g/100 g) in pan release spray oils, provided the PHO contributes no more than 0.14 g IP-TFA/100 g spray oil.

    The petitioned uses excluded dietary supplements. The physical and technical effects of the petitioned uses of PHOs were specified as: Release agents, either alone or in combination with other components (§ 170.3(o)(18) (21 CFR 170.3(o)(18))); processing aids or components thereof (§ 170.3(o)(24)); and as solvents, carriers, and vehicles for fat soluble coloring agents, flavoring agents, and flavor enhancers (§ 170.3(o)(27)).

    In addition, for food manufactured with the petitioned uses before June 18, 2019, we are extending the compliance date to January 1, 2021. This time frame will allow manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to exhaust product inventory of foods made with the petitioned uses before the manufacturing compliance date. All foods containing unauthorized uses of PHOs after January 1, 2021, may be subject to FDA enforcement action.

    III. Compliance Dates

    For convenience, we are summarizing the extended compliance dates as follows:

    Product uses Original compliance date Extended
  • compliance date
  • Non-Petitioned Uses Manufacturing of food with non-petitioned uses of PHOs June 18, 2018 Not Extended. Foods manufactured with non-petitioned uses of PHOs before June 18, 2018 June 18, 2018 January 1, 2020. Petitioned Uses * Manufacturing of food with the petitioned uses of PHOs June 18, 2018 June 18, 2019. Foods manufactured with the petitioned uses of PHOs before June 18, 2019 June 18, 2018 January 1, 2021. * Petitioned uses exclude use in dietary supplements and are limited to: • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a pan release agent for baked goods at levels up to 0.2 grams/100 grams (0.2 g/100 g) in pan release spray oils, provided the PHO contributes no more than 0.14 g IP-TFA/100 g spray oil; • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a solvent or carrier, or a component thereof, as defined in § 170.3(o)(27), for flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, and coloring agents intended for food use, provided the PHOs in the solvent or carrier contribute no more than 150 parts per million (ppm) (150 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)) IP-TFA to the finished food as consumed; and • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a processing aid, or a component thereof, as defined in § 170.3(o)(24) and 21 CFR 101.100(a)(3)(ii), provided the PHOs in the processing aid contribute no more than 50 ppm (50 mg/kg) IP-TFA to the finished food as consumed.
    IV. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    1. Letter from the American Bakers Association, et al., to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (April 30, 2018) (sent by electronic mail). 2. Letter from Leon H. Bruner, DVM, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs and Chief Science Officer, Grocery Manufacturers Association, to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (April 27, 2018). Dated: May 15, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10714 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 0 [Directive No. 81C] Delegation of Authority AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Attorney General has delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, with certain restrictions, the authority to perform the functions of the “Central Authority” or “Competent Authority” under treaties and executive agreements between the United States and other countries on mutual assistance in criminal matters that designate the Attorney General or the Department of Justice as such authority. The Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division has re-delegated this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, and to the Director and Deputy Directors, of the Office of International Affairs (OIA). The Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division further re-delegates the authority to make requests under treaties and executive agreements on mutual assistance in criminal matters to the Associate Directors of OIA. This final rule will amend the Appendix to Subpart K of Part 0 to expand the list of persons who may exercise the authority to make mutual assistance requests in criminal matters to include OIA's Associate Directors.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vaughn Ary, Director, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005; Telephone (202) 514-0000.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of International Affairs (OIA) serves as the United States Central Authority with respect to all requests for information and evidence received from and made to foreign authorities under mutual legal assistance treaties and multilateral conventions regarding assistance in criminal matters. OIA's inventory of pending mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests has grown substantially in recent years. OIA received over 1,400 new MLA requests from U.S. prosecutors for foreign evidence in FY17, the most since OIA's inception in 1979. With only three senior leaders (the Director and two Deputy Directors) authorized to make these requests, it can be difficult for OIA to review and process all requests expeditiously. To address this issue, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division is modifying Directive 81A of the Appendix to Subpart K of Part 0 to extend the re-delegation of authority to Associate Directors who supervise OIA's regional teams and designated units as persons who may make MLA requests. Associate Directors are among the most experienced attorneys within the organization and are responsible for providing legal and policy guidance to the Assistant Attorney General and Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. Authorizing these senior supervisory attorneys to make MLA requests to foreign central authorities is commensurate with their existing duties and provides OIA with the capability to process these requests more efficiently, avoid unnecessary delays, and more effectively satisfy the demand for international evidence from U.S. law enforcement.

    Administrative Procedure Act—5 U.S.C. 553

    This rule is a rule of agency organization and relates to a matter relating to agency management and is therefore exempt from the requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in the effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), 553(b)(3)(A).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required to be prepared for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

    Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. This rule is limited to agency organization, management, and personnel as described in section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by the order. Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

    This rule was drafted in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1955

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Congressional Review Act

    This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organizations and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Counterterrorism, Crime, Government employees, Law enforcement, National security information, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism, Whistleblowing.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 28, Part 0, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

    PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519.

    2. The Appendix to Subpart K of Part 0 is amended by removing Directive No. 81A and adding Directive No. 81C in alphanumeric order, to read as follows: Appendix to Subpart K of Part 0—Criminal Division [Directive No. 81C] Re-Delegation of Authority to Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Criminal Division, and Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs To Act Under Treaties and Executive Agreements on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters; and Re-Delegation of Authority To Make Requests Under Treaties and Executive Agreements on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters to the Associate Directors of the Office of International Affairs

    By virtue of the authority vested in me by § 0.64-1 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Authority delegated to me by that section to exercise all of the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under treaties and executive agreements on mutual assistance in criminal matters is hereby re-delegated to each of the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Criminal Division, and to the Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division. In addition, I hereby re-delegate the authority to make requests under treaties and executive agreements on mutual assistance in criminal matters to the Associate Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division.

    Dated: May 10, 2018. John P. Cronan, Acting Assistant Attorney General.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10703 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0452] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, OR AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Burnside Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.4, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate a city parade event. This deviation allows the double bascule bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0452 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Multnomah County, Oregon owns the Burnside Bridge, crossing the Willamette River, mile 12.4, at Portland, OR, and has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule. The requested deviation is to accommodate the Spirit Mountain Casino Grand Floral Parade. To facilitate this event, the draw of the subject bridge will be authorized to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to marine traffic. This deviation period is from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 9, 2018.

    The Burnside Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 41 feet in the closed-to-navigation position referenced to Columbia River Datum 0.0. The normal operating schedule is in 33 CFR 117.897. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The Coast Guard contacted all known users of the Willamette River for comment, and we received no objections for this deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open the span only for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10701 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0405] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), Wrightsville Beach, NC and Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedules that govern the S.R. 74 (Wrightsville Beach) Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC, and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.0, at Wilmington, NC. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 11th Annual Ironman Triathlon. This deviation allows these bridges to remain in their closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    The deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on October 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0405], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Kashanda Booker, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6227, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Quintiles Wrightsville Beach Marathon Committee, with approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the S.R. 74 (Wrightsville Beach) Bridge and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 11th Annual Ironman Triathlon. The two bridges are both double bascule bridges and have vertical clearances in the closed position of 20 feet and 40 feet, respectively, above mean high water.

    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(4) and 33 CFR 117.829(a), respectively. Under this temporary deviation, the S.R. 74 (Wrightsville Beach) Bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. on October 13, 2018, and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge will also be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on October 13, 2018. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels. The Northeast Cape Fear River is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels, and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through these bridges in their closed positions may do so at any time. These bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there are no immediate alternative routes for vessels unable to pass through the bridges in their closed positions. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedules for these bridges so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), these drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective periods of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10695 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0339] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life, property, and the marine environment on these navigable waters near the Whataburger Field during fireworks displays on May 27, July 4, and July 5, 2018. Entry of vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. each day on May 27, July 4, and July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0339 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 about this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Kevin Kyles, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-5125, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable. This safety zone must be established by May 27, 2018 and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the scheduled date of the fireworks and compromise public safety.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons during the fireworks displays.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks displays occurring on May 27, 2018, July 4, and July 5, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-foot radius of the fireworks launch location at the Whataburger Field parking lot. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks displays.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m., each day on May 27, July 4, and July 5, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 500 feet of the fireworks launch location in the Whataburger Field parking lot at approximate position 27°48′39.2″ N, 097°23′55.2″ W, in Corpus Christi, TX. The duration of the zone is intended to protect the public from the fireworks display before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zones. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact less than a 500-foot designated area of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel for two hours on three separate evenings when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones lasting one hour each that would prohibit entry within 500 feet of the fireworks launch location. It is 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 Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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.T08-0339 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0339 Safety Zones; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone for each of the events occurring on May 27, July 4, and July 5, 2018: all navigable waters encompassing a 500-foot radius around a fireworks display in position 27°48′39.2″ N, 097°23′55.2″ W, in Corpus Christi, TX.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. each day on May 27, July 4, and July 5, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 361-939-0450.

    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    Dated: May 8, 2018. E.J. Gaynor, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10804 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0266] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Grosse Pointe War Memorial Red, White, and Blue Gala Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of a portion of Lake St. Clair, Grosse Point, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Grosse Pointe War Memorial Red, White, and Blue Gala Fireworks.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. (EDT) on May 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0266 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with fireworks from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 24, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 420-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 24, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair, Harrison Twp, MI, within a 420-foot radius of position 42°23.132′ N, 082°53.740′ W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Lake St. Clair from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on May 24, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is 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 Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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.T09-0266 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0266 Safety Zone; Grosse Pointe War Memorial Red, White, and Blue Gala Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair, Harrison Twp, within a 420-foot radius of position 42°23.132′ N, 082°53.740′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 24, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene representative.

    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 3, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10749 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0384] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; St. Clair Shores Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, St. Clair Shores, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 700-foot radius of a portion of Lake St. Clair, St. Clair Shores, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the St. Clair Shores Fireworks.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 10 p.m. on June 22, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0384 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10 p.m. on June 22, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 23, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 700-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. on June 22, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 23, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair, St. Clair Shores, MI, within a 700-foot radius of position 42° 31.6′ N, 082°52.03′ W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Lake St. Clair 10 p.m. on June 22, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 23, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is 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 Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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.T09-0384 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0384 Safety Zone; St. Clair Shores Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, St. Clair Shores, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair, St. Clair Shores, MI, within a 700-foot radius of position 42°31.6′ N, 082°52.03′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018. In the case of inclement weather on June 22, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 23, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene representative.

    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 3, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10771 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0651] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Navy Underwater Detonation (UNDET) Exercises, GU AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing two recurring safety zones for navigable waters of Apra Outer Harbor and Piti, Guam. The safety zones will encompass sites designated for U.S. Navy underwater detonation (UNDET) exercises. The Coast Guard believes this safety zone regulation is necessary to protect the public and exercise participants within the affected area from possible safety hazards associated with these exercises. These safety zones will impact a small designated area of navigable waters in Apra Harbor and Piti during periods of times, many of which are of short duration, on days requested by the Navy for UNDET exercises. With the exception of exercise participants, entry of vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0651 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 rule, call or email Petty Officer Robin Branch, Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (671) 355-4835, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    U.S. Navy UNDET exercises occur multiple times throughout the year to train and prepare personnel for operational missions. We have established safety zones for these Navy UNDETs in past years through a temporary final rulemaking for each exercise. For all subsequent exercises, we propose to establish recurring safety zones through this regulation to safeguard the public and exercise participants within the affected area from possible safety hazards associated with the exercises.

    In response, on February 9, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Navy Underwater Detonation (UNDET) Exercise, Apra Outer Harbor, GU (83 FR 5751-5753). In the NPRM, we stated the purpose and need for the safety zone, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to these safety zones. During the comment period that ended March 26, 2018, we received 2 comments in support of the proposed rule.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Guam (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the UNDET exercises will be a safety concern for anyone within a 700 yard radius around the two locations with the exception of exercise participants. The purpose of these safety zones is to protect the public and exercise participants from possible safety hazards associated with the exercises.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published February 9, 2018. Both comments supported the rule, and proposed no changes. The only change made will be to the title of the rule. The original title from the proposed rule in the NPRM was “Safety Zone; Navy Underwater Detonation (UNDET) Exercise, Apra Outer Harbor, GU”. The title will be changed to “Safety Zone; Navy Underwater Detonation (UNDET) Exercises, GU” which better reflects the rule. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the NPRM.

    The COTP proposed to establish two recurring safety zones for certain periods of time, many of which are of short duration, on days requested by the Navy for UNDET exercises. The safety zones will cover all navigable waters within a 700 yard radius above and below the surface for the Apra Outer Harbor UNDET site and a 700 yard radius above and below the surface for the UNDET Piti site. The duration of the safety zones is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the UNDET exercise. With the exception of exercise participants, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zones. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around these safety zones, which will impact a small designated area of waters off of Piti, Guam, and in Apra Outer Harbor for certain periods of time, many of which are of short duration, on days requested by the Navy for UNDET exercises. The UNDET exercises occur approximately 10 times a year, although additional exercises may be required based on Navy training needs. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing two recurring safety zones for periods of time, many of which are of short duration, on days requested by the Navy for UNDET exercises that will prohibit entry within 700 yards radius above and below the surface for the Apra Outer Harbor UNDET site and a 700 yard radius above and below the surface for the Piti UNDET site. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[37] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.1402 to read as follows:
    § 165.1402 Safety Zone; Navy Underwater Detonation (UNDET) Exercises, GU.

    (a) Location. The following areas, within the Guam Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), from the surface of the water to the ocean floor, are safety zones:

    (1) Apra Outer Harbor, Guam. All waters above and below the surface bounded by a circle with a 700 yard radius centered at 13 degrees 27 minutes 42 seconds North Latitude and 144 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds East Longitude, (NAD 1983).

    (2) Piti, Guam. All waters above and below the surface bounded by a circle with a 700 yard radius centered at 13 degrees 29 minutes 03 seconds North Latitude and 144 degrees 40 minutes 03 seconds East Longitude, (NAD 1983).

    (b) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced for designated periods of time, many of which are of short duration, on days requested by the Navy for purpose of UNDET exercises.

    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones contained in § 165.23 apply. With the exception of exercise participants, no vessels may enter or transit safety zones in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and no persons in the water may enter or transit the safety zone in paragraph (a)(2) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative thereof.

    (d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may enforce these safety zones.

    Dated: April 27, 2018. Christopher M. Chase, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10823 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0425] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival, Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 900-foot radius of a portion of Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival Fireworks.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 10 p.m. on June 21, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0425 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10 p.m. on June 21, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 900-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. on June 21, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018. The safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. through 11 p.m. on June 21, 2018. In the case of inclement weather on June 21, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI, within a 900-foot radius of position 42°40.600′ N, 082°43.990′ W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Lake St. Clair from 10 p.m. on June 21, 2018 through 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will be enforced for one hour and will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is 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 Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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.T09-0425 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0425 Safety Zone; Bay-Rama Fish Fly Festival Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of the Lake St. Clair, New Baltimore, MI, within a 900-foot radius of position 42°40.600′ N, 082°43.990′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 21, 2018. In the case of inclement weather on June 21, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 22, 2018.

    (c) Regulations.

    (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene representative.

    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10750 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0335] Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Navy Pier Southeast Safety Zone within the Chicago Harbor during specified times from May 26, 2018 through January 1, 2019. This action is necessary and intended to ensure the safety of life and property on navigable waters prior to, during, and immediately after firework displays. During the enforcement periods listed below, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulation in 33 CFR 165.931 will be enforced at the times specified below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION between May 26, 2018 through January 1, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT John Ramos, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR 165.931, on May 26, 2018 from 10:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.; Weekly events will occur each Saturday starting May 26, 2018 through September 1, 2018 from 10 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.; and each Wednesday starting May 30, 2018 through August 29, 2018 from 9:30 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. Additionally, this safety zone will also be enforced on July 4, 2018 from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m., on September 2, 2018 from 9:30 p.m. until 9:45 p.m., on December 1, 2018 from 9:30 p.m. until 9:45 p.m., and on December 31, 2018 from 11:45 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2019. This safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 41°53′26.5″ N, 087°35′26.5″ W; then south to 41°53′7.6″ N, 087°35′26.3″ W; then west to 41°53′7.6″ N, 087°36′23.2″ W; then north to 41°53′26.5″ N, 087°36′24.6″ W; then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83). Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.931 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the above-specified enforcement periods of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM or at (414) 747- 7182.

    Dated: May 3, 2018 Thomas J. Stuhlreyer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10822 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0080; FRL-9977-24—Region 9] Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources; New Source Review AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on revisions to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern permit program rules governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the issuance and banking of Emission Reduction Credits. The revisions correct deficiencies in BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2, and Regulation 2, Rule 4, previously identified by the EPA in final rules dated August 1, 2016, and December 4, 2017, respectively. Approval of this SIP revision terminates the sanctions clock and federal implementation plan (FIP) clock that were triggered by the EPA's limited disapproval of a related SIP submission on August 1, 2016.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective on June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0080. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3534, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. EPA Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action

    On March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8822), the EPA proposed to fully approve the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP.

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Regulation & Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted Regulation 2, Rule 1 (Rule 2-1) Permits, General Requirements 12/6/2017 12/14/17 Regulation 2, Rule 2 (Rule 2-2) Permits, New Source Review 12/6/2017 12/14/17 Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Rule 2-4) Permits, Emissions Banking 12/6/2017 12/14/17

    We proposed approval of these rules because we determined that the rules met the statutory requirements for SIP revisions as specified in sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA, as well as the substantive statutory and regulatory requirements for a NSR permit program as contained in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), and 40 CFR 51.160-51.166.

    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received 13 comments on the proposed rule. Twelve of these comments raised issues that are outside the scope of our proposed approval of the BAAQMD rules, including climate change science, air toxics regulation, rare earth mining, wind power costs and regulations, and pipeline and export terminal construction. Although some commenters made general statements about the sufficiency of current air quality in the United States and the cost of additional regulation, these comments did not address the regulations at issue in the present rulemaking, nor did they indicate that the submitted rules do not meet the requirements of the Act. One commenter stated that “adopting best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) is absolutely imperative if the air quality crisis is to be mitigated.” BARCT is a state law requirement, not a requirement of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, consideration of BARCT is outside the scope of the present rulemaking.

    The BAAQMD submitted a comment stating that it “supports EPA's proposed approval of the Air District's New Source Review rule revisions,” but noting that it disagrees with the EPA's characterization of portions of the District's prior submission of earlier versions of Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 as “deficiencies.” The District's previously submitted version of these rules is not presently before the EPA; therefore the comment is not germane to the present rulemaking. With respect to the rule that is presently before the Agency, the District states that it supports the proposed approval, and does not indicate that the submission does not meet all applicable requirements of the Act.1

    1 In its comment, the District stated that it incorporates by reference certain prior comments submitted by the District regarding the EPA's November 12, 2016 proposed action on the District's submission of a previous version of Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2. These comments relate to a previous version of the rule, and the District does not suggest that they address deficiencies with the present rule, or issues germane to the present action. Moreover, the referenced comments were not properly presented to the Agency for consideration. As stated in our proposed rule, and the EPA's public comment guidance: “[t]he EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission.” 83 FR 8822. For these reasons, the EPA does not herein specifically respond to issues raised in the District's previously submitted comment in a separate rulemaking docket.

    During the comment period the EPA also received four comments on the interim final determination to defer sanctions (83 FR 8750) that accompanied the proposed rule. These comments raised issues that were not germane to the interim final determination.

    The EPA is required to approve a state SIP submission if the submittal meets all of the applicable requirements of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3). None of the submitted comments indicate that the District's submittal of Regulation 2, Rules 1, 2, and 4 does not meet the requirements of the Act.

    III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that submitted Regulation 2, Rules 1, 2 and 4 satisfy the applicable CAA requirements. Therefore, under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a), and for the reasons set forth in our March 1, 2018 proposed rule, we are fully approving Regulation 2, Rules 1, 2 and 4. This action incorporates the submitted rules into the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP and makes them federally enforceable. In addition, because we are finalizing our proposed action, we are removing existing Regulation 2, Rules 1, 2 and 4 from the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP.

    Upon the effective date of today's final approval, all sanctions clocks and FIP clocks that were triggered upon our final limited disapproval at 81 FR 50339 (August 1, 2016) of previous versions of Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2, and deferred upon our interim final rule at 83 FR 8750 (March 1, 2018), are permanently terminated. In addition, by submitting an updated version of Regulation 2, Rule 4, addressing the deficiencies identified in our conditional approval at 82 FR 57133 (December 4, 2017), the District has met the commitment that served as the basis for our conditional approval. Therefore, upon the effective date of today's final approval of Regulation 2, Rule 4, amended December 6, 2017, the EPA is removing from the SIP the conditional approval of Regulation 2, Rule 4, amended December 19, 2012.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the rules listed in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (Air-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 18, 2018. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(429)(i)(E)(4) and (c)(502) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan—in part.

    (c) * * *

    (429) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (E) * * *

    (4) Previously approved on August 1, 2016 in paragraphs (c)(429)(i)(E)(1) and (2), and on December 4, 2017 in paragraph (c)(429)(i)(E)(3) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(502)(i)(A)(1) of this section, Regulation 2, Rules 1, 2, and 4.

    (502) Amended regulations for the following APCD were submitted on December 14, 2017 by the Governor's Designee.

    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Regulation 2, “Permits,” Rule 1, “General Requirements,” adopted on December 6, 2017; Regulation 2, “Permits,” Rule 2, “New Source Review,” adopted on December 6, 2017; and Regulation 2, “Permits,” Rule 4, “Emissions Banking,” adopted on December 6, 2017.

    § 52.248 [Amended]
    3. Section 52.248 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c).
    [FR Doc. 2018-10691 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9978-05-Region 2] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fulton Terminals Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fulton Terminals Superfund site (Site), located in the City of Fulton, Oswego County, New York, originally consisted of an “On-Property” area and an “Off-Property” area. The On-Property area was deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL) in 2015. The Off-Property area remained on the NPL because residual groundwater contamination was still present. Because the groundwater in the Off-Property area has achieved the cleanup levels, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this Notice of Deletion (NOD) of the Off-Property area from the NPL and requests public comments on this action.

    DATES:

    This direct final deletion will be effective July 20, 2018 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by June 20, 2018. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final NOD in the Federal Register, informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:

    Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: To the attention of Christos Tsiamis, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866.

    Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone: 212-637-4308). Such deliveries are only accepted during the Record Center's normal hours of operation (Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002.

    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the Docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or via email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comments. If you send comments to the EPA via email, your email address will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the Docket and made available on the website. If you submit electronic comments, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comments and with any disks or CD-ROMs that you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comments because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comments fully. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses.

    All documents in the Docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly-available Docket materials can be obtained either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone: 212-637-4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Fulton Public Library, 160 South First Street, Fulton, NY 13069, Phone: 315-592-5159, Hours: Tue-Thu: 9:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m., Fri: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Sat: 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christos Tsiamis, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, 212-637-4257, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction

    The Site, located in the City of Fulton, Oswego County, New York, originally consisted of an “On-Property” area, an approximately 1.5-acre parcel of land bounded on the west by First Street, on the south by Shaw Street, on the east by New York State Route 481 and on the north by a warehouse, and an “Off-Property” area, defined by the area between the On-Property area's western property boundary to the Oswego River (approximately 50 feet).

    The On-Property area was deleted from the NPL on April 6, 2015 (80 FR 5957). Because residual groundwater contamination (cis-1,2-dichloroethene [DCE] and vinyl chloride [VC]) was still present at the Off-Property area, the Off-Property area remained on the NPL, and groundwater monitoring and five-year reviews were still required for this area.

    Groundwater samples were collected from the Off-Property area in July 2016, June 2017, and September 2017, and they were analyzed for cis-1,2-DCE and VC. The reported concentrations of these constituents detected in the analyses of these samples were all below the cleanup levels, with two of the three being “non-detect” (meaning concentrations were below the laboratory detection limits of 0.5 micrograms per liter [µg/L]). Based on an analysis of all the groundwater monitoring wells and associated contaminant-specific data, it was concluded that the groundwater remedy has achieved the cleanup levels selected for the Site, and data analysis indicates that the contaminant levels in the groundwater will remain below these standards. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the response action is completed and that no further groundwater monitoring or five-year reviews at the Site are necessary.

    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final NOD of the Site from the NPL. The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is part of the NCP, which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of releases that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. The releases on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions at the site warrant such actions.

    The EPA and the State of New York, through the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed at the Site and that it no longer poses a threat to public health or the environment. Therefore, the EPA and NYSDEC have concluded that this NOD may proceed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund should future conditions warrant such action.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Off-Property area and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses the EPA's action to delete the Off-Property area from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no response or no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), The EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. The remedial investigation (RI) has shown that the release of hazardous substances poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Off-Property area.

    i. The EPA consulted with the State of New York prior to developing this direct final NOD and the Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) also published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register.

    ii. The EPA has provided the State with 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel NOID prior to their publication today, and the State, through the NYSDEC, has concurred on the deletion of the Off-Property area from the NPL.

    iii. Concurrent with the publication of this direct final NOD, a notice of the availability of the parallel NOID is being published in a major local newspaper, the Palladium-Times. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the NOID regarding the Off-Property area from the NPL.

    iv. The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the Deletion Docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist the EPA's management of sites. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides the Agency's rationale for deleting the Off-Property area from the NPL.

    Site Background and History

    The Site (NYD980593099), located in the City of Fulton, Oswego County, New York, originally consisted of a 1.5-acre “On-Property” area, which is bounded on the west by First Street, on the south by Shaw Street, on the east by New York State Route 481, and on the north by a warehouse, and an “Off-Property” area, defined by the area between the On-Property area's western property boundary to the Oswego River (approximately 50 feet). The Site is in an industrial section of the City of Fulton. The Oswego River is used for recreation. Residences, city and county offices, and several businesses are located within a 1,500-foot radius of the Site.

    From 1936 to 1960, the primary activity on the On-Property area was the manufacturing of roofing materials, which involved the storage of asphalt in above-ground tanks and fuel oil storage in underground tanks. From 1972 to 1977, the property was used by Fulton Terminals, Inc. as a staging and storage area for solvents and other materials that were scheduled for incineration at the Pollution Abatement Services facility located elsewhere in Oswego, New York. Operations at the Fulton Terminals facility resulted in the contamination of the groundwater, soil, and sediments with volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

    From 1981 to 1983, Fulton Terminals, Inc. removed several tanks as part of a voluntary cleanup program. These activities ceased in 1983 after the facility operator was fined by the NYSDEC for the improper disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls. The Site was listed on the NPL in 1983.

    The EPA and certain potentially responsible parties (PRPs) conducted removal activities at the Site in 1986, consisting of constructing a seven-foot perimeter fence around the Site, posting warning signs, removing two above-ground tanks and two underground tanks, removing approximately 300 cubic yards (CY) of visibly-contaminated soil and tar-like wastes, and excavating storm drains that were acting as a conduit for contaminated runoff to enter the Oswego River during storm events. An additional removal action was performed in 1990, which involved the construction of earthen barriers for the prevention of surface runoff from the Site.

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Results

    From 1985 to 1987, NYSDEC's contractor, URS Company, Inc., performed a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) at the Site. The RI/FS report that was generated from these efforts was declared invalid by NYSDEC because of problems associated with the laboratory analyses. A revised RI/FS report, based on additional sampling, was prepared by NYSDEC's contractor in 1988. The EPA concluded, however, that the revised RI/FS report did not fully characterize the Site. Accordingly, the EPA performed a supplemental RI/FS. The conclusions set forth in the supplemental RI/FS, completed in 1989 by the EPA's contractor, Ebasco Services, Inc., indicated that various VOCs were present in the unsaturated soil (above the water table) and in the groundwater at the Site. An Endangerment Assessment for the Site, which was also completed in 1989, contained conclusions that minimal human health risks were associated with the existing Site conditions. However, the supplemental RI/FS process revealed that the leaching of VOCs from the contaminated on-site soil into the groundwater posed a risk to the environment.

    Record of Decision Findings

    On September 29, 1989, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed, in which the EPA documented the selection of excavation and low temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) as the treatment method of approximately 4,000 CY of contaminated soils located above the water table, and pumping, air stripping, carbon adsorption, and reinjection as the treatment method for the contaminated groundwater. The remedy also included the implementation of institutional controls to prevent the utilization of the groundwater at the Site. The objective of the soil remedy was to reduce the concentrations of VOCs in the soils to levels that would no longer cause the groundwater quality to exceed groundwater standards because of percolation of precipitation through the unsaturated soils.

    Remedy Implementation

    A consent decree was signed by the PRPs in 1990, in which they agreed to design and implement the remedy called for in the ROD. The consent decree became effective in 1991.

    Soil Remediation

    The remedial design (RD) of the soil excavation and treatment was initiated by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BBL), the contractor for the PRPs, in 1991.

    Pre-RD sampling revealed the presence of a significant amount of contamination in the deep soil (from the water table down to bedrock). Because the contaminated soil below the water table would continue to leach contaminants to the groundwater, the EPA concluded that remediating this soil would be beneficial to the long-term groundwater cleanup.

    Remedial alternatives to address the contaminated soils below the water table were evaluated in a focused feasibility study (FFS) completed by BBL in 1994. The EPA determined that specialized methods for stabilizing the deep excavation area would be required for the removal of the contaminated soils because of the excavation depth, the need for control of groundwater infiltration into the excavation area, and the proximity of the Site to the Oswego River.

    Based on the results of the pre-RD sampling effort and the findings of the FFS, the EPA modified the soil remedy in a 1994 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD). The ESD called for the excavation of the VOC-contaminated soils in the saturated zone (below the water table), followed by the treatment of the excavated soils by LTTD.

    Following the completion of the plans and specifications related to the soil remedy in 1995, BBL initiated construction of the soil remedy. Because of the proximity of the Site to the Oswego River, a “freeze wall” was used, which is a construction process whereby the ground is frozen at depth to allow the dry excavation of contaminated soils below the water table. The excavation, treatment, and backfilling were completed in 1996. The total amount of contaminated source material that was remediated was 10,200 CY. Post-excavation soil sampling results indicated that residual levels of VOCs in soils were well below the target cleanup levels. A Remedial Action Report documenting the completion of the soil remedy was approved by the EPA on September 30, 1996.

    Groundwater Remediation

    The groundwater remedy called for in the ROD required the reduction of VOC concentrations to federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and New York State's groundwater quality standards by pumping the groundwater from the saturated sand and gravel zone underlying the Site, treating the groundwater by air stripping and carbon adsorption, and reinjecting the water into the saturated sand and gravel zone.

    The design of the groundwater remediation was performed from 1991 to 1994. Initiation of the groundwater remedial action was, however, postponed until all the soil activities at the Site were completed. At that time, a horizontal extraction well system consisting of a gallery of perforated piping and a collection manhole was installed at the base of the excavation. Given the overall effectiveness of the soil remedy, it was determined that groundwater standards could be achieved within a relatively short time frame if the groundwater extraction could be commenced immediately. Utilizing a mobile treatment system, an expedited pumping of the contaminated groundwater commenced on February 11, 1997. The operation of the groundwater extraction and treatment system (including groundwater reinjection/surface water discharge), as well as weekly influent/effluent monitoring conducted during its operation, was performed by Clean Harbors on behalf of the PRPs. The system was shut down on May 30, 1997, when sampling data of the influent indicated that the objectives of the expedited pumping program had been achieved. During the 12-week operation period, approximately 8.8 million gallons of contaminated groundwater were extracted and treated. Subsequent groundwater sampling showed that MCLs had been achieved in the source area, and groundwater modeling indicated that the Off-Property VOCs would naturally attenuate in a “reasonable” time frame (i.e., within 20 to 30 years). Residual subsurface ice from the freeze wall precluded an accurate evaluation of the groundwater remedy performance (the two downgradient monitoring wells were frozen). Following the forced thaw of the freeze wall via steam injection by the PRPs in 1998, the temperature of the groundwater and the concentrations of contaminants were monitored. Groundwater samples collected in 1999 indicated that the freeze wall was no longer intact (i.e., the two monitoring wells were free of ice) and that the contamination levels in these wells were decreasing. Completion of the groundwater operation and transition to long-term groundwater monitoring was documented in the September 30, 1999 Remedial Action Report.

    Institutional Controls

    The remedy included the implementation of institutional controls to prevent the utilization of the groundwater at the Site. A deed restriction prohibiting the installation of wells at the Site was filed with the Oswego County Clerk's office on July 31, 2009. Groundwater has been remediated to attain drinking water standards. Therefore, this institutional control is no longer a necessary component of the CERCLA response action.

    Deletion of On-Property Area of Site

    On April 6, 2015, the On-Property area was deleted from the NPL. This deletion addressed all media for this area, namely surface soils, subsurface soils, and groundwater. Because residual groundwater contamination remained in the Off-Property area, groundwater monitoring and five-year reviews were still required for the Off-Property area. Information supporting the partial deletion of the On-Property area can be found in the Federal Register (80 FR 5957).

    Five-Year Review

    Five-year reviews of the Site were performed in September 2004, June 2009, and May 2014. In the last five-year review, the EPA concluded that the implemented remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

    Based on the determination that the remedy's cleanup levels for groundwater have been achieved, no further five-year reviews are warranted because the Site has achieved unlimited use/unrestricted exposure. This determination is documented in a December 21, 2017 memorandum from John Prince, Acting Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, EPA Region 2, to James Woolford, Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, entitled Fulton Terminals Superfund Site (EPA ID# NYD980593099)—Cessation of Five-Year Reviews.

    Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for the Site have been satisfied as required pursuant to CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617. As part of the remedy selection process, the public was invited to comment on the proposed remedy. All other documents and information that the EPA relied on or considered in recommending this deletion are available for the public to review at the information repositories identified above.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion From the NCP

    For groundwater restoration remedies, the EPA recommends in OSWER 9355.0-129, Guidance for Evaluating Completion of Groundwater Restoration Remedial Actions, that contaminant of concern (COC) concentrations be evaluated on a monitoring well-by-monitoring well basis to assess whether aquifer restoration is complete (i.e., that the groundwater has met and will continue to meet cleanup levels for all COCs in the future). The guidance document includes a recommendation that sufficient data be collected and evaluated using appropriate visual or statistical methods to assist in this determination.

    After completion of the groundwater portion of the remedy in 1999, a sampling and analysis plan to assess the effectiveness of the groundwater remedy was completed. The groundwater monitoring well network included three source-area (i.e., On-Property) monitoring wells and five Off-Property monitoring wells. The initial plan required three years of post-remedy groundwater monitoring (March 2000 through September 2002) to verify the successful performance of the groundwater remedy. In October 2003, the groundwater long-term monitoring was extended for an additional three years.

    Groundwater samples collected from 2000-2004 showed “non-detect” concentrations for all the groundwater COCs in six of the eight monitoring wells (two Off-Property area wells still had elevated concentrations of trichloroethylene [TCE], cis-1,2-DCE, and VC). As a result, sampling at the six monitoring wells was discontinued and they were properly abandoned in 2004.

    As of 2004, the two remaining monitoring wells demonstrated attainment of the groundwater related to the TCE cleanup level; however, cis-1,2-DCE and VC concentrations remained above their respective cleanup levels, though concentration trends were decreasing. As a result, biannual sampling continued at these two monitoring wells.

    In 2006, it was determined that the groundwater had reached cleanup levels for multiple sampling events in one of the two remaining Off-Property area monitoring wells. As such, sampling at this well was discontinued in 2006. Through 2009, biannual sampling continued. Groundwater in the one remaining monitoring well continued to show cis-1,2- DCE and VC above their respective cleanup levels. It was determined that groundwater sampling should continue. Samples were collected from 2009 to 2017 and were used to demonstrate attainment, as discussed below.

    Cis-1,2-DCE Attainment Analysis

    Five data points from 2013 to 2017 were analyzed using both a visual and statistical analysis. Specific to the groundwater meeting the cis-1,2-DCE cleanup level of 5 µg/L, a statistical analysis was conducted, and the EPA concluded that the mean concentration was 3.1 µg/L; however, much like the VC data, because of statistical variation, the 95 percent upper confidence limit on the mean was 14.1 µg/L. Although the upper confidence limit was three times the cleanup level, the last three data points collected in 2016 and 2017 were all below the cleanup level, with two of the three being “non-detect” (below the laboratory detection limit of 0.5 µg/L) As such, it was determined that the data provided assurance that the cleanup level for cis-1,2-DCE had been met in this monitoring well.

    The data was also evaluated using a time-dependent trend. The trend for the five data points had a statistically significant decreasing sloping providing assurance that the groundwater will continue to meet the cleanup level.

    VC Attainment Analysis

    Six data points from 2009 through 2017 were analyzed using both a visual and statistical analysis. Specific to the groundwater meeting the VC cleanup level of 2 µg/L, a statistical analysis was conducted for the six data points, and the EPA concluded that the mean concentration was 1.2 µg/L; however, because of statistical variation, the 95 percent upper confidence limit on the mean was 2.8 µg/L, slightly above the cleanup level of 2 µg/L. Although the upper confidence limit was slightly above 2 µg/L, the last three data points collected in 2016 and 2017 are all below the cleanup level, with two of the three being “non-detect” (below the laboratory detection limit of 0.5 µg/L). As such, it was determined that the data provided assurance that the cleanup level for VC had been met in this monitoring well.

    The data was also evaluated using a time-dependent trend. The trend for the six data points had a statistically significant decreasing slope providing assurance that the groundwater will continue to meet the cleanup level.

    Conclusion

    Based on this analysis of all groundwater monitoring wells and associated contaminant-specific data, it has been concluded that the groundwater remedy has achieved the remedial cleanup levels, and data analysis indicates that the groundwater will remain below these standards. Therefore, the groundwater restoration remedial action is complete in accordance with the remedy, and further groundwater monitoring at the Site is no longer necessary.

    All the completion requirements for the Off-Property area have been met, as described in the December 28, 2017 Final Close-Out Report. The State of New York, in a March 7, 2018 letter, concurred with the proposed deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    The NCP specifies that the EPA may delete a site from the NPL if “responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required.” 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(i). The EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, through NYSDEC, believes that this criterion for the deletion of the Site has been met in that the Site no longer poses a threat to public health or the environment. Consequently, the EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available in the Site files.

    V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York through NYSDEC, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed at the Site and that it no longer poses a threat to public health or the environment. Therefore, the EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

    The Site is now suitable for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, no further five-year reviews will be conducted for this Site. The deletion does not preclude future action under CERCLA. Because the EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, the EPA is taking this action without prior publication. This action will be effective July 20, 2018 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by June 20, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period of this action, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final NOD before the effective date of the deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. The EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process based on the NOID and the comments received. In such a case, there will be no additional opportunity to comment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: April 19, 2018. Peter D. Lopez, Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2.

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

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

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

    Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the listing under New York for “Fulton Terminals”.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10798 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 20 and 68 [CG Docket No. 13-46, WT Docket Nos. 07-250 and 10-254; FCC 17-135] Hearing Aid Compatibility Standards AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with rules adopted in the Commission's document Access to Telecommunication Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities; Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets et. al., Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order). This document is consistent with the Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules.

    DATES:

    The additions of §§ 68.501 through 68.504 (subpart F), published at 83 FR 8624, February 28, 2018, are effective May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Bahr, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-0573, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on May 1, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Order, FCC 17-135, published at 83 FR 8624, February 28, 2018. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0687. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0687, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the internet if you send them to [email protected]

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2275 (videophone), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 1, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at §§ 68.501 through 68.504.

    Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0687.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0687.

    OMB Approval Date: May 1, 2018.

    OMB Expiration Date: May 31, 2021.

    Title: Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities, CC Docket No. 87-124.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 331 respondents; 3,028 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours (15 minutes) to 24 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual and on-occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in section 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 610.

    Total Annual Burden: 7,236 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $991,618.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information from individuals.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: This information collection pertains to the extension of the currently approved information collection requirements concerning hearing aid compatibility (HAC) for wireline handsets used with the legacy telephone network, updated estimates of existing burdens that were included in the February 2015 PRA submission to OMB, and new information collection requirements related to HAC for wireline handsets used with advanced communications services (ACS), such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). These handsets are known as ACS telephonic customer premises equipment (ACS telephonic CPE).

    Beginning in the 1980s, the Commission adopted a series of regulations to implement statutory directives requiring wireline telephone handsets in the United States (for use with the legacy telephone network) to be hearing aid compatible. In 2010, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), Public Law 111-260, sec. 102, 710(b), 124 Stat. 2751, 2753 (CVAA) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 610(b)), amended by Public Law 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (technical corrections to the CVAA), amended section 710(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 to apply the HAC requirements to ACS telephonic CPE, including VoIP telephones. In accordance with this provision, the Commission adopted Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities et al., Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 17-135, released October 26, 2017, which amended the HAC rules to cover ACS telephonic CPE to the extent such devices are designed to be held to the ear and provide two-way voice communication via a built-in speaker.

    The information collections contain third-party disclosure and labeling requirements. The information is used to inform consumers who purchase or use wireline telephone equipment whether the telephone is hearing aid compatible; to ensure that manufacturers comply with applicable regulations and technical criteria; to ensure that information about ACS telephonic CPE is available in a database administered by the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments (ACTA); and to facilitate the filing of complaints about the ACS telephonic CPE.

    Wireline Handsets Used With the Legacy Telephone Network

    • 47 CFR 68.224 requires that every non-hearing aid compatible wireline telephone used with the legacy wireline network that is offered for sale to the public contain in a conspicuous location on the surface of its packaging a statement that the telephone is not hearing aid compatible. If the handset is offered for sale without a surrounding package, then the telephone must be affixed with a written statement that the telephone is not hearing aid compatible. In addition, each handset must be accompanied by instructions in accordance with 47 CFR 68.218(b)(2).

    • 47 CFR 68.300 requires that all wireline telephones used with the legacy wireline network that are manufactured in the United States (other than for export) or imported for use in the United States and that are hearing aid compatible have the letters “HAC” permanently affixed.

    ACS Telephonic CPE

    • New § 68.502(a) of the Commission's rules contains information collection requirements for ACS telephonic CPE that are similar to the HAC label and notice requirements in 47 CFR 68.224 and 68.300 (discussed above), i.e., the “HAC” labeling requirement for hearing aid compatible equipment, and the package information for non-hearing aid compatible equipment, apply to ACS telephonic CPE.

    • New § 68.501 of the Commission's rules requires responsible parties to obtain certifications of their equipment by using a third-party Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB) or a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity. (A responsible party is the party, such as the manufacturer, that is responsible for the compliance of ACS telephonic CPE with the hearing aid compatibility rules and other applicable technical criteria. A Supplier's Declaration of Conformity is a procedure whereby a responsible party makes measurements or takes steps to ensure that CPE complies with technical standards, which results in a document by the same name.) Section 68.501 of the Commission's rules applies to ACS telephonic CPE rule sections defining the roles of TCBs and the uses of Supplier's Declarations of Conformity for wireline handsets used with the legacy telephone network.

    • New § 68.504 of the Commission's rules requires information about ACS telephonic CPE to be included in a database administered by ACTA. (ACTA is an organization, previously created pursuant to FCC regulations, whose key function is to maintain a database of telephone equipment.) In addition, ACS telephonic CPE must be labeled as required by ACTA.

    • New § 68.502(b) through (d) of the Commission's rules requires responsible parties to: Warrant that ACS telephonic CPE complies with applicable regulations and technical criteria; give the user instructions required by ACTA for ACS telephonic CPE that is hearing aid compatible; give the user a notice for ACS telephonic CPE that is not hearing aid compatible; and notify the purchaser or user of ACS telephonic CPE whose approval is revoked, that the purchaser or user must discontinue its use.

    • New § 68.503 of the Commission's rules requires manufacturers of ACS telephonic CPE to designate an agent for service of process for complaints that may be filed at the FCC.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10767 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58; FCC 17-12] Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends its rules to require 2 terabytes of monthly usage for certain Connect America Fund Phase II auction performance tiers, taking another step towards implementing the Connect America Fund Phase II auction in which service providers will compete to receive support of up to $1.98 billion to offer voice and broadband service in unserved high-cost areas.

    DATES:

    The amendment to § 54.309(a)(2)(iii) & (iv) of the Commission's rules is effective June 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission published a document in the Federal Register, 82 FR 14466, March 21, 2017 summarizing a Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration. Although the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration specified a requirement of 2 terabytes of monthly usage on certain service tiers, the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration inadvertently failed to include a rules appendix reflecting that change in the rules. The Commission issued an Erratum correcting that error, DA 18-293, released on March 26, 2018. This document includes the amendments that were inadvertently left out of the document published March 21, 2017.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54

    Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and children, Internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:

    PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 54.309 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) to read as follows:
    § 54.309 Connect America Fund Phase II Public Interest Obligations.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) Winning bidders meeting the above-baseline performance tier standards are required to offer broadband service at actual speeds of at least 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream and offer at least 2 terabytes of monthly usage.

    (iv) Winning bidders meeting the Gigabit performance tier standards are required to offer broadband service at actual speeds of at least 1 Gigabit per second downstream and 500 Mbps upstream and offer at least 2 terabytes of monthly usage.

    [FR Doc. 2018-10765 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 98 Monday, May 21, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0312; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-07] RIN. 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Glen Ullin, ND 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 Glen Ullin Regional Airport, Glen Ullin, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed at Glen Ullin Regional Airport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 5, 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 (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0312; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-07, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, 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 establish Class E airspace at Glen Ullin Regional Airport, in support of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. 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-2018-0312; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-07.” 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 establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Glen Ullin Regional Airport, Glen Ullin, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed for the airport. This action would enhance safety and the management of 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 designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL WI E5 Glen Ullin, ND [New] Glen Ullin Regional Airport, ND (Lat. 46°48′52″ N, long. 101°51′55″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Glen Ullin Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 9, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10654 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 172 [Docket No. FDA-2015-F-3663] Grocery Manufacturers Association; Denial of Food Additive Petition AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification; denial of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is denying a food additive petition (FAP 5A4811), submitted by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), requesting that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (PHOs) in certain food applications. We are denying the petition because we have determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient information for us to conclude that the requested uses of PHOs are safe. To allow the food industry sufficient time to identify suitable replacement substances for the petitioned uses of PHOs, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register we have extended the compliance date for certain uses of PHOs, including the conditions of use covered by the FAP.

    DATES:

    This document is applicable May 21, 2018. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on the document by June 20, 2018. Late, untimely objections will not be considered. See section VIII for further information on the filing of objections.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as follows.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:

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

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

    • The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept objections until midnight Eastern Time at the end of June 20, 2018.

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    • Objections received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before June 20, 2018.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-F-3663 for “Grocery Manufacturers Association; Denial of Food Additive Petition.” Received objections, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1309.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    In a document published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2015 (80 FR 65978), we announced that we filed FAP 5A4811 (“petition”) submitted by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 1350 I St. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005 (“petitioner”). The petitioner requested that we amend the food additive regulations in 21 CFR part 172 Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption to provide for the safe use of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils (PHOs) in the following food applications at specified maximum use levels: as a carrier or component thereof for flavors or flavorings, as a diluent or component thereof for color additives, as an incidental additive or processing aid, and as a direct additive in approximately 60 food categories. The petition was submitted in response to FDA's declaratory order issued on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34650), announcing our final determination that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that PHOs are generally recognized as safe for any use in human food. In the declaratory order, we invited submission of food additive petitions with scientific evidence for one or more specific uses of PHOs for which the petitioner believes that safe conditions of use may be prescribed (as further discussed in section II).

    FAP 5A4811 was submitted by GMA to FDA on June 11, 2015. During our initial review, we determined that the petition did not contain an environmental assessment as required under 21 CFR 25.15(a); therefore, we informed GMA that their petition did not meet the minimum requirements for filing in accordance with 21 CFR 171.1(c). On September 18, 2015, GMA resubmitted a complete FAP 5A4811, which we subsequently filed on October 1, 2015. During our initial review of FAP 5A4811, we identified several deficiencies that required resolution by GMA for us to continue with our review. We issued a letter to GMA on March 21, 2016, explaining the additional information required to resolve the petition's deficiencies. On May 5, 2016, GMA submitted a partial response to the deficiencies. The petition was then placed in abeyance by FDA, consistent with our procedures for food additive petitions.1 The petitioner and FDA met several times in the months following to discuss the deficiencies.

    1 Abeyance is an administrative category of petitions that are filed but non-active because of deficiencies that were identified during FDA's review. A petition remains in abeyance until either the petitioner provides FDA with the required information, requests a final decision based on the data currently in the petition, or requests withdrawal of the petition.

    On March 7, 2017, the petitioner submitted a substantive amendment to FAP 5A4811 that addressed the deficiencies identified by FDA. In accordance with 21 CFR 171.6, the petition was assigned a new filing date of March 7, 2017. The amended petition contained significant revisions to the proposed uses, exposure estimate, and safety assessment of PHOs. The revised petitioned uses of PHOs were limited to the following: (1) As a solvent or carrier for flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, and coloring agents; (2) as a processing aid, and (3) as a pan release agent for baked goods. Based on the revisions, the petitioner asserted that the amended uses of PHOs would present a de minimis increase in risk (in other words, a negligible increase in risk) and, therefore, are safe under the conditions of intended use. References to the “petition” henceforth in this document will denote the amended petition received on March 7, 2017.

    II. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Regarding Food Additives

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) defines “food additive,” in relevant part, as any substance, the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component of food, if such substance is not generally recognized by experts as safe under the conditions of its intended use (section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s))). Food additives are deemed unsafe and prohibited except to the extent that FDA approves their use (sections 301(a) and (k) (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (k)) and 409(a) (21 U.S.C. 348(a)) of the FD&C Act.)

    The FD&C Act provides a process through which persons who wish to use a food additive may submit a petition proposing the issuance of a regulation prescribing the conditions under which the additive may be safely used (section 409(b)(1) of the FD&C Act). When FDA concludes that a proposed use of a food additive is safe, we issue a regulation authorizing a specific use of the substance.

    B. Relevant Regulatory History of PHOs

    On November 8, 2013, FDA issued a document (the tentative determination, 78 FR 67169), announcing our tentative determination that PHOs are no longer generally recognized as safe (GRAS) under any condition of use in food and therefore are food additives subject to section 409 of the FD&C Act. Because PHOs are the primary dietary source of industrially-produced trans fatty acids (IP-TFA), FDA's evaluation of the GRAS status of PHOs centered on the trans fatty acid (TFA, also referred to as “trans fat”) component of these fats and oils. The tentative determination cited current scientific evidence of significant human health risks, namely an increased risk in coronary heart disease (CHD), associated with the consumption of IP-TFA (78 FR 67169 at 67172). The scientific evidence included results from controlled feeding studies on trans fatty acid consumption in humans, findings from long-term prospective epidemiological studies, and the opinions of expert panels that there is no threshold intake level for IP-TFA that would not increase an individual's risk of CHD (78 FR 67169 at 67172). Based on the evidence outlined in the tentative determination, we determined that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that PHOs are safe for human consumption (i.e., PHOs do not meet the GRAS criteria.) The tentative determination also requested interested parties to submit comments and additional scientific data related to our tentative determination that PHOs are no longer GRAS (78 FR 67169 at 67174).

    We received over 6000 comments in response to the tentative determination. We reviewed the comments before issuing our final determination as a declaratory order published on June 17, 2015 (the declaratory order, 80 FR 34650). The declaratory order included four major provisions: (1) PHOs are not GRAS for any use in human food; (2) for the purposes of the declaratory order, FDA defined PHOs as those fats and oils that have been hydrogenated, but not to complete or near complete saturation, and with an iodine value greater than 4 as determined by an appropriate method; (3) any interested party may seek food additive approval for one or more specific uses of PHOs with data demonstrating a reasonable certainty of no harm of the proposed use(s); and (4) FDA established a compliance date of June 18, 2018 (80 FR 34650 at 34651).

    In our declaratory order finding that PHOs are no longer GRAS for any use in human food, we acknowledged that scientific knowledge advances and evolves over time. The declaratory order invited submission of scientific evidence as part of food additive petitions under section 409 of the FD&C Act for one or more specific uses of PHOs for which industry or other interested individuals believe that safe conditions of use may be prescribed. We also established a three-year delayed compliance date (compliance required no later than June 18, 2018) to provide time for submission and review and, if applicable requirements are met, approval of food additive petitions for uses of PHOs (80 FR 34650 at 34668).

    III. Evaluation of Safety

    A food additive cannot be approved for use unless the data presented to us establish that the food additive is safe for that use (section 409(c)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act). To determine whether a food additive is safe, the FD&C Act requires us to consider among other relevant factors: (1) Probable consumption of the additive; (2) cumulative effect of such additive in the diet of man or animals, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substances in the diet; and (3) safety factors generally recognized by experts as appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data (section 409(c)(5) of the FD&C Act). Our determination that a food additive use is safe means that there is a “reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use” (§ 170.3(i) (21 CFR 170.3(i))).

    FAP 5A4811 is not a typical food additive petition in that it is requesting food additive approval for existing uses of PHOs that industry, independent of FDA, had concluded were GRAS, but FDA subsequently determined such uses are not GRAS. Most food additive petitions seek premarket approval for new uses of food additives. Additionally, the approach that we normally use to evaluate safety of a direct food additive is not applicable for assessing the safety of IP-TFA in PHOs. Food additives are typically evaluated based on toxicological studies in animals, as described in our guidance, Toxicological Principles for the Safety of Assessment of Food Ingredients (also known as Redbook 2000).2 However, key scientific evidence for the association of trans fat and CHD is based on human studies, including controlled feeding trials of trans fat intake and blood cholesterol levels in humans and long-term, prospective observational studies of trans fat intake and CHD risk in human populations (Ref. 1).

    2 Redbook 2000 is available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM222779.pdf.

    To establish with reasonable certainty that a food additive is not harmful under its intended conditions of use, we typically consider the projected human dietary exposure to the additive, the additive's toxicological data provided by the petitioner, and other relevant information (such as published literature) available to us. FDA scientists use these toxicological data (usually derived from animal and in vitro studies) to determine a no-observed effect level or a no-observed-adverse-effect-level, apply an appropriate safety factor to account for differences between animals and humans and differences in sensitivity among humans, and calculate the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for the food additive. The ADI is usually expressed in milligrams of food additive per kilogram body weight of humans. We compare an individual's estimated daily intake (EDI) of the additive from all food sources to the ADI established by toxicological data. The EDI is determined based on the amount of the additive proposed for use in particular foods and the amount of those foods consumed containing the additive, and on the amount of the additive from all other dietary sources. We typically use the EDI for the 90th percentile consumer of a food additive as a measure of high chronic dietary exposure. A food additive is generally considered safe for its intended uses if the EDI of the additive is less than the ADI. This approach assumes that a physiological threshold may exist below which exposure to an additive will not cause harm. In the case of PHOs, which contribute IP-TFA to the diet, the main toxicological data available to assess safety consists of controlled feeding trials and prospective observational studies in humans where the adverse health outcomes associated with the additive are increased CHD risk and other non-cancer risks (e.g., stroke). To receive approval for the petitioned uses of PHOs, the petitioner has the responsibility to provide scientific evidence that establishes that the intended uses of PHOs are safe, including the expected dietary exposure to trans fat resulting from the intended uses of PHOs.

    Our declaratory order references three safety memoranda prepared by FDA that document our review of the available scientific evidence regarding human health effects of trans fat, focusing on the adverse effects of trans fat on risk of CHD (Refs. 2-4). In addition, we previously reviewed the health effects of IP-TFA and PHOs in support of our tentative determination that PHOs are not GRAS in food (78 FR 67169) and in 1999 and 2003 in support of our proposed and final rules requiring declaration of trans fat in nutrition labeling of food (64 FR 62746 and 68 FR 41434). The safety reviews for the declaratory order, together with the previous safety reviews of IP-TFA and PHOs, provide important background scientific information for our review of FAP 5A4811.

    The petition contains a review of recent scientific literature and expert opinions on trans fat consumption. GMA asserted that this information supports the following three conclusions, which are their reasons why they believe the petitioned uses of PHOs are safe:

    1. “The conservatively estimated probability of coronary heart disease risk falls below the probable de minimis non-cancer risk range.” 3

    3 As discussed in section E, the petitioner calculates what it considers to be de minimis risks for non-cancer health outcomes.

    2. “iTFA 4 exposure from the petitioned uses of PHOs (i.e., 0.05%en [total energy intake per day]) is well below exposure levels in controlled feeding trials, and effects at these low iTFA exposures levels cannot be empirically established based on the currently available evidence.”

    4 The petitioner uses the abbreviation iTFA to refer to industrially-produced TFA in the petition.

    3. “The incremental increase in iTFA intake of 0.05%en from the petitioned uses of PHOs is infinitesimally small and negligible in comparison to existing background dietary TFA exposure from intrinsic sources.”

    (Petition, pp. 116-119)

    In this petition denial, we discuss our evaluation of the petitioner's request and supporting information in section IV organized according to the following headings: A. Chemical Identity, Intended Technical Effects, and Petitioned Uses of PHOs; B. Estimated Exposure to Trans Fat; C. Recent Scientific Literature and Expert Opinions on Trans Fat Consumption; D. Recent Threshold Dose-Response Research; and E. Risk Estimates and Safety Arguments. Each of these sections provides a summary of the information provided by the petitioner followed by our evaluation of that information, prefaced with “FDA Assessment.” Additional information regarding our evaluation of the petition can be found in our three review memoranda (Refs. 5-7).

    IV. FDA's Review of FAP 5A4811 A. Chemical Identity, Intended Technical Effects, and Petitioned Uses of PHOs

    The PHOs that are the subject of FAP 5A4811 are made from the following vegetable oils: Soy, cottonseed, coconut, canola, palm, palm kernel, and sunflower oils, or blends of these oils, and consist of up to 60 percent trans fatty acids. As discussed in section I, GMA requested approval of three uses of PHOs, which are as follows:

    • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a solvent or carrier, or a component thereof, for flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, and coloring agents intended for food use, provided the PHOs in the solvent or carrier contribute no more than 150 parts per million (ppm) (150 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)) IP-TFA to the finished food as consumed;

    • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a processing aid, or a component thereof, provided the PHOs in the processing aid contribute no more than 50 ppm (50 mg/kg) IP-TFA to the finished food as consumed;

    • PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a pan release agent for baked goods at levels up to 0.2 grams/100 grams (0.2 g/100 g) in pan release spray oils, provided the PHO contributes no more than 0.14 g IP-TFA/100 g spray oil.

    These proposed uses excluded dietary supplements. The physical and technical effects of the petitioned uses of PHOs were specified as: Release agents, either alone or in combination with other components (§ 170.3(o)(18)); processing aids or components thereof (§ 170.3(o)(24)); and as solvents, carriers and vehicles for fat soluble coloring agents, flavoring agents, and flavor enhancers (§ 170.3(o)(27)).

    FDA Assessment

    To better understand how PHOs would be used as processing aids, we requested that the petitioner provide specific examples. In an email dated May 15, 2017, the petitioner provided several examples of how PHOs may be used as processing aids. Many of the petitioner's examples involved the use of PHOs as a topical coating to prevent rancidity (e.g., PHO-coated almond slices or candy pieces used as ingredients in cookies). We view this use of PHOs as having an ongoing technical effect in food (e.g., to prevent rancidity and oxidation) and, therefore, we do not agree that this use would be considered a processing aid in accordance with §§ 170.3(o)(24) and 101.100(a)(3)(ii) (21 CFR 101.100(a)(3)(ii)). Because we are denying this petition, we did not need to resolve this issue regarding characterization of the technical or functional effect of these additives.

    B. Estimated Exposure to Trans Fat

    The petitioner provided exposure estimates for TFA from the petitioned uses of PHOs and from intrinsic (i.e., naturally-occurring) sources such as dairy and meat from ruminant animals. To estimate exposure, the petitioner used food disappearance data from 2014 compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service, food consumption data from either the 2007-2010 or 2009-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), and the intrinsic concentrations of TFA in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 27. The petitioner estimated the exposure to naturally-occurring TFA from intrinsic sources for the U.S. population (aged 2 years or more) to be 1.04 grams/person/day (g/p/d) at the mean and 1.91 g/p/d at the 90th percentile. If expressed as a percentage of total energy intake per day (%en), based on a 2000 calorie daily diet, the exposure to TFA from intrinsic sources would be 0.46%en at the mean and 0.75%en at the 90th percentile for the U.S population. The petitioner estimated the cumulative exposure to IP-TFA from all petitioned uses of PHOs in foods for the U.S. population aged 2 years or more to be 0.121 g/p/d (0.05%en) at the mean and 0.122 g/p/d (0.05%en) at the 90th percentile.

    FDA Assessment

    FDA agrees with the petitioner's estimated exposure to TFA from intrinsic sources, and we have no concerns regarding the general methodology used by the petitioner to estimate exposure to IP-TFA from the petitioned uses of PHOs. However, we believe the petitioner likely underestimated exposure to IP-TFA from the petitioned uses of PHOs for various reasons, such as their determination that 43 percent of the U.S. diet consists of processed foods, which we believe is too low, and not including all relevant NHANES food codes in their exposure estimate (Ref. 5). Although the petitioner's exposure estimate could be refined, we consider it sufficient for approximating exposure from the petitioned uses of PHOs.

    C. Recent Scientific Literature and Expert Opinions on Trans Fat Consumption

    FAP 5A4811 included sections on dietary guidelines and expert panel opinions pertaining to trans fat consumption. In addition, the petition presented a summary of studies assessing the effects of dietary TFA on intermediate biomarkers such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and other emerging biomarkers of CHD risk, and the association of dietary TFA intake with risk of CHD and risk of adverse health outcomes other than CHD (e.g., stroke, metabolic syndrome). Controlled feeding trials, prospective observational studies, and meta-analyses of these studies were included in the petitioner's scientific literature review.

    FDA Assessment

    As discussed in our review memorandum (Ref. 7), we found that the petitioner provided incomplete information on certain topics or misinterpreted some scientific conclusions.

    1. Dietary Guidelines and Expert Panel Reviews

    The petition discussed the major expert panel reports on the health effects of trans fat consumption from the U.S., Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the European Food Safety Authority. We note that while the petition provided a generally accurate summary of these expert reports, some important information was missing or understated. For example, the petition omits the expert opinions on the role of HDL-C as a biomarker for CHD. The petition also omits that, in addition to the Institute of Medicine's 2005 report (Ref. 8), many other expert panels have concluded that TFA has a progressive and linear adverse effect on blood lipids and associated CHD risk. Furthermore, the petition understated the recommendation from several expert panels that trans fat intake should be kept as low as possible by specifically limiting intake of IP-TFA from PHOs.

    2. Effect of Changes In Trans Fat Intake on LDL-C and HDL-C

    The petition identified five meta-analysis studies (which are combined analyses of multiple feeding trials) that quantified the effect of changes in trans fat intake on LDL-C and HDL-C in the blood of human test subjects. The petition's summary of these studies was appropriate; however, we note that two available meta-analyses studies were not included in the petition's discussion: Zock and co-workers (Refs. 9-11) and Brouwer (Ref. 12). In particular, the 2016 meta-analysis by Brouwer was an important study, commissioned by the WHO Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG) Subgroup on Diet and Health, that affirmed the linear, progressive effect of trans fat intake on blood cholesterol levels (Ref. 12).

    The petition mentioned another meta-analysis of newer studies conducted by Hafekost et al. (2015) which reported no significant effect on LDL-C from a 1%en TFA intake (including both naturally-occurring TFA and IP-TFA) in exchange for cis-monounsaturated fatty acids (cis-MUFA) (Ref. 13). The petition claimed that these results support the potential for a threshold trans fat intake below which no significant effect on blood lipids is observed. However, we disagree with the petitioner's interpretation of this study's conclusions (Ref. 7). We note that the criteria for inclusion of feeding trials in this meta-analysis were not rigorous. In several of the included studies, the diets were not fully controlled. We also note that Hafekost et al. did not conclude that their results supported the potential for a safe threshold intake level of TFA. Rather, the authors stated, “An increase in LDL was consistent with the results of Brouwer et al., who identified a significant increase in LDL cholesterol with a percent increase in the intake of industrial TFA.” Furthermore, Hafekost et al. conducted an additional analysis, including the earlier Brouwer et al. meta-analysis results together with their analysis of newer studies alone. The petition did not discuss these additional analyses. The combined results for the newer studies alone, together with the earlier meta-analysis, showed a statistically significant increase in LDL-C due to an increase of 1%en intake from TFA. In their overall summary, Hafekost et al. stated, “The results of the current review are consistent with previous evidence which indicates a detrimental effect of consumption of TFA on changes in LDL and HDL blood cholesterol” (Ref. 13).

    Regarding HDL-C and CHD risk, the petition underemphasized the impact of trans fat intake on HDL-C. We note that the observed decrease in HDL-C due to TFA intake is consistently reported across the existing body of TFA research and that HDL-C has been recognized as a major risk factor for CHD (Ref. 7).

    3. Prospective Observational Studies

    The petition reviewed the results of prospective observational studies that estimate the association of long-term, habitual TFA intake with CHD risk in large, free-living populations. The petition reviewed five meta-analysis studies (that provided combined analyses of several individual prospective observational studies). The petition stated that the results of a recent meta-analysis by de Souza et al. in 2015 (Ref. 14) were consistent with previous meta-analyses in finding a statistically significant increased risk of CHD when comparing high to low TFA intake. Regarding individual prospective observational studies, the petition stated that, “The results from these studies, while not able to demonstrate causality, provide supporting evidence that, although a relationship between increased CHD risk and high levels of TFA intake exists, this observed relationship is largely based on comparisons of differences in TFA intake above 1%en and has not been established at lower levels of intake.”

    We note that the overall results of the meta-analyses and recently published prospective observational studies were generally summarized accurately in the petition. However, the petition tended to understate the strength of the evidence from the observational studies reviewed. In particular, the meta-analysis by de Souza et al., a rigorously conducted study commissioned by WHO NUGAG, stated that the “positive associations between trans fat intake and CHD and CHD mortality” were “reliable and strong” and provided supplementary analyses supporting a progressive and linear association of TFA intake and CHD risk (Ref. 14). Additionally, recently published studies by Li et al. in 2015 (Ref. 15) and Wang et al. in 2016 (Ref. 16), with long-term followup and increased statistical power, show significant increases in CHD or cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk at lower increments of TFA intake than the 1%en stated by the petitioner.

    4. Other Health Outcomes

    The petitioner concluded, after reviewing recent scientific literature, that there is limited, inconsistent, and/or weak evidence for any effects of trans fat intake on other health outcomes including stroke, all-cause mortality, cancer, and metabolic syndrome. We do not agree with the petitioner's conclusion, in particular regarding stroke. In support of the declaratory order, we reviewed several well-conducted studies that provided a reasonable basis to conclude that TFA intake is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke (a blockage of blood flow to the brain) (Ref. 2). Furthermore, in our review memorandum for this petition, we described more recent studies that provide additional evidence supporting the association of TFA with stroke, as well as total mortality and elements of metabolic syndrome (Ref. 7).

    D. Recent Threshold Dose-Response Research

    The petition acknowledged that all five of the aforementioned meta-analyses (see section C) relied on a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between TFA intake and blood levels of LDL-C and HDL-C, which assumes any amount of TFA greater than 0%en causes adverse effects on blood cholesterol levels. The petition stated, “Recent research suggests that a non-threshold linear dose-response model overlooks the complexities of the physiological effects of macronutrients and other contributing factors to LDL-C levels besides TFAs.” In particular, the petition cited two recent articles to support the claims that a linear dose-response model is inappropriate for assessing the effects of TFA consumption on blood lipids, and that a threshold level of trans fat intake exists (Refs. 17 and 18). In the first publication, Reichard and Haber (Ref. 17) presented and evaluated a hypothesis for the biological mode of action (MOA) for the effect of TFA on LDL-C based on animal studies. According to the petition, “. . . the authors concluded the key events in the MOA are the increased production of very low density-lipoprotein (VLDL) and decreased LDL-clearance due to a reduction in the LDL-C mediated receptor activity.” The authors further concluded the effect of TFA on LDL-C is non-linear and there is evidence that either a threshold exists or the dose-response slope is very shallow at low dose levels (Ref. 17).

    In the second article, Allen et al. (Ref. 18) conducted a meta-regression study of human controlled feeding trials, that considered both linear and nonlinear dose-response models to assess the effect of IP-TFA intake on LDL-C and determine which shape fit best with the MOA proposed by Reichard and Haber based on animal studies. (In this case, the meta-regression is a meta-analysis that focuses on dose-response relationships.) The Allen et al. meta-regression used an evidence map to identify additional experimental data for the effect of IP-TFA intake on LDL-C, particularly in the low dose region of the response curve where IP-TFA intake is between zero and 3%en (Ref. 19). According to Allen et al., an S-shaped model with an assumed threshold at low IP-TFA doses explained more of the study-to-study variability compared to the linear dose-response model (Ref. 18). Using assumptions about intra-individual measurement variation for LDL-C and the S-shaped model, the authors concluded that the change in LDL-C associated with a change in IP-TFA intake of 2.2%en represented a biologically meaningless change (Ref. 18). The petition stated that this analysis supports the existence of a threshold level of IP-TFA intake, below which negligible changes in LDL-C would occur.

    FDA Assessment

    We do not agree that these two studies cited by the petitioner provide convincing evidence to refute a linear dose-response or provide convincing evidence of a threshold in the effect of IP-TFA on LDL-C. In our review, we identified several design flaws and questionable data interpretations associated with these two studies (Ref. 7). One major concern about the MOA paper (Ref. 17) is that the authors relied largely on data from laboratory animal models to hypothesize an MOA that suggests the existence of a threshold effect of TFA on LDL-C in humans, despite the differences in biological response to dietary fats and fatty acid metabolism between humans and the animal species used in the study (e.g., rodents). The authors acknowledged that trans fatty acids such as elaidic acid do not increase serum LDL-C in hamsters, and suggest that animal models may underestimate the effect of TFA in humans (Ref. 17).5

    5 The scientific evidence that PHOs are no longer GRAS for use in food was not based on animal studies, such as those used in the Reichard and Haber MOA, but rather included results from controlled feeding studies on trans fatty acid consumption in humans, findings from long-term prospective epidemiological studies in human populations, and the opinions of expert panels that there is no threshold intake level for IP-TFA that would not increase an individual's risk of CHD (78 FR 67169 at 67172).

    Regarding the meta-regression paper (Ref. 18), we found that duplicate data points were erroneously used in the analysis; the validity of data points for low TFA levels below 3%en was questionable, and the low TFA data did not come from PHO test diets; and incorrect variances were applied in the weighting of the data based on the study designs (Ref. 7). We also question the authors' suggestion that the within person, day-to-day variability of blood LDL-C levels can be used to represent the minimum increment in LDL-C that is adverse (Ref. 7). Additionally, we note that the authors' proposed S-shaped dose-response model that levels off at high trans fat doses (above 3%en) is not consistent with the results of numerous controlled feeding trials of IP-TFA at higher doses or with prospective observational studies which show increases in serum LDL-C levels or CHD risk with higher intakes of trans fat (Ref. 7).

    E. Risk Estimates and Safety Arguments

    The petition contained an estimate of “hypothetical change” in CHD risk associated with 0.05%en IP-TFA intake (the daily amount of energy from IP-TFA contributed by the petitioned uses of PHOs) that was based on FDA's four deterministic quantitative risk assessment methods referenced in the declaratory order (Ref. 4). The petitioner stated that they included this analytical approach in the petition “for expediency and at the request of FDA”, although the petition questioned the validity of a linear-no threshold dose-response model for IP-TFA intake and LDL-C and HDL-C on which the FDA method is based. The deterministic quantitative risk assessment approach used by the petitioner estimated the change in CHD risk due to effects on blood lipoproteins from controlled feeding trials, and also estimated the change in CHD risk using direct observations of CHD from prospective studies when there is an isocaloric replacement of cis-MUFA with IP-TFA in the diet. The petitioner estimated that the change in CHD risk associated with a 0.05%en added IP-TFA intake from petitioned uses ranged from 0.062 percent to 0.665 percent depending on the risk method used. When expressed as a population-based risk estimate, the annual probability of CHD cases per 100,000 U.S. adults aged 35 and older ranged from 0.42 to 4.54. In other words, for every 100,000 U.S. adults, there could be up to 4.54 additional cases (fatal and non-fatal) of CHD attributed to an intake of 0.05%en IP-TFA from the petitioned uses of PHOs.

    The petition asserts a standard of “de minimis risk.” According to the petitioner, a de minimis risk implies that a risk is so small that it should be ignored, and the petitioned use should be considered safe. The petitioner referenced three arguments to explain its de minimis risk principle: (1) The probability of a risk is below an acceptable cutoff (i.e., “bright line” or threshold); (2) there is a lack of scientific data to establish that the risk exists (i.e., the risk is non-detectable); or (3) the probability of the risk is less than the natural occurrence of the risk (Ref. 20). While neither the FD&C Act nor FDA's regulations regarding the evaluation of the safety of food additives in response to a food additive petition refer to de minimis risk, we review each of these arguments in turn.

    1. De minimis “Bright Line” or Threshold Argument

    The petition referenced an article by Castorina and Woodruff (Ref. 21) in which the authors estimated risks for non-cancer health outcomes from hypothetical lifetime ingestion or inhalation exposures to select environmental chemicals at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) established reference doses (RfDs) or reference concentrations. The authors concluded that the non-cancer risk associated with RfDs ranged from 1 in 10,000 (1 × 10−4) to 5 in 1,000 (5 × 10−3) using a linear dose-response relationship for the environmental chemicals the authors selected. The petitioner applied a safety factor to the authors' risk estimates associated with RfDs to arrive at a proposed probability of risk, ranging from 2 in 100,000 (2 × 10−5) to 1 in 1,000 (1 × 10−3), which the petitioner deemed to be a de minimis risk. The petitioner compared this risk range to the results of their quantitative risk estimate, which predicted the annual probability of CHD cases attributed to 0.05%en IP-TFA intake from the petitioned PHO uses to be in the range of 0.42 per 100,000 adults (or 4.2 × 10−6) to 4.5 per 100,000 adults (or 4.5 × 10−5). The petition concluded that the estimated risk from 0.05%en IP-TFA intake from petitioned PHO uses is de minimis because it is well below the probable de minimis risk ranges for non-cancer risk calculated by applying a safety factor to the risks presented in the Castorina and Woodruff article.

    FDA Assessment

    We will first address the petitioner's reliance on the Castorina and Woodruff paper to determine the concept of de minimis risk, followed by our comments on the petitioner's deterministic risk assessment. We will also include a discussion of the probabilistic risk assessment that we conducted as part of our review.

    a. Castorina and Woodruff Study

    We disagree with the petitioner's interpretation of the Castorina and Woodruff article on which the petitioner's safety conclusion is based. The application of the Castorina and Woodruff study results has limitations as a basis for inferring that IP-TFA from petitioned PHO uses is safe because it represents de minimis risk. The study is a single, exploratory analysis of whether EPA reference values represent negligible risk levels; it is not a consensus that defines a concept of de minimis risk or safe exposure. In fact, the study authors themselves question whether the non-cancer risks associated with the EPA's reference values represent “acceptable levels” of exposure from a public health perspective (Ref. 21). Furthermore, we note that in the Castorina and Woodruff paper, the estimated risks were based on biochemical and physiological changes associated with several non-cancer health outcomes that are much less serious than CHD cases or CHD deaths. For example, some of the biochemical and physiological changes the authors considered included small intestinal lesions, fatty cyst formation in the liver, elevated serum glutamate-pyruvate transaminases, chronic irritation of stomach, decreased lymphocyte count, changes in red blood cell volumes, decreased mean terminal body weights, and decreased maternal body weight gain. Therefore, we conclude that the petitioner's use of this single article to support their de minimis risk argument regarding the risk of CHD or CHD death associated with IP-TFA exposure is inadequate.

    b. Petitioner's Quantitative Deterministic Risk Assessment

    The petitioner relied on the de minimis risk principle to conclude that the petitioned uses of PHOs are safe because the estimated probability of CHD risk associated with IP-TFA from the petitioned uses of PHOs falls below the probable de minimis non-cancer risk range. The petition included a quantitative deterministic risk assessment that estimated the annual probability of CHD cases that may be associated with IP-TFA from petitioned uses of PHOs ranged from 0.42 to 4.54 per 100,000 U.S. adults. We note, though, that the petition did not include an estimated annual number of CHD cases or estimated annual number of CHD deaths associated with IP-TFA from the proposed uses of PHOs. Using the petitioner's estimated annual rate of CHD cases per 100,000 adults, the U.S. Census estimate of 166.7 million adults in the U.S. population in 2014, and a 32 percent CHD fatality rate reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we expanded the petitioner's risk estimates associated with IP-TFA from petitioned uses of PHOs to estimate a range of 700 to 7,570 cases of CHD per year including between 224 and 2,422 deaths from CHD per year, which FDA does not consider to be insignificant (Ref. 7). Additionally, we conducted our own deterministic risk assessment to verify that the petitioner's methods were appropriate, and we expanded our analysis to include a probabilistic risk assessment to further bolster our decision that the estimated risks associated with the petitioned uses of PHOs cause them to be unsafe food additives (Ref. 6).

    c. FDA's Quantitative Probabilistic Risk Assessment

    The deterministic risk assessment approach that was used by both the FDA in our declaratory order and by the petitioner in FAP 5A4811 to assess CHD risk associated with IP-TFA exposure is a risk assessment approach using assigned values for discrete scenarios (e.g., using most likely scenarios or mean values) (Ref. 6). The deterministic approach determines the robustness of the risk of CHD. However, it has limitations in that it is inadequate in applying population or other parameter variability information and it takes into consideration only a few discrete results (e.g., mean risk estimates), overlooking many others (e.g., probability distributions of risk estimates). The impact of different risk parameter values and uncertainty in risk methods relative to results also cannot be quantified (Ref. 6).

    The probabilistic approach allows for the analysis of human variability and uncertainty in the risk method to be incorporated into both the exposure and risk assessments, if high quality empirical data with the probability distribution information for key parameters are used in the risk assessment (Ref. 6). We considered that at the petitioned IP-TFA exposure of 0.05%en, there would be greater uncertainty in the CHD risk estimates than the IP-TFA exposure of 0.5%en which was used in the declaratory order, and that the mean risk estimates alone would not be sufficient to demonstrate safety. Therefore, we conducted a probabilistic risk assessment for the CHD risk associated with an IP-TFA exposure of 0.05%en taking into consideration the variability and uncertainty associated with IP-TFA exposure and the risk parameters, and estimated both the probabilistic means and the uncertainty around the means.

    We used FDA's four risk methods based on a linear no-threshold dose-response model (Ref. 6) to estimate changes in CHD risk when replacing cis-MUFA or saturated fatty acids at 0.05%en, with the same percentage of energy from IP-TFA. The probabilistic means were in line with the results estimated using the deterministic approach. The probabilistic approach also quantified the probability distribution of the risk estimates (e.g., the lower and upper 95 percent statistical uncertainty intervals (95 percent UIs)). The results included estimated changes in percent CHD risk, increases in the rate of annual CHD cases (both fatal and non-fatal) per 100,000 U.S. adults, and increases in the number of annual CHD cases, including CHD deaths, among U.S. adults. We also extended Method 4 (prospective observational studies) to estimate the annual number of CVD deaths among this same population. (CVD deaths include deaths from CHD, strokes, and other vascular diseases.) Our assessment methodology is documented in our review memorandum (Ref. 6).

    Results from our probabilistic risk assessment demonstrate that consuming IP-TFA at a level of 0.05%en per person per day, instead of cis-MUFA, can cause a mean increase in annual CHD cases per 100,000 U.S. adults from 0.478 (95 percent UI 0.299 to 0.676) using the FDA risk method based on changes of LDL-C alone (Method 1) to 4.038 (95 percent UI 2.120 to 6.280) using the FDA risk method based on prospective observational studies (Method 4). These increases correspond to a mean increase in annual CHD cases from 814 (95 percent UI 510 to 1,151, using Method 1) to 6,877 (95 percent UI 3,611 to 10,694, using Method 4), which includes annual deaths from CHD from 290 (95 percent UI 182 to 410, using Method 1) to 2,450 (95 percent UI 1,287 to 3,811, using Method 4). The other two FDA risk methods produced increases in risk values from CHD that were between those estimated by Method 1 and Method 4.

    The same amount of IP-TFA replacing saturated fatty acids would result in lower estimates of annual CHD cases and CHD-related deaths than those estimated by replacing cis-MUFA with IP-TFA. We estimated the mean increase in annual CHD cases to be 170 (using Method 1) to 5,110 (using Method 4), which includes 60 to 1,821 annual deaths from CHD. Using extended Method 4, the same amount of IP-TFA replacing either saturated fatty acids or carbohydrate could cause more than 6,500 CVD deaths per year in U.S. adults. The results of our analyses are described further in our review memorandum (Ref. 6).

    Our deterministic and probabilistic quantitative risk assessments demonstrate that there is a probable significant health risk associated with 0.05%en from IP-TFA from the petitioned uses of PHOs. Our analyses do not support the petitioner's claims that 0.05%en from IP-TFA results in de minimis risk or that there is a reasonable certainty that PHOs are not harmful under the intended conditions of use.

    2. Non-Detectability Argument

    The petitioner argued that the estimated exposure to IP-TFA from petitioned uses of PHOs (i.e., 0.05%en) is well below the exposure levels in controlled feeding studies and effects at these low IP-TFA levels cannot be empirically established based on the currently available evidence. The petition questioned the appropriateness of using a linear dose-response model for quantifying the effect of lower levels of trans fat intake (i.e., <3%en) on LDL-C and HDL-C, and maintained that there is a general lack of empirical evidence that consumption of low levels of trans fat increases CHD risk due to an adverse effect on blood lipoproteins. The petition highlighted one study (Ref. 18) suggesting that a linear dose-response model was not appropriate for quantifying effects of lower levels of IP-TFA intake on LDL-C. In addition, the petition noted that the trans fat content of control diets used in published feeding studies ranged from non-detectable to 2.4%en and suggested, by example, that the non-detectable level of TFA in a test diet could be at 0.15%en, which is three times higher than IP-TFA from petitioned uses of PHOs. Moreover, the petition noted that overall the IP-TFA intake from petitioned uses of PHOs (0.05%en) is well below the intake level of diets tested in the controlled feeding trials that were relied upon in the meta-analyses to assess the effect of IP-TFA on CHD risk. Because the impact of low level IP-TFA intakes cannot be detected by scientific studies, the petition concluded that the IP-TFA intake from petitioned uses of PHOs could be considered de minimis.

    FDA Assessment

    We will address the petitioner's non-detectability argument with a three-prong response. First, we will discuss the issue of statistical power and how it relates to detectable changes in clinical feeding trials. Next, we will review empirical evidence of adverse effects of lower IP-TFA intakes from several recent population studies. Lastly, we will comment on the body of evidence that supports a no-threshold, linear dose-response model to characterize the adverse health effects of trans fat intake.

    a. Statistical Power of Controlled Feeding Trials

    Statistical power is the probability that a study will correctly detect an effect when an effect exists (Ref. 22). Larger sample sizes generally result in higher statistical power, increasing the likelihood that a study will be able to identify differences in the study subjects. We acknowledge that there are limits to the statistical power of controlled feeding trials to measure changes in LDL-C from low levels of TFA exposure. However, the lack of data from controlled feeding trials on the effect of TFA intake on blood lipids at lower TFA intake is not due to a potential threshold below which TFA intake has no effect on LDL-C and other blood lipids. Rather, the lack of data at lower TFA intake is due to the limited statistical power to detect significant changes in LDL-C at TFA intake below about 3 percent of energy in controlled feeding trials with feasible sample size of about 100 participants. For example, we estimated that it would require more than 300,000 participants in hypothetical PHO feeding trials to detect statistically significant changes LDL-C at the IP-TFA dietary exposure of 0.05%en (Refs. 6 and 7).

    b. Empirical Evidence From New Population Studies

    Recent population studies have shown empirical evidence of adverse effects of lower IP-TFA intake levels on CHD risk. Two recent prospective observational studies with long term follow-up found significant increases in CHD risk or CVD mortality at trans fat intake increments as low as 0.3%en to 0.6%en (Refs. 15 and 16). This is about 1/10 of the approximately 3 percent of energy from TFA intake that can be studied in controlled feeding trials of lipid biomarkers, and is roughly tenfold higher than the 0.05%en IP-TFA exposure from petitioned PHO uses.

    Two recent studies independently examined the public health effects of restricting trans fat in eateries in several New York state counties between 2007 and 2011 (Refs. 23 and 24). In one study, the authors compared records of hospital admissions for heart attack and stroke in counties that had TFA restrictions and in control counties that had no restrictions (Ref. 23). They found that there was an additional 6.2 percent decline in hospital admissions for heart attacks and strokes in the populations of counties with TFA restrictions. This reduction corresponds to 43 CVD events prevented annually per 100,000 persons. In another study, the authors analyzed the association of trans fat restrictions in certain New York state counties and annual CVD mortality rates (Ref. 24). They found a 4.5 percent decrease in CVD mortality in counties with trans fat restrictions compared with control counties. This reduction corresponds to 13 fewer CVD deaths annually per 100,000 persons. Both studies, using separate data sources, showed consistent results of a “real-world” public health impact associated with the removal of trans fat in restaurant food.

    Four studies published in 2017 examined data on plasma trans fatty acid concentrations in U.S. adults from the NHANES of 1999-2000 and 2009-2010 (Refs. 25-28). These studies showed the association between plasma TFA and serum lipid and lipoprotein (i.e., LDL-C and HDL-C) concentration before and after reductions in TFA consumption occurred in the U.S. population. On average, plasma TFA concentrations in U.S. adults were about 54 percent lower in 2009-2010 compared to 1999-2000 (Refs. 26 and 27). Significant improvements in blood lipids (e.g., lower LDL-C and triglycerides, higher HDL-C) occurred over time as plasma TFA concentrations decreased (Refs. 25 and 26). Despite substantial reductions in TFA intake over time, plasma TFA concentrations were significantly and consistently associated with serum lipid and lipoprotein concentrations at both time periods (Ref. 27). Results were similar for metabolic syndrome and most of its components such as large waistline, high fasting glucose, and high triglycerides (Ref. 28). The authors concluded that these studies do not support the existence of a threshold under which the association between plasma TFA concentration and lipid profiles might become undetectable (Refs. 27 and 28).

    c. Consistent Support of a Progressive and Linear Dose-Response

    In response to the petitioner's argument of a non-linear dose-response, we note that the vast majority of scientific studies have been consistent in their conclusions that trans fat consumption has a progressive and linear adverse effect on blood lipids and CHD risk (Ref. 7). FDA's 2015 review of the scientific evidence for human health effects of TFA concluded: (1) There is no evidence of a threshold below which TFA does not affect blood lipids and (2) both controlled feeding trials and prospective observational studies strongly support the conclusion that trans fat intake has a progressive and linear effect that increases CHD risk, with no evidence of a threshold (Ref. 2). Numerous expert panels discussed in our 2015 review and in the current review also support this conclusion. Additional evidence from newer studies also supports the conclusion that TFA has a progressive and linear adverse effect on blood lipids and CHD risk (Refs. 12 and 29). This is discussed in detail in our review memorandum (Ref. 7).

    3. Natural Occurrence Argument

    The petitioner based its third argument on a “natural occurrence” theory which purports that a risk due to human activity may be de minimis and would not cause the activity to be considered unsafe provided that the risk does not exceed the natural occurrence of the same risk (Ref. 20). Specifically, the petitioner argued that the petitioned uses of PHOs are safe because the incremental increase in IP-TFA intake from petitioned PHO uses (i.e., 0.05%en) is infinitesimally small and negligible in comparison to existing background dietary TFA exposure from intrinsic sources. As described in section IV.B, the petitioner estimated the mean exposure to TFA from intrinsic sources (e.g., naturally-occurring TFA from meat and dairy foods) to be 0.46%en. The petition stated that the estimated intake of IP-TFA of 0.05%en from petitioned uses of PHOs equates to the 1.2th percentile of the TFA intake distribution from intrinsic sources. The petition explained further that this amount of IP-TFA intake is within the variability of the TFA intake from intrinsic sources and below the 5th percentile. Thus, the petition concluded that the petitioned uses are safe because the incremental increase in IP-TFA exposure from the petitioned uses of PHOs is infinitesimally small and negligible in comparison to existing background dietary TFA exposure from intrinsic sources.

    FDA Assessment

    For our safety assessment, we considered as a worst-case scenario the assumption that TFA from intrinsic sources is chemically and pharmacologically related to IP-TFA from PHOs. In general, TFA from intrinsic sources and IP-TFA contain the same trans fatty acid isomers, although in different proportions (Ref. 12). The most recent evidence from controlled feeding trials shows comparable effects on blood lipoproteins such as LDL-C and HDL-C by naturally-occurring TFA and IP-TFA (Ref. 7). Results of prospective observational studies specifically of TFA from intrinsic sources (rather than total TFA) are relatively sparse, and generally do not show an association of naturally-occurring TFA with CHD risk, possibly due to limitations of the studies (Ref. 7). Regarding the effect of TFA from intrinsic sources on adverse health outcomes other than CHD (e.g., metabolic syndrome and diabetes), study results are divergent (Refs. 6 and 7). Although there are inconsistencies in the data overall, we considered for the purposes of our safety assessment that TFA from intrinsic sources is, in general, chemically and pharmacologically related to IP-TFA from PHOs.

    We disagree with the petitioner's assertion that the IP-TFA exposure from the petitioned uses of PHOs is safe because it is insignificant in comparison to existing background dietary TFA exposure. We note that the per capita IP-TFA intake of 0.05%en from petitioned uses of PHOs is approximately 10 percent of mean TFA intake from intrinsic sources; we do not consider this to be an infinitesimally small or negligible amount. The contribution of IP-TFA intake from petitioned uses of PHOs is not trivial, but rather will increase the mean population TFA exposure by 10 percent. Food sources of naturally-occurring TFA are widely consumed in the population, and therefore few members of the population consume 0.05%en TFA or less. As the petition indicated, 0.05%en from IP-TFA from petitioned uses of PHOs corresponds to about the 1.2th percentile of population TFA intake from intrinsic sources. We assert that this comparison is not particularly relevant to whether the per capita IP-TFA intake is significant because the contribution of IP-TFA exposure from the petitioned uses is in addition to, not substitutional for, exposure to TFA from intrinsic sources. Rather, the relevant comparison is that the per capita IP-TFA intake, 0.05%en, is approximately 10 percent of mean TFA intake from naturally-occurring sources. For these reasons, we disagree with the petitioner's argument that the petitioned uses of PHOs are safe because they are negligible in comparison to existing background dietary TFA exposure from intrinsic sources.

    As stated earlier, there is no explicit reference to de minimis risks under either the FD&C Act or FDA's regulations regarding the evaluation of the safety of food additives in response to a food additive petition. Based on the data submitted by the petitioner, FDA has determined that the petitioned uses present more than a de minimis or negligible risk. Therefore, FDA has not found it necessary as part of its petition response to determine how the concept of de minimis risk may apply to the safety analysis under section 409 of the FD&C Act.

    V. Comments on the Filing Notification

    We received 10 comments in response to the petition's filing notification. Seven comments expressed opposition to the petition, one comment was about labeling of PHOs, one comment did not pertain to the petition, and one comment was a duplicate submission. All of the comments opposing the petition cited the adverse health effects associated with the consumption of TFA. None of the comments provided information to support the petitioner's conclusion that the proposed uses of PHOs are safe.

    VI. Conclusion

    FAP 5A4811 requested that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of PHOs as a solvent or carrier for flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, and coloring agents; as a processing aid; and as a pan release agent for baked goods at specific use levels. After reviewing the petition, as well as additional data and information relevant to the petitioner's request, we determined that the petition does not contain convincing evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed uses of PHOs are safe. Therefore, FDA is denying FAP 5A4811 in accordance with 21 CFR 171.100(a).

    VII. Compliance Date

    As discussed in section II, the declaratory order concluded that PHOs are no longer GRAS for any use in human food and established a compliance date of June 18, 2018 (80 FR 34650). In light of our denial of FAP 5A4811, we acknowledge that the food industry needs additional time to identify suitable replacement substances for the petitioned uses of PHOs and that the food industry has indicated that 12 months could be a reasonable timeframe for reformulation activities (Ref. 30). Therefore, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we have extended the compliance date to June 18, 2019, for the manufacturing of food with the petitioned uses of PHOs. Food manufactured with the petitioned uses after June 18, 2019 may be subject to enforcement action by FDA.

    In addition, for food manufactured with the petitioned uses before June 18, 2019, elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we are extending the compliance date to January 1, 2021. This time frame will allow manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to exhaust product inventory of foods made with the petitioned uses before the manufacturing compliance date. All foods containing unauthorized uses of PHOs after January 1, 2021 may be subject to FDA enforcement action.

    VIII. Objections

    Any persons that may be adversely affected by this document may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

    It is only necessary to send one set of documents. Identify documents with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. We will publish notice of the objections that we have received or lack thereof in the Federal Register.

    IX. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    1. Sacks, F.M., A.H. Lichtenstein, J.H.Y. Wu, et al. “Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease: A Presidential Advisory from the American Heart Association.” Circulation 136(3): e1-e23, 2017. 2. FDA Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, Scientific Update on Experimental and Observational Studies of Trans Fat Intake and Coronary Heart Disease Risk, June 11, 2015. 3. FDA Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, Literature Review, June 11, 2015. 4. FDA Memorandum from J. Park to M. Honigfort, Quantitative Estimate of Industrial Trans Fat Intake and Coronary Heart Disease Risk, June 11, 2015. 5. FDA Memorandum from D. Doell to E. Anderson, April 13, 2018. 6. FDA Memorandum from J. Park to E. Anderson, Quantitative Coronary Heart and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessments of Exposure from Industrially-Produced Trans Fatty Acid (IP-TFA) from Proposed Uses of Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils (PHO) in Select Foods, April 16, 2018. 7. FDA Memorandum from J. Park to E. Anderson, Scientific Literature Review Update on Trans Fats with Detailed Responses to the Petitioner's Safety Conclusions on the Petitioned Uses of Partially Hydrogenated Oils (PHOs), April 16, 2018. 8. IOM/NAS, “Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy Carbohydrate, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients),” National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2002/2005, Available at: https://www.nap.edu. 9. Katan, M.B., P.L. Zock, and R.P. Mensink, “Trans Fatty Acids and Their Effects on Lipoproteins in Humans,” Annual Review of Nutrition, 15:473-93, 1995. 10. Zock, P.L., M.B. Katan, and R.P. Mensink, “Dietary Trans Fatty Acids and Lipoprotein Cholesterol,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61(3):617, 1995. 11. Zock, P.L. and R.P. Mensink, “Dietary Trans-Fatty Acids and Serum Lipoproteins in Humans,” Current Opinion in Lipidology, 7(1):34-7, 1996. 12. Brouwer, I.A., “Effect of Trans-Fatty Acid Intake on Blood Lipids and Lipoproteins: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis,” Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016. 13. Hafekost, K., T.A. O'Sullivan, D. Lawrence, and F. Mitrou, “Systematic Review of the Evidence for a Relationship Between Trans-Fatty Acids and Blood Cholesterol,” Canberra, Australia: On behalf of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2014, available at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/Pages/Systematic-Review-of-the-evidence-for-a-relationship-between-trans-fatty-acids-and-blood-cholesterol-.aspx. 14. de Souza, R.J., A. Mente, A. Maroleanu, et al., “Intake of Saturated and Trans Unsaturated Fatty Acids and Risk of All Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Disease, and Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies,” BMJ, 351:h3978, 2015. 15. Li, Y., Hruby, A., A.M. Bernstein, et al., “Saturated Fats Compared with Unsaturated Fats and Sources of Carbohydrates in Relation to Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 66(14):1538-48, 2015. 16. Wang, D.D., Y. Li, S.E. Chiuve, et al., “Association of Specific Dietary Fats with Total and Cause-Specific Mortality,” JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(8):1134-45, 2016. 17. Reichard, J.F. and L.T. Haber, “Mode-of-Action Evaluation for the Effect of Trans Fatty Acids on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, 98(Pt B):282-94, 2016. 18. Allen, B.C., M.J. Vincent, D. Liska, and L.T. Haber, “Meta-Regression Analysis of the Effect of Trans Fatty Acids on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol,” Food and Chemical Toxicology, 98(Pt B):295-307, 2016. 19. Liska, D.J., C.M. Cook, D.D. Wang, P.C. Gaine, and D.J. Baer, “Trans Fatty Acids and Cholesterol Levels: An Evidence Map of the Available Science.” Food and Chemical Toxicology, 98(Pt B):269-81, 2016. 20. Peterson, M., “What is a de minimis Risk?” Risk Management: An International Journal, 4(2):47-55, 2002. 21. Castorina, R. and T.J. Woodruff, “Assessment of Potential Risk Levels Associated with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Reference Values,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(10):1318-25, 2003. 22. Rosner, B., Fundamentals of Biostatistics, Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, 2010. 23. Brandt, E.J., R. Myerson, M.C. Perraillon, and T.S. Polonsky, “Hospital Admissions for Myocardial Infarction and Stroke Before and After the Trans-Fatty Acid Restrictions in New York,” JAMA Cardiology, 2(6):627-634, 2017. 24. Restrepo, B.J. and M. Rieger, “Trans Fat and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: Evidence from Bans in Restaurants in New York,” Journal of Health Economics, 45:176-96, 2016. 25. Restrepo, B.J., “Further Decline of Trans Fatty Acids Levels Among US Adults Between 1999-2000 and 2009-2010,” American Journal of Public Health, 107(1):156-8, 2017. 26. Vesper, H.W., S.P. Caudill, H.C. Kuiper, et al., “Plasma Trans-Fatty Acid Concentrations in Fasting Adults Declined from NHANES 1999-2000 to 2009-2010,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 105(5):1063-9, 2017. 27. Yang, Q., Z. Zhang, F. Loustalot, et al., “Plasma Trans-Fatty Acid Concentrations Continue to be Associated with Serum Lipid and Lipoprotein Concentrations Among US adults After Reductions in Trans-Fatty Acid Intake,” Journal of Nutrition, 147(5):896-907, 2017. 28. Zhang, Z., C. Gillespie, Q. Yang, “Plasma Trans-Fatty Acid Concentrations Continue to be Associated with Metabolic Syndrome Among US Adults After Reductions in Trans-Fatty Acid Intake,” Nutrition Research, 43:51-9, 2017. 29. Mensink, R.P., “Effects of Saturated Fatty Acids on Serum Lipids and Lipoproteins: A Systematic Review and Regression Analysis,” Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016. 30. Letter from the American Bakers Association, et al., to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (April 30, 2018) (sent by electronic mail). Dated: May 15, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10715 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0296] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is proposing to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters located at Ocean City, Worcester County, MD, during a high-speed power boat racing event on June 23, 2018, and June 24, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0296 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

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

    On January 30, 2018, the Offshore Powerboat Association of Brick Township, NJ, notified the Coast Guard through submission of a marine event application that this year's Ocean City Grand Prix would be held on a different date this year from that published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Table to 33 CFR 100.501 at (b.)19. The estimated date for this annual event listed in the regulation is either the first or second Saturday or Sunday of May, or the second or third Saturday and Sunday of September. This year, the Ocean City Grand Prix is being held on June 23, 2018, and June 24, 2018. The high-speed power boat racing consist of approximately 40 participating offshore race boats of various classes, 21 to 50 feet in length, operating along a designated, marked racetrack-type course located in the North Atlantic Ocean, at Ocean City, MD. Details of the proposed event were provided to the Coast Guard on March 12, 2018. Hazards from the power boat racing event include participants operating near a designated navigation channel, as well as injury to persons and damage to property that involve vessel mishaps during high-speed power boat races conducted on navigable waters located near the shoreline. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat races would be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean at Ocean City, MD.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of North Atlantic Ocean before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region is proposing to establish special local regulations that will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 23, 2018 and from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 24, 2018. The regulated area is a polygon in shape measuring approximately 4,500 yards in length by 1,600 yards in width. The area would cover all navigable waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, within an area bounded by the following coordinates: Commencing at a point near the shoreline at latitude 38°21′42″ N, longitude 075°04′11″ W, thence east to latitude 38°21′33″ N, longitude 075°03′10″ W, thence southwest to latitude 38°19′25″ N, longitude 075°04′02″ W, thence west to the shoreline at latitude 38°19′35″ N, longitude 075°05′02″ W, at Ocean City, MD.

    This proposed rule provides additional information about areas within the regulated area and their definitions. These areas include “Race Area”, “Buffer Zone”, and “Spectator Area”.

    The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. high-speed power boat racing event. Under the proposed rule, the COTP or Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area would be required to immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so could result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    Except for Ocean City Grand Prix participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard patrol commander. Vessel operators would be allowed to request permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by contacting the Coast Guard patrol commander on VHF-FM channel 16. All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or assigned as official patrols are considered spectators. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    If permission is granted, spectators would be allowed to enter the spectator area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by Coast Guard Patrol Commander and at safe speed and without loitering. All spectator vessels would be required to be anchored or operate at a No Wake Speed within the designated spectator area. Official patrol vessels will direct spectator vessels to the spectator area. Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels would be allowed to enter the race area.

    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, duration and location of the regulated area. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the North Atlantic Ocean for 16 hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the COTP Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 16 hours. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Memorandum for Record for Categorically Excluded Actions 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 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

    2. Add § 100.501T05-0296 to read as follows:
    § 100.501T05-0296 Special Local Regulation; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:

    Buffer Zone is a neutral area that surrounds the perimeter of the Race Area within the regulated area described by this section. The purpose of a buffer zone is to minimize potential collision conflicts with marine event participants or race boats and spectator vessels or nearby transiting vessels. This area provides separation between a Race Area and a specified Spectator Area or other vessels that are operating in the vicinity of the regulated area established by the special local regulations.

    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.

    Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    Participants means all persons and vessels registered with the event sponsor as participating in the Ocean City Grand Prix event or otherwise designated by event sponsor as having a function tied to the event.

    Race Area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a race area within the regulated area defined by this section.

    Spectators means all persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or assigned as official patrols.

    Spectator Area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a spectator area within the regulated area defined by this section.

    (b) Locations. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983. (1) Regulated area. All navigable waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, within an area bounded by the following coordinates: Commencing at a point near the shoreline at position latitude 38°21′42″ N, longitude 075°04′11″ W; thence east to latitude 38°21′33″ N, longitude 075°03′10″ W; thence southwest to latitude 38°19′25″ N, longitude 075°04′02″ W; thence west to the shoreline at latitude 38°19′35″ N, longitude 075°05′02″ W, at Ocean City, MD. The following locations are within the regulated area:

    (2) Race Area. The race area is a polygon in shape measuring approximately 3,500 yards in length by 350 yards in width. The area is bounded by a line commencing at position latitude 38°19′46.85″ N, longitude 075°04′43.28″ W, thence east to latitude 38°19′44.23″ N, longitude 075°04′29.89″ W, thence north and parallel to Ocean City, MD shoreline to latitude 38°21′23.24″ N, longitude 075°03′48.87″ W, thence west to latitude 38°21′25.12″ N, longitude 075°04′02.45″ W; thence south to the point of origin.

    (3) Buffer Zone. The buffer zone is a polygon in shape measuring approximately 500 yards in all directions surrounding the entire race area described in the preceding paragraph of this section. The area is bounded by a line commencing at a point near the shoreline at position latitude 38°21′42″ N, longitude 075°04′11″ W; thence east to latitude 38°21′35″ N, longitude 075°03′24″ W; thence southwest to latitude 38°19′28″ N, longitude 075°04′17″ W; thence west to the shoreline at latitude 38°19′35″ N, longitude 075°05′02″ W, at Ocean City, MD.

    (4) Spectator Area. The designated spectator area is a polygon in shape measuring approximately 3,500 yards in length by 350 yards in width. The area is bounded by a line commencing at position latitude 38°19′40″ N, longitude 075°04′12″ W, thence east to latitude 38°19′37″ N, longitude 075°03′59″ W, thence northeast to latitude 38°21′17″ N, longitude 075°03′17″ W, thence west to latitude 38°21′20″ N, longitude 075°03′31″ W, thence southwest to point of origin.

    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The COTP or Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any vessel designated by event sponsor as having a function tied to the event, at any time the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the start of enforcement are to depart the regulated area.

    (3) Spectators shall contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to request permission to either enter the spectator area or pass through the regulated area. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, spectators may enter the spectator area or must pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by Coast Guard Patrol Commander and at safe speed and without loitering. All spectator vessels shall be anchored or operate at a No Wake Speed within the designated spectator area. Official patrol vessels will direct spectator vessels to the spectator area.

    (4) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the race area.

    (5) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area while this section is being enforced.

    (6) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.

    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 23, 2018 and from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 24, 2018.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Joseph B. Loring, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10730 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0178] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the Choptank River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters located in Cambridge, MD, during a power boat racing event on July 28, 2018, and July 29, 2018. This proposed rule would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0178 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On February 18, 2018, Kent Narrows Racing Association of Chester, MD, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting power boat races from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. on July 28, 2018, and July 29, 2018. The high-speed power boat racing event consists of approximately 60 participants competing on a designated one-mile oval course in the Choptank River in a cove located between Hambrooks Bar and the shoreline at Cambridge, MD. Hazards from the power boat races include risks of injury or death resulting from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectator vessels or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Details of the proposed event were provided to the Coast Guard at a meeting on April 10, 2018. There it was learned that during past power boat racing events in the area, large wakes created from transient vessels operating on the Choptank River west of the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. (US-50) Memorial Bridge have caused great concern for event planners. Such wakes are hazardous to participants as their presence in the race area would result in injury or death due to vessel capsizing or collisions among participant vessels during the high-speed races. Allowing the proposed power boat racing event to proceed without including these navigable waters within the regulated area would adversely affect event participants. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat races would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event or for vessels that operate within specified waters of the Choptank River at Cambridge, MD.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect marine event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on specified waters of the Choptank River before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish special local regulations to be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on July 28, 2018 and July 29, 2018. This special local regulation would include navigable waters of the Choptank River located between the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. (US-50) Memorial Bridge, at mile 15.5, and Hambrooks Bar Light. The area of the regulated area is approximately 3,000 yards in length and 3,000 yards in width.

    The regulated area would include all navigable waters within Choptank River and Hambrooks Bay bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing at the shoreline at Long Wharf Park, Cambridge, MD, at position latitude 38°34′30″ N, longitude 076°04′16″ W; thence east to latitude 38°34′20″ N, longitude 076°03′46″ W; thence north across the Choptank River along the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. (US-50) Memorial Bridge, at mile 15.5, to latitude 38°35′30″ N, longitude 076°02′52″ W; thence west along the shoreline to latitude 38°35′38″ N, longitude 076°03′09″ W; thence north and west along the shoreline to latitude 38°36′42″ N, longitude 076°04′15″ W; thence southwest across the Choptank River to latitude 38°35′31″ N, longitude 076°04′57″ W, terminating at the Hambrooks Bay breakwall. This rule provides additional information about designated areas within the regulated area, including a “Race Area,” “Spectator Area” and “Buffer Zone,” and the restrictions that apply to mariners. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of event participants and vessels within the specified navigable waters before, during, and after the power boat races, scheduled to occur 9 a.m. through 6 p.m. each day. Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels would proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. 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 and duration of the regulated area. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit through the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Choptank River for 20 hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would, when deemed safe to do so by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, allow vessel operators to request permission to enter, remain within, or transit through the regulated area for the purpose of either safely entering the “Spectator Area” or transiting the regulated area at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 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 special local regulation lasting for 20 hours. This category of marine event water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Memorandum for Record 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, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

    2. Add § 100.35-T05-0178 to read as follows:
    § 100.35-T05-0178 Special Local Regulation; Choptank River, Cambridge, MD.

    (a) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (3) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    (4) Spectator means any person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a participant or an official patrol vessel.

    (5) Participant means any person or vessel participating in the Thunder on the Choptank event under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (b) Regulated area. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

    (1) Coordinates. The following location is a regulated area: All navigable waters within the Choptank River and Hambrooks Bay bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing at the shoreline at Long Wharf Park, Cambridge, MD, at position latitude 38°34′30″ N, longitude 076°04′16″ W; thence east to latitude 38°34′20″ N, longitude 076°03′46″ W; thence north across the Choptank River along the Senator Frederick C. Malkus, Jr. (US-50) Memorial Bridge, at mile 15.5, to latitude 38°35′30″ N, longitude 076°02′52″ W; thence west along the shoreline to latitude 38°35′38″ N, longitude 076°03′09″ W; thence north and west along the shoreline to latitude 38°36′42″ N, longitude 076°04′15″ W; thence southwest across the Choptank River to latitude 38°35′31″ N, longitude 076°04′57″ W, terminating at the Hambrooks Bay breakwall.

    (2) Race area. Located within the waters of Hambrooks Bay and Choptank River, between Hambrooks Bar and Great Marsh Point, MD.

    (3) Buffer zone. All waters within Hambrooks Bay and Choptank River (with the exception of the Race Area designated by the marine event sponsor) bound to the north by the breakwall and continuing along a line drawn from the east end of breakwall located at latitude 38°35′27.6″ N, longitude 076°04′50.1″ W, thence southeast to latitude 38°35′17.7″ N, longitude 076°04′29″ W, thence south to latitude 38°35′01″ N, longitude 076°04′29″ W, thence west to the shoreline at latitude 38°35′01″ N, longitude 076°04′41.3″ W.

    (4) Spectator area. All waters of the Choptank River, eastward and outside of Hambrooks Bay breakwall, bounded by line that commences at latitude 38°35′27.6″ N, longitude 076°04′50.1″ W, thence northeast to latitude 38°35′30″ N, longitude 076°04′47″ W, thence southeast to latitude 38°35′23″ N, longitude 076°04′29″ W, thence southwest to latitude 38°35′19″ N, longitude 076°04′31″ W, thence northwest to to and terminating at the point of origin.

    (c) Special local regulations. (1) The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:

    (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.

    (ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.

    (iii) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.

    (3) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any participant, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (4) The Race Area is an area within the regulated area defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The actual placement of the race course will be determined by the marine event sponsor but must be located within the designated boundaries of the Race Area. Only participants and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the Race Area.

    (5) The Buffer Zone is an area that surrounds the perimeter of the Race Area within the regulated area defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The purpose of a Buffer Zone is to minimize potential collision conflicts with participants and spectators or nearby transiting vessels. This area provides separation between the Race Area and Spectator Area or other vessels that are operating in the vicinity of the regulated area defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Only participants and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the Buffer Zone.

    (6) The Spectator Area is an area described by a line bounded by coordinates provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a spectator area within the regulated area defined in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. All vessels within the Spectator Area shall be anchored or operate at a no-wake speed while transiting within the Spectator Area.

    (7) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz). Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard Patrol Commander can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

    (8) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio.

    (d) Enforcement. The Coast Guard may be assisted with marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (e) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on July 28, 2018, and from 8:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on July 29, 2018.

    Dated: May 2, 2018. Joseph B. Loring, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10795 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0273] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Palm Beach, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Flagler Memorial (SR A1A) Bridge, mile 1021.8, the Royal Park (SR 704) Bridge, mile 1022.6, and the Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Bridge, mile 1024.7, across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, at West Palm Beach, Florida. This modification allows the Flagler Memorial, Royal Park and Southern Boulevard Bridges to operate on alternative schedules when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service visit Mar-a-Lago. The proposed modifications are necessary to accommodate the increase in vehicular traffic when the presidential motorcade is in transit.

    DATES:

    Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0273 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ruth Sadowitz, Coast Guard Sector Miami, FL, Waterways Management Division, telephone 305-535-4307, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register OMB Office of Management and Budget NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental) § Section U.S.C. United States Code FL DOT Florida Department of Transportation AICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation, requested changes to the drawbridge operating schedules to better facilitate orderly vehicle traffic flow across the Flagler Memorial, Royal Park and Southern Boulevard bridges when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service visit Mar-a-Lago.

    On August 17, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation with request for comments in the Federal Register (82 FR 39019) to test proposed changes. Three Comments were received during the test period, which were in favor of the regulation changes.

    The Flagler Memorial (SR A1A) Bridge, mile 1021.8, across the AICW (Lake Worth Lagoon) at West Palm Beach, Florida is a double-leaf bascule bridge that has a vertical clearance of 22 feet at mean high water in the closed position. The Royal Park (SR 704) Bridge, mile 1022.6, across the AICW (Lake Worth Lagoon) at West Palm Beach, Florida is a double-leaf bascule bridge that has a vertical clearance of 21 feet at mean high water in the closed position. The Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Bridge, mile 1024.7, across the AICW (Lake Worth Lagoon) at West Palm Beach, Florida is under construction, a temporary lift bridge is in place that has a vertical clearance of 14 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a 65 foot vertical clearance in the open position. The existing regulations are published in 33 CFR 117.261(u), Flagler Memorial Bridge, § 117.261(v) Royal Park Bridge and § 117.261(w) Southern Boulevard Bridge.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    These modified regulations are necessary to alleviate vehicle traffic congestion when the President of the United States, members of the First Family, or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service visit Mar-a-Lago. The increase in traffic congestion occurs when the proposed Presidential Security Zone (see 82 FR 28036) is enforced which closes the Southern Boulevard Bridge when the presidential motorcade is in transit. This action requires through traffic to use the Flagler Memorial and Royal Park Bridges.

    This NPRM proposes the same schedule as during the temporary deviation. The Flagler Memorial Bridge is allowed to remain closed to navigation from 2:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. with the exception of a once an hour opening at 2:15 p.m., 3:15 p.m., 4:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., weekdays only, if vessels are requesting an opening. The Royal Park Bridge is allowed to remain closed to navigation from 2:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. with the exception of a once an hour opening at 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m., 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., weekdays only, if vessels are requesting an opening. At all other times the bridges will operate per their normal schedules.

    The operating schedule of the Southern Boulevard Bridge, which is closest to Mar-a-Lago, will be allowed to remain closed to navigation whenever the presidential motorcade is in transit. At all other times the bridge shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour, or as directed by the on-scene designated representative.

    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 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 ability that vessels able to pass through the Flagler Memorial and Royal Park Bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies. The Southern Boulevard Bridge will be under the control of the on-scene designated representative.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 bridges may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule may impact but 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, above. 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 call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    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 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 proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. 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 this 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 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend § 117.261 by revising paragraphs (u), (v), and (w) to read as follows:
    § 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marys River to Key Largo.

    (u) Flagler Memorial (SR A1A) Bridge, mile 1021.8, at West Palm Beach.

    (1) The draw shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour.

    (2) When the security zone is enforced, the draw is allowed to remain closed to navigation from 2:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. with the exception of a once an hour opening at 2:15 p.m., 3:15 p.m., 4:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., weekdays only, if vessels are requesting an opening. At all other times the draw shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour.

    (v) Royal Park (SR 704) Bridge, mile 1022.6, at West Palm Beach.

    (1) The draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.

    (2) When the security zone is enforced, the draw is allowed to remain closed to navigation from 2:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. with the exception of a once an hour opening at 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m., 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., weekdays only, if vessels are requesting an opening. At all other times the draw shall open on the hour and half-hour.

    (w) Southern Boulevard (SR 700/80) Bridge, mile 1024.7, at West Palm Beach.

    (1) The draw shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour.

    (2) When the security zone is enforced, the draw may be closed without advanced notice to permit uninterrupted transit of dignitaries across the bridge. At all other times the bridge shall open on the quarter and three-quarter hour, or as directed by the on-scene designated representative.

    Dated: April 30, 2018. Peter J. Brown, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10808 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0183] RIN 1625-AA11 Safety Zone; Philippine Sea, Rota AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters off of the Port of Rota. The Coast Guard believes this safety zone is necessary to protect all divers participating in this underwater military exercise from potential safety hazards associated with vessel traffic in the area. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels not involved in the exercise from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam (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 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0183 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 Chief Todd Wheeler, Sector Guam Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671-355-4866, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of divers in the water during an underwater military exercise in support of the biennial Exercise Valiant Shield from 6 p.m. on September 16, 2018 to 6 a.m. on September 17, 2018. 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 6 p.m. on September 16, 2018 to 6 a.m. on September 17, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters two miles off of the Port of Rota. This safety zone is necessary to protect all divers participating in this underwater military exercise from potential safety hazards associated with vessel traffic in the area. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels not involved in the exercise from being in the safety zone unless authorized by 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 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 time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the 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 vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) 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.T14-0183 to read as follows:
    § 165.T14-0183 Safety Zone; Philippine Sea, Rota.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters off of the Port of Rota, from surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting the following points beginning at 14°08′07″ N, 145°08′00″ E, thence to 14°08′53″ N, 145°06′51″ E, thence to 14°09′12″ N, 145°07′13″ E, thence to 14°08′16″ N, 145°08′08″ E, and along the shore line back to the beginning point. These coordinates are based on NAD 1983.

    (b) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing safety zones contained in § 165.23 apply. This rule prohibits persons and vessels not involved in the exercise from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Guam or a designated representative.

    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP Guam or the COTP's representative by VHF channel 16 or by telephone at 671-355-4821. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6 p.m. on September 16, 2018 to 6 a.m. on September 17, 2018.

    Dated: April 30, 2018. Christopher M. Chase, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10819 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0237; FRL-9978-39—Region 2] Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate Transport Provisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0237 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212) 637-3702, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What is the background of this SIP submission? II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission? III. EPA's Review IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    The EPA is proposing to approve elements of the State of New Jersey's October 17, 2014 SIP submission, which addresses the section 110(a) infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the following NAAQS: 2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2011 carbon monoxide (CO), and the 2006 particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10). Specifically, this rulemaking proposes to approve the portion of the submission addressing the interstate transport provisions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the “good neighbor” provision.

    The requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP submission arises from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must submit “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” a plan that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS.1 The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as “infrastructure SIPs”.

    1 On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086), the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for PM2.5 for the annual standard. The revised standard was set at the level of 12 µg/m3.

    The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to PM2.5 in several prior regulatory actions. In 2011, we promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), in order to address the obligations of states—and of the EPA when states have not met their obligations—under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to several NAAQS, including the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.2 In that rule, we considered states linked to downwind receptors if they were projected to contribute more than the threshold amount (1 percent of the standard) of PM2.5 pollution for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 48208, 48239-43). The EPA has not established a threshold amount for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    2 Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48207 (August 8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39 and 40 CFR part 97).

    EPA addressed interstate transport provisions for the October 17, 2014 SIP submittal concerning the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations and visibility protection (i.e., section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) for 2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, and the 2006 PM10 NAAQS) on September 19, 2016.3

    3 81 FR 64070 (September 19, 2016).

    EPA addressed the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the EPA's update of the CSAPR rule in October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504) but did not address New Jersey as it had withdrawn 4 that portion of the October 17, 2014 SIP submittal.

    4 EPA issued a finding to New Jersey for failure to submit on June 15, 2016 (81 FR 38963).

    The EPA will address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, and the 2006 PM10 NAAQS in a separate action.

    II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

    EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit infrastructure SIPs within 3 years of promulgation of a new NAAQS in an October 2, 2007 guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance documents and memoranda, including a September 13, 2013 guidance document titled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)” (2013 guidance).

    The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published on March 17, 2016, titled “Information on the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)” (2016 memorandum). The 2016 memorandum, which is included in the docket of this rulemaking, describes the approach EPA has previously used to address interstate transport, and provides EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2016 memorandum provides information relevant to EPA Regional office review of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) “good neighbor” provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided in that memorandum.

    In particular, the 2016 memorandum provides states and EPA Regional offices with projected future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring data and air quality modeling. The memorandum further describes how these projected potential design values can be used to help determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The 2016 memorandum explains that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate. Accordingly, because the available data included 2017 and 2025 projected average and maximum PM2.5 design values calculated through the CAMx 5 photochemical model, the memorandum suggests approaches states might use to interpolate PM2.5 values at sites in 2021.6

    5 Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions(CAMx).

    6 Specifically, the 2016 Memorandum explains that one way to assess potential receptors for 2021 is to assume that receptors projected to have average and/or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021. Similarly, it may be reasonable to assume that receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. Where a potential receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but projected to be attainment in 2025, further analysis of the emissions and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement regarding the receptor status in 2021.

    As explained in the 2016 memorandum, EPA used the methodology used in the CSAPR rule to determine potential nonattainment and maintenance sites. “Nonattainment sites” refer to those sites that are projected to exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) based on the average future year design values. Those sites that are projected to exceed the NAAQS based on the maximum future year design values are referred to as “maintenance” sites.

    Table 1—Projected Nonattainment and Maintenance Sites for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017 and 2025 Monitor ID State County 2017 avg
  • design value
  • (μg/m 3)
  • 2017 max
  • design value
  • (μg/m 3)
  • 2025 avg
  • design value
  • (μg/m 3)
  • 2025 max
  • design value
  • (μg/m 3)
  • Projected 2017
  • attainment status
  • Projected 2025
  • attainment status
  • 60190011 California Fresno 13.69 14.36 13.09 13.72 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60195001 California Fresno 15.43 15.9 14.9 15.36 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60195025 California Fresno 13.43 13.75 12.94 13.22 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60250005 California Imperial 14.19 14.32 14.83 14.97 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60290014 California Kern 14.24 14.85 13.78 14.37 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60290106 California Kern 15.4 16.43 14.94 15.93 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60311004 California Kings 15.38 16.01 14.82 15.4 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60371002 California Los Angeles 11.6 12.25 11.42 12.07 Maintenance Maintenance. 60392010 California Madera 17.37 17.62 16.9 17.14 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60470003 California Merced 13.84 15.27 13.52 14.92 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60658001 California Riverside 12.25 12.74 11.99 12.47 Nonattainment Maintenance. 60658005 California Riverside 13.89 14.41 13.63 14.15 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60990006 California Stanislaus 14.44 14.79 13.97 14.31 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 60990005 California Stanislaus 12.5 12.84 12.03 12.34 Nonattainment Maintenance. 60710025 California San Bernardino 11.79 12.35 11.61 12.15 Maintenance Maintenance. 60771002 California San Joaquin 11.49 13.09 11.16 12.71 Maintenance Maintenance. 61072002 California Tulare 14.63 15.6 14.06 14.96 Nonattainment Nonattainment. 160790017 Idaho Shoshone 12.01 12.43 11.8 12.22 Maintenance Maintenance. 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 11.67 12.16 11.18 11.65 Maintenance Attainment.

    Where EPA had sufficient data to complete its air quality modeling, EPA's analysis showed that, except for one monitoring site in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, monitors in the eastern United States were expected to both attain and maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025. EPA notes that, as further discussed below, EPA's modeling analysis was inconclusive for monitoring sites with incomplete data.

    The modeling results provided in the 2016 memorandum also show that out of seven PM2.5 monitors located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, only one monitor (ID number 420030064) is expected to be above the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2017.

    Further, that monitor (ID number 420030064 or Liberty monitor) is projected to be above the NAAQS only under the model's maximum projected conditions (used in EPA's interstate transport framework to identify maintenance receptors), and is projected to both attain and maintain the NAAQS (along with all Allegheny County monitors) in 2025. The memorandum therefore indicates that under such a condition (where EPA's photochemical modeling indicates an area will attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2025 but not attain or maintain in 2017) further analysis of the site should be performed to determine if the site may be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021 (the attainment deadline for moderate PM2.5 areas).

    The 2016 Memorandum did note that because of data quality problems, nonattainment and maintenance projections were not done for all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Tennessee and Kentucky. Data quality problems were since resolved for Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky and portions of Florida, identifying no additional potential receptors, with those areas having design values below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and expected to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for NOX and SO2 (www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values and www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data). As of May 2018, the areas that still have data quality issues preventing projections of nonattainment and maintenance receptors are all of Illinois and four counties in Florida. EPA notes that preliminary design values for the four counties in Florida for the most recent period (2015-2017) have been preliminary deemed complete, and are well below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This is further discussed in section III below.

    III. EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on the portion of New Jersey's October 17, 2014 SIP submission addressing the “good neighbor” provision requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which include:

    —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (otherwise known as prong 1);

    —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2).

    This rulemaking is evaluating the October 17, 2014 submission, specific to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (i.e., prongs 1 and 2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    In several previous rulemakings, EPA has developed and consistently applied a framework for addressing the prong 1 and 2 interstate transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. That framework has four basic steps, including: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was most recently applied with respect to PM2.5 in the CSAPR rule, designed to address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard.

    A. New Jersey's Submittal

    New Jersey's October 2014 SIP submittal includes its SIP-approved New Jersey regulations and control measures that the State has implemented to address the interstate transport of air pollutants for criteria pollutants, including the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. New Jersey regulations and control measures that have reduced PM2.5, as well as SO2, NOX, and Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC) precursor emissions include:

    —New Jersey's low sulfur fuel oil rule, New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:27-9 7 , Sulfur in Fuels, reduces SO2 emissions by reducing the sulfur content of fuel oils used throughout the State, including fuel oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs), home heating, and industrial and commercial boilers. The sulfur content of all distillate fuel oils (#2 fuel oil and lighter) was lowered to 500 parts per million (ppm) beginning on July 1, 2014; and further limited to 15 ppm beginning on July 1, 2016. Beginning July 1, 2014, the sulfur content for #4 fuel oil was lowered to 2,500 ppm; and #6 fuel oil was lowered to a range of 3,000 to 5,000 ppm sulfur content;

    7 EPA approval on January 3,2012(77 FR 19).

    —Coal-fired power plants in New Jersey control SO2 emissions by use of scrubbers to comply with adopted SO2 rules including stringent, new short-term SO2 emission limits (i.e., N.J.A.C. 7:27-10.2 8 , effective start date for new emission rates was December 2012;

    8 EPA approval on August 3,2010(75 FR 45483).

    —N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.29 9 , EGU- High Electric Demand Day (HEDD), require advanced NOX emission controls for EGU's that operate on HEDD days; New Jersey estimated its NOX reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules would reduce NOX emissions by 64 tons per day on HEDD days beginning with the 2015 summer ozone season; and

    9 EPA approval on August 3,2010 (75 FR 45483).

    —New Jersey has a statewide enhanced motor vehicle program that ensures New Jersey has adopted the motor vehicle standards adopted by California to ensure that only the lowest emitting vehicles available are sold in New Jersey

    New Jersey has indicated that it has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by implementing effective rules to control sources that may significantly contribute to nonattainment of a NAAQS in another state, and therefore addressed New Jersey's downwind contributions from New Jersey sources. New Jersey has also indicated that they have no rules that interfere with the ability of another state to maintain attainment of any ambient air quality standard in that state. New Jersey noted that its rules to control air emissions are more stringent than similar rules in nearby states. The complete list of New Jersey regulations and control measures can be found in the October 2014 SIP submittal, which is included in the docket of this rulemaking.

    New Jersey noted that the neighboring states of New York and Delaware do not have any PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Additionally, New Jersey indicated that the State of Pennsylvania, in its area designation recommendations 10 to EPA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, determined that nonattainment in the State was caused by local, not regional sources.

    10 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Final Designation Recommendations for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard, available at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/attain/pm25des/Final_Designation_Recommendations.pdf.

    New Jersey completed its technical analysis before EPA issued the 2016 Memorandum, which, as discussed earlier, included modeling projections for 2017 and 2025 annual PM2.5 design values meant to assist states in implementation of their 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS interstate transport SIPs. As discussed below, however, EPA's review of New Jersey's submittal nevertheless concludes that EPA's modeling projections regarding projected future nonattainment and maintenance areas as indicated in the 2016 memorandum, past EPA contribution modeling performed for CSAPR, and certified annual PM2.5 design values recorded since New Jersey's submittal confirm New Jersey's analysis that the State has adequately addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    B. EPA Analysis

    As stated above, EPA has developed a four-step approach for addressing the prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. The first step is the identification of potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. EPA identified potential nonattainment and/or maintenance areas in the 2016 memorandum (see section II, Table 1, above). Most of the potential receptors are in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. There is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In addition, as noted in section II to account for data quality limitations, EPA also considers potential receptors to include all of Illinois and Miami-Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, and Alachua Counties in Florida.

    As stated above, “Step 2” is the identification of states contributing to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, such that further analysis is required to identify necessary upwind reductions. For this step, we will be specifically determining if New Jersey emissions contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors.

    For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we have used air quality modeling and an air quality threshold of one percent of the PM2.5 NAAQS to link contributing states to projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors (76 FR 48237, August 8, 2011). That is, if an upwind state contributes less than the one percent screening threshold to a downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor, we determine that the state is not “linked” and therefore does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or maintenance problems at that receptor. We have not set an air quality threshold for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we do not have air quality modeling showing contributions to projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors for this NAAQS.

    The EPA believes that a proper and well-supported weight of evidence approach can provide sufficient information for purposes of addressing transport with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS. We rely on the CSAPR air quality modeling conducted for purposes of evaluating upwind state impacts on downwind air quality with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 µg/m3 (as well as the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 1997 Ozone NAAQS). Although not conducted for purposes of evaluating the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this modeling can inform our analysis regarding both the general magnitude of downwind PM2.5 impacts and the downwind distance in which states may contribute to receptors with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 µg/m3. If the same 1% contribution threshold used in CSAPR for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS applied to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, we could consider the fact that a state's impact was below that value (that is, 0.12 µg/m3). We also note that New Jersey's submittal, described above, relies on several factors to support a finding that emissions from New Jersey sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of, the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind states.

    We note that no single piece of information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.

    Each of the potential receptors is discussed below, with a more in-depth discussion provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this notice. For additional information, links to the documents relied upon for this analysis can be found throughout the document, more information is available in the TSD and the documents can be found in the docket for this action.

    California and Idaho

    Based on distance considerations alone, New Jersey can be ruled out as a potential contributor to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors in California and Idaho. The nearest of these receptors (Shoshone County, Idaho) is over 1,800 miles from New Jersey. Accordingly, EPA proposes to find that New Jersey will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in California and Idaho.

    Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

    As discussed in the TSD for this rulemaking, EPA has analyzed New Jersey's PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 precursors, and found that they do not significantly impact the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Liberty monitor) potential maintenance receptor. In our analysis we found that there were strong local influences throughout Allegheny County and contributions from nearby states that contributed to its nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Contributors to the Liberty monitor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania have taken steps in recent years, to improve air quality which will likely bring the monitor into compliance with the 2012 PM2.5 annual NAAQS by the 2021 attainment date.

    Another compelling fact is that in previous modeling, nonattainment in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was linked to significant contributions from other states.11 New Jersey was analyzed in this modeling, and New Jersey emissions were not linked to Allegheny County. EPA notes that, in fact, New Jersey's contribution in the CSAPR 2012 base case modeling was 0.024 µg/m3, well below 1% of the standard for linkage to downwind receptors.

    11 Air Quality Modeling for 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48207, August 8, 2011).

    For these reasons, we propose to find that New Jersey will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

    Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward, Alachua Counties, Florida

    In the CSAPR modeling analysis, Florida did not have any potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors identified for the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, it is anticipated that this trend will continue.

    As mentioned earlier in this section, as there are ambient monitoring data gaps in the 2009-2013 data that could have been used to identify potential PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors for Miami/Dade, Gilchrist, Broward and Alachua counties in Florida, the modeling analysis of potential receptors was not complete for these counties. However, EPA notes that the most recent ambient data (2015-2017) for these counties has been preliminarily deemed complete and indicates design values well below the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This is also consistent with historical data: Complete and valid design values in the 2006-2008, 2007-2009, and/or 2008-2010 periods for these counties were well below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the highest preliminary value for these observed monitors is 7.5 µg/m3 at a Miami-Dade County monitor (ID 120861016). For these reasons, we find that none of the counties in Florida with monitoring gaps between 2009-2013 should be considered either nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we propose that New Jersey will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Florida.

    Illinois

    As indicated previously, data quality issues prevent projections of nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Illinois. Previous CSAPR modeling, however, indicates that New Jersey emissions would not impact potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Illinois. New Jersey's contribution in the CSAPR 2012 base case modeling was 0.003 µg/m3 or less to Illinois counties, a very small fraction of the threshold amount (well below 1% of the standard) for linkage to downwind receptors.

    For this reason alone, we propose that New Jersey will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Illinois.

    Since we determined that New Jersey's SIP includes provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity from contributing significantly to nonattainment in or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, steps 3 and 4 of this evaluation are not necessary.

    In conclusion, based on our review of the potential receptors presented in the 2016 memorandum, an evaluation identifying likely emission sources affecting these potential receptors, distance considerations, and the 2012 base case modeling in the CSAPR final rule, we propose to determine that emissions from New Jersey sources will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the portion of New Jersey's October 17, 2014 SIP submission addressing the interstate transport provisions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 8, 2018. Peter D. Lopez, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10803 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0395; FRL-9978-32—Region 4] Air Plan Approvals; Tennessee: Revisions to Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of a revision to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 25, 2008, by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on behalf of the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau (Chattanooga/Hamilton County). The SIP submittal includes changes to Chattanooga/Hamilton County's air quality rules that, among other things, modify several ambient air standards. The portion of the SIP revision that EPA is approving is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA will act on the other portions of the June 25, 2008, submittal in a separate action.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0395 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:

    Tiereny Bell, 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. Ms. Bell can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9088 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria—the science upon which the standards are based—and the standards themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR part 50—National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    On June 25, 2008, TDEC submitted to EPA a SIP revision to the Chattanooga/Hamilton County portion of the Tennessee SIP that contains changes to a number of Chattanooga-Hamilton County's air quality rules in Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41. EPA is proposing to approve changes to the SIP through this action that deletes the current version and substitutes a revised version of Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41, Rule 21 of the Chattanooga City Code “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 1 Chattanooga-Hamilton County revised its rule to be consistent with changes to federal NAAQS.

    1 EPA will consider the other changes included in Tennessee's June 25, 2008, SIP revision in a future rulemaking.

    II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    On June 25, 2008, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for review and approval. The revision deletes the current version and substitutes a revised version of Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41, Rule 21 of the Chattanooga City Code “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Chattanooga/Hamilton County revised rule 21 to reflect all criteria pollutants; Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Particulate Matter (PM10), Ozone (O3), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), relating to all the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). See 76 FR 54294 (August 31, 2011), 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008), 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010), 61 FR 52852 (October 8, 1996), 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008), 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), 38 FR 25678 (September 14, 1973). EPA is approving this revision to the Chattanooga/Hamilton County portion of the Tennessee SIP to maintain consistency with the NAAQS. The Chattanooga/Hamilton County rule revision became state-effective on June 11, 2008. EPA has reviewed these changes to the Chattanooga/Hamilton County regulations for CO, Pb, NO2, PM10, O3 and SO2, and has made the preliminary determination that these changes are consistent with federal regulation.2

    2 The submittal does not address the 2008 8-hour O3, 2015 8-hour O3, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2, 2012 PM2.5 and 2008 Pb standards because these standards were not promulgated at the time the submission was provided to EPA.

    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 the incorporation by reference of Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41, Rule 21 of the Chattanooga City Code “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” effective June 11, 2008, which revised criteria pollutants. 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

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to Tennessee's SIP for Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41, Rule 21. EPA has evaluated the relevant portion of Tennessee's June 25, 2008, SIP revision and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA 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.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 7, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10688 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9978-04-Region 2] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fulton Terminals Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent to delete.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fulton Terminals site (Site), located in the City of Fulton, Oswego County, New York, originally consisted of an approximately 1.5-acre “On-Property” area, bounded on the west by First Street, on the south by Shaw Street, on the east by New York State Route 481, and on the north by a warehouse, and an “Off-Property” area, defined by the area between the On-Property area's western property boundary to the Oswego River (approximately 50 feet). The On-Property area was deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL) on April 6, 2015 (80 FR 5957). The Off-Property area remained on the NPL because residual groundwater contamination was still present. Because the groundwater in the Off-Property area has achieved the cleanup levels, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) the Off-Property area from the NPL and requests public comments on this proposed action.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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:

    Christos Tsiamis, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, 212-637-4257, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Because residual groundwater contamination (cis-1,2-dichloroethene [DCE] and vinyl chloride [VC]) was still present in the Off-Property area, this area remained on the NPL, and groundwater monitoring and five-year reviews were still required.

    Groundwater samples were collected from the Off-Property area in July 2016, June 2017, and September 2017 and they were analyzed for cis-1,2-DCE and VC. The reported concentrations of these constituents detected in the analyses of these samples were all below the cleanup levels, with two of the three being “non-detect” (i.e., concentrations were below the laboratory detection limits of 0.5 micrograms per liter). Based on an analysis of all the groundwater monitoring wells and associated contaminant-specific data, it was concluded that the groundwater remedy has achieved the cleanup levels selected for the Site and data analysis indicates that the contaminant levels in the groundwater will remain below these standards. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the response action is completed and that no further monitoring or five-year reviews at the Site are necessary.

    The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. The EPA and the State of New York, through the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed at the Site and that it no longer poses a threat to public health or the environment. Therefore, the EPA and NYSDEC have concluded that this NOID is appropriate. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund should future conditions warrant such action.

    In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion (NOD) of the Site without prior NOID because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. The EPA has explained its reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final NOD. If the EPA receives no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, the EPA will proceed with the deletion without further action on this NOID. If the EPA receives adverse comment(s), the EPA will withdraw the direct final NOD, and it will not take effect. The EPA will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final NOD based on this NOID. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this NOID. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final NOD, which is in the “Rules” section of this Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:

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

    Dated: April 19, 2018. Peter D. Lopez, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10800 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9978-25—Region 10] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. (FHC) Superfund Site (Site) located in Vancouver, Washington, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Washington, through the Department of Ecology, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:

    (1) http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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.

    (2) Email: Laura Knudsen, Community Involvement Coordinator, at [email protected]

    (3) Mail: Laura, Knudsen, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, RAD-202-3, Seattle, Washington 98101-3123.

    (4) Hand delivery: Records Center, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, Washington. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: Records Center, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, Washington, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; Vancouver Community Library, 901 C Street, Vancouver, Washington 98660, 360-906-5000 between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday to Thursday, or 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday to Sunday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremy Jennings, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, ECL-12, Seattle, Washington 98101-3123 206-553-2724, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 10 announces its intent to delete the Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9605. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    (1) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    (2) all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    (3) the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    The EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site will be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.

    (2) The EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate;

    (4) The State of Washington, through the Department of Ecology, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, the Columbian. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. The EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments or data received during the public comment period. After the public comment period, if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the Site information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    The 1/2-acre Frontier Hard Chrome (FHC), Inc. Superfund Site (EPA ID: WAD053614988) is located at 113 Y Street, Vancouver, Clark County, Washington, approximately 3/4 mile north of the Columbia River. The area was once dominated by light industry but has transitioned to commercial and residential uses. Between 1958 and 1983, two chrome plating businesses, Pioneer Plating (1958 to 1970) and Frontier Hard Chrome (1970 to 1983) occupied the Site. Since 1983, the Site has been used by various businesses. A commercial storage facility and parking lot are currently being constructed at the Site.

    In 1976, untreated chromium plating wastes from FHC's operations were temporarily rerouted from the sanitary sewer to an on-Site dry well while an on-site treatment system was constructed. Despite several enforcement actions, the treatment system was never designed or constructed. In January 1983, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) ordered FHC to stop the discharge of chromium plating wastes to the dry well and to prepare a plan to investigate the groundwater. Before taking any action, FHC closed the business.

    In 1982, an industrial supply well about 1/4 mile from the Site was found to be contaminated with chromium at more than twice the federal drinking water standard referred to as the “maximum contaminant level” (MCL). Further investigation, indicated the presence of a plume with elevated chromium concentrations downgradient of the dry well on the FHC property.

    In December 1982, the EPA proposed that the Site be included on the NPL established by the EPA under Section 105(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605(a) (47 FR 58476). Following consideration of public comments, the listing was finalized by the EPA in September 1983 (48 FR 40658).

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In 1984, Ecology initiated the Remedial Investigation (RI). Initial testing found total chromium levels in groundwater beneath the Site that were more than 2,000 times the MCL [50 micrograms per liter (µg/L)] and had spread approximately 1,600 feet southwest of the source. Later, total chromium concentrations in groundwater near the former dry well were found as high as 300,000 µg/L.

    Chromium in soils near the former dry well were identified as the source of the groundwater contamination at FHC. Total chromium levels in surface soils were reported as high as 5,200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and hexavalent chromium as high as 42mg/kg. Subsurface soil concentrations for total and hexavalent chromium were reported as high as 31,800 mg/kg and 7,506 mg/kg, respectively. Elevated chromium levels were found up to 20 feet below the ground surface and extended beyond the southern property boundary.

    Selected Remedy

    The EPA issued a December 1987 Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) Record of Decision (ROD) to address contaminated soils and source areas, and a July 1988 OU 2 ROD to address contaminated groundwater. The objectives of the OU1 soil remedy were to protect human health by preventing the direct exposure to chromium contaminated soils and dusts and to protect the groundwater by controlling the source of the contamination and included excavation, chemical treatment by a chemical binding agent, and off-Site disposal. Based on a Site-specific leachate test, all soils with total chromium concentrations greater than 550 mg/kg (approximately 7,400 cubic yards of soil) were removed and disposed of offsite.

    The remedy selected in the OU 2 ROD called for extraction of groundwater from the areas where levels of chromium exceeded 50,000 µg/L, followed by treatment using selective media ion exchange and discharge to the Columbia River or Vancouver's sewer system. To prevent consumption of contaminated drinking water, institutional controls would be used to restrict the use of groundwater in and around the contaminated plume.

    During the remedial design for OU 1, bench scale tests indicated that the stabilization methods selected in the remedy would likely not be effective at preventing the leaching of hexavalent chromium from Site soils. In response, the EPA initiated a Focused Feasibility Study that identified and evaluated several new and innovative technologies for addressing the contamination remaining at the Site. The results of bench scale testing indicated that In-Situ Redox Manipulation (ISRM) would be the most effective technology to address the cleanup objectives.

    On August 30, 2001, the EPA issued a ROD amendment (RODA) modifying the remedial action selected in the 1987 and 1988 RODs. The amended remedy called for an ISRM Treatment Barrier to be installed at the southern edge of the groundwater hot spot and for reducing compounds to be injected into the contaminated soils and groundwater upgradient of the barrier. After injection, the reductant reacted with naturally occurring iron in the soils to create a permeable reactive zone, thereby reducing hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. Groundwater downgradient of the barrier would be restored through natural dispersion and dilution. Regular monitoring would be conducted until all groundwater met the cleanup level of 50 µg/L. Institutional controls (ICs) that limited access to contaminated soils and groundwater and future activities that threaten to remobilize chromium in Site soils were to be evaluated and implemented.

    Response Actions

    In 1994, to reduce the threat of direct exposure and further impacts to groundwater from the most heavily contaminated surface soils, Ecology excavated surface soils with chromium concentrations above 210 mg/kg (approximately 160 cubic yards) and disposed of them off-Site. The area was backfilled with clean material and a commercial office building was constructed on the property.

    In December 2000, in conjunction with a local drainage project, the EPA extended a tight-lined drain pipe with road drains and catch basins to the south and west of the Site. The extension allowed stormwater to drain away from the FHC Site, thus preventing further infiltration of surface water through contaminated soils and into groundwater.

    From 2001 to 2003, the EPA designed and implemented the ISRM Treatment selected in the 2001 RODA. Chemical reductant was first injected along the southern edge of an area with the highest chromium levels in the groundwater, forming the ISRM barrier, and then applied to source area soils and groundwater upgradient of the barrier. On September 22, 2003, the EPA signed a Preliminary Close-Out Report documenting the completion of construction activities. On September 28, 2012, the Site was designated as “Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use”.

    In 2003 the EPA also reviewed existing local and state controls that would protect the public from exposure to soils and groundwater impacted by past releases at the Site. The EPA determined that existing controls sufficiently limited access to contaminated soils and groundwater and that no additional ICs were required. Even so, when approached in 2004 by a perspective developer interested in purchasing the property, the EPA entered into an Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue with the developer. The Agreement was recorded on the property deeds and required compliance with seven institutional controls, including prohibitions on the installation of groundwater wells and use of groundwater.

    In February 2004, a Long-Term Monitoring Plan was developed by the EPA to track the size of the chromium plume downgradient of the Site and to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. In 2007, the size of the network and the frequency of sampling were reduced. The final sampling event took place in 2016.

    Cleanup Levels

    The cleanup levels established in the RODA were based on federal drinking water standards, State cleanup levels established under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), and State surface water standards. Consistent with MTCA, cleanup levels for hexavalent and trivalent chromium in soils were set at 19 mg/kg and 80,000 mg/kg respectively. Also based on MTCA, a groundwater cleanup level of 50 µg/L total chromium was established. Finally, the State's chronic surface water standards were used to establish a cleanup level of 10.5 µg/L for groundwater immediately upgradient of the Columbia River.

    Following the 2016 sampling event, the EPA reviewed the data and found that, over the last several years, total chromium had only been detected at one well and that the groundwater concentrations at that well were below the cleanup level of 50 µg/L (WellB-87-8; 8.82 µg/L total chromium). A statistical analysis indicated the groundwater had attained the cleanup level and was expected to continue to do so in the future. Since monitoring began in 2004, the total chromium concentration in the wells closest to the river (well W99-R5A W99-R5B) have been below the cleanup level of 10.5µg/L set for groundwater immediately upgradient of the Columbia River.

    A Final Close-Out Report documenting completion of all remedial actions was signed by the EPA on January 29, 2018. The report documented that all soil and groundwater Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) and cleanup levels established in the 2001 RODA had been attained, the remedy had been successfully implemented, and no further CERCLA actions were required at the Site. However, in 2018, all remaining monitoring wells will be decommissioned by Ecology. No additional monitoring or Operations and Maintenance of the remedy are required.

    Five-Year Review

    Three policy five-year reviews (FYR) have been completed at the Site, the last one in January 2018.

    No issues or follow-up actions were identified as part of the 2018 Five-Year Review. The protectiveness statement read: “Because the remedial actions at OU 1 and OU 2 are protective, the site is protective of human health and the environment.”

    The analysis conducted concurrent with the last FYR indicates that the remedy has been fully implemented and the remedial action objectives and related cleanup levels have been attained. No hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain above levels that could prevent unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). Therefore, no further five-year reviews are required.

    Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the remedial process, the EPA has kept the public informed of activities being conducted at the Site by way of informational meetings, fact sheets and public meetings.

    Documents in the deletion docket which the EPA relied on for the recommendation for deletion from the NPL are available to the public at the information repositories identified previously. Concurrent with this notice, a notice of availability of the Notice of Intent for Deletion has been published in The Columbian, initiating a 30-day public comment period. EPA will review all comments received before making a final decision on this proposed deletion action.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Washington through the Department of Ecology, has determined that the implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup or protection specified in the RODs and RODA for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial and removal action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.

    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where all appropriate response actions have been implemented and where no further response is appropriate. Consistent with this, the EPA is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:

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

    Dated: May 3, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10796 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 2 [GN Docket No. 18-122; DA 18-446] Office of Engineering and Technology, International, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus Seek Comment for Report on the Feasibility of Allowing Commercial Wireless Services, Licensed or Unlicensed, To Use or Share Use of the Frequencies Between 3.7-4.2 GHz AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, and pursuant to the Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless Act (MOBILE NOW Act), the Office of Engineering and Technology and the International and Wireless Telecommunications Bureaus (Bureaus) seek comment for an upcoming Commission report that will address the feasibility of allowing commercial wireless services to use or share use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum band.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before May 31, 2018. Reply comments are due on or before June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To the extent commenters wish to submit materials in the current docket (GN Docket No. 18-122) that are substantially similar to materials filed in other potentially related Commission proceedings (such as GN Docket No. 17-183, RM-11778, and RM-11791), the Commission asks commenters to submit an abbreviated filing that incorporates by reference the relevant arguments from any previously filed material by identifying (a) the previously filed document (with the docket number of the proceeding in which it was filed and the date filed), and (b) the specific arguments in that previously filed document that the commenter is submitting for consideration in the current proceeding. You may submit comments, identified by [GN Docket No. 18-122], by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, GN Docket No. 18-122.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the captions of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings in response to this document can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ariel Diamond, (202) 418-2803, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 23, 2018, Congress passed the FY 2018 omnibus spending bill into law, which includes the MOBILE NOW Act under Title VI of RAY BAUM'S Act.1 Section 605(b) of the MOBILE NOW Act requires the Commission to submit a report (3.7-4.2 GHz Report), to appropriate committees of Congress 2 and to the Secretary of Commerce no later than September 23, 2019, “evaluating the feasibility of allowing commercial wireless services, licensed or unlicensed, to use or share use of the frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 4200 megahertz.” 3

    1See Section 601 of the Act. We note that the Act refers to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band as the frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 4200 megahertz.

    2 Section 602 of the Act defines the appropriate committees of Congress.

    3See Section 605(b) of the Act.

    The Commission notes that there is currently no federal allocation for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the following questions:

    • How should we assess the operations and possible impacts of sharing on Federal and non-Federal users already operating in this band?

    • How might sharing be accomplished, with licensed and/or unlicensed operations, without causing harmful interference to Federal and non-Federal users already operating in this band, and in which parts of the band would such sharing be feasible?

    • What other considerations should the Commission take into account in preparing the 3.7-4.2 GHz Report?

    The Act further provides that the report should include an assessment of the operations of Federal entities that operate Federal Government stations authorized to use the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.4 The Commission intends to consult with National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the heads of each affected Federal agency regarding the Federal entities, stations, and operations in the band, and the required issues and assessments. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    4See Section 605(c) of the Act.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.5 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).

    5See 47 CFR 1.1200(a), 1.1206.

    Federal Communications Commission. John Schauble, Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10787 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 98 Monday, May 21, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 15, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by June 20, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Housing Service

    Title: Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI).

    OMB Control Number: 0575-0180.

    Summary of Collection: Congress first authorized the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) in 1999 with an appropriation of $6 million under the Rural Community Advancement Program (Pub. L. 106-78, which was amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113)). The Community Facilities Division under the Rural Housing Service (RHS) administers this grant program. The intent of the RCDI grant program is to develop the capacity and ability of rural area recipients to undertake projects through a program of financial and technical assistance provided by qualified intermediary organizations. Intermediaries may be private or public (including tribal) organizations. Intermediaries are required to provide matching funds in an amount equal to the RCDI grant. Eligible recipients are nonprofit organizations, low-income rural communities, or federally recognized tribes.

    Need and Use of the Information: RHS will collect information to determine applicant/grantee eligibility, project feasibility, and to ensure that grantees operate on a sound basis and use grant funds for authorized purposes. Failure to collect this information could result in improper use of Federal funds.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 90.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Quarterly; Annually; Third party disclosure.

    Total Burden Hours: 4,549.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10675 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Tuesday, May 22, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to debrief testimony received at four public meetings (April 3, 2018; April 17, 2018; May 1, 2018; and May 2, 2018) on human trafficking in Oregon.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. PT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-726-2418, Conference ID: 2544884.

    This meeting is available to the public through the above toll-free call-in number. 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 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=270. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Debrief III. Public comment IV. Next Steps V. Adjournment

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of this Committee preparing for its report on human trafficking that will be issued before the end of the fiscal year.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10684 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 180415374-8374-01] Current Mandatory Business Surveys AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of determination.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) has determined that it is conducting the following current mandatory business surveys in 2018: Annual Retail Trade Survey, Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, Service Annual Survey, Report of Organization, Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, Business Research and Development (R&D) Survey, and the Business and Professional Classification Report. We have determined that data collected from these surveys are needed to aid the efficient performance of essential governmental functions and have significant application to the needs of the public and industry. The data derived from these surveys, most of which have been conducted for many years, are not publicly available from nongovernmental or other governmental sources.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Census Bureau will make available the reporting instructions to the organizations included in the surveys. Additional copies are available upon written request to the Director, 4600 Silver Hill Road, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-0101.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nick Orsini, Assistant Director for Economic Programs, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, 5H160, Washington, DC 20233, Telephone: 301-763-2558; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The surveys described herein are authorized by Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 131, 182 and 193 and are necessary to furnish current data on the subjects covered by the major censuses. These surveys are made mandatory under the provisions of Sections 224 and 225 of Title 13, U.S.C. These surveys will provide continuing and timely national statistical data for the period between economic censuses. The data collected in the surveys will be within the general scope and nature of those inquiries covered in the economic census. The next economic census will be conducted in 2018 for the reference year 2017.

    Annual Retail Trade Survey

    The Annual Retail Trade Survey collects data on annual sales, sales tax, e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held inside and outside the United States, total operating expenses, purchases, and accounts receivable from a sample of employer firms with establishments classified in retail trade as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These data serve as a benchmark for the more frequent estimates compiled from the Monthly Retail Trade Survey. During the 2017 survey year that will be collected in 2018, this survey will additionally collect detailed operating expenses data. These items are collected once every 5 years.

    Annual Wholesale Trade Survey

    The Annual Wholesale Trade Survey collects data on annual sales, e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held both inside and outside of the United States, method of inventory valuation, total operating expenses, purchases, gross selling value, and commissions from a sample of employer firms with establishments classified in wholesale trade as defined by the NAICS. These data serve as a benchmark for the more frequent estimates compiled from the Monthly Wholesale Trade Survey. During the 2017 survey year that will be collected in 2018, this survey will additionally collect detailed operating expenses and sales tax data. These items are collected once every five years. These additional questions are only applicable to the merchant wholesale establishments, excluding manufacturers' sales branches and offices.

    Service Annual Survey

    The Service Annual Survey collects annual data on total revenue, select detailed revenue, total and detailed expenses, and e-commerce revenue for a sample of businesses in the service industries. These industries include Utilities; Transportation and Warehousing; Information; Finance and Insurance; Real Estate and Rental and Leasing; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; Administration and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services; Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation; Accommodation and Food Services; and Other Services as defined by the NAICS. These data serve as a benchmark for the more frequent estimates compiled from the Quarterly Services Survey.

    Report of Organization

    The Report of Organization collects annual data on ownership or control by a domestic or foreign parent and ownership of foreign affiliates. This includes research and development, company activities such as employees from a professional employer organization, operational status, mid-March employment, first-quarter payroll, and annual payroll of establishments from a sample of multi-establishment enterprises in order to update and maintain a centralized, multipurpose business register. For survey year 2017 that will be collected in 2018, the Report of Organization will be conducted in conjunction with the 2017 Economic Census, as has been done for previous economic censuses. During this year, the universe of multi-establishment companies will receive Report of Organization inquiries.

    Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey

    The Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey collects annual data on sales and unfilled orders in order to provide annual benchmarks for unfilled orders for the monthly Manufacturers' Shipments, Inventories, and Orders (M3) survey. The Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey data are also used to determine whether it is necessary to collect unfilled orders data for specific industries on a monthly basis, as some industries are not requested to provide unfilled orders data in the M3 Survey.

    Annual Capital Expenditures Survey

    The Annual Capital Expenditures Survey collects annual data on the amount of business expenditures for new and used structures and equipment from a sample of non-farm, non-governmental companies, organizations, and associations. Both employer and nonemployer companies are included in the survey. The data are the sole source of investment in buildings and other structures, machinery, and equipment by all private nonfarm businesses in the United States, by the investing industry, and by kind of investment. Every five years, detailed data by types of structures and types of equipment are collected from companies with employees. These detailed data will be collected for the 2017 reference year, which began with data collection in March 2018.

    Business Research and Development Survey

    The Business Research and Development Survey (BRDS) collects annual data on spending for research and development activities by businesses. This survey replaced the Survey of Industrial Research and Development that had been collected since the 1950s. The BRDS collects global as well as domestic spending information, more detailed information about the R&D workforce, and information regarding intellectual property from U.S. businesses. The Census Bureau collects and compiles this information in accordance with a joint project agreement between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Census Bureau. The NSF posts the joint project's information results on its website. Beginning in 2018, and for the 2017 reference year, the BRDS will no longer collect R&D and innovation statistics from micro businesses, or firms with less than 5 employees. Additionally, the BRDS will no longer collect data on innovation. This information will now be collected through a new collection called the Annual Business Survey.

    Business and Professional Classification Report

    The Business and Professional Classification Report collects one-time data on a firm's type of business activity from a sample of newly organized employer firms. The data are used to update the sampling frames for our current business surveys to reflect these newly opened establishments. Additionally, the business classification data will help ensure businesses are directed to complete the correct report in the economic census.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is 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 (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. In accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 45, OMB approved the surveys described in this notice under the following OMB control numbers: Annual Retail Trade Survey, 0607-0013; Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, 0607-0195; Service Annual Survey, 0607-0422; Report of Organization, 0607-0444; Manufacturers' Unfilled Orders Survey, 0607-0561; Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, 0607-0782; Business R&D and Innovation Survey, 0607-0912; and Business & Professional Classification Report, 0607-0189.

    Based upon the foregoing, I have directed that the current mandatory business surveys be conducted for the purpose of collecting these data.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Ron S. Jarmin, Associate Director for Economic Programs, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10759 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on honey from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel Greenberg or Kabir Archuletta, 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) 482-0652 or (202) 482-2593, respectively.

    Background

    On December 4, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the AD order on honey from China for the period December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.1 On January 2, 2018, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association (the petitioners), requested a review of the AD order with respect to two companies.2 On February 23, 2018, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce initiated an administrative review of the AD order on honey from China with respect to these companies.3 On April 27, 2018, the petitioners timely withdrew their request for an administrative review of all companies named in the petitioners' review request.4 No other party requested a review.

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 57219 (December 4, 2017).

    2See the petitioners' request for administrative review, “Honey from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review; 2016-2017,” dated January 2, 2018 (Review Request).

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 83 FR 8058 (February 23, 2018).

    4See the petitioners' withdrawal of administrative review request, “Honey from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners' Withdrawal of Request for 2016/2017 Administrative Review,” dated April 27, 2018.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioners withdrew their request for review within the 90-day deadline. Because Commerce received no other requests for review of the above-referenced companies, and no other requests were made for a review of the AD order on honey from China with respect to other companies, we are rescinding the administrative review covering the period December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017, in full, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of honey from China during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 15, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10778 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-836, A-580-891, A-469-816, A-489-831, A-412-826] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy, the Republic of Korea, Spain, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determinations for Spain and the Republic of Turkey AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Italy, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Spain, the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), and the United Kingdom. In addition, Commerce is amending its affirmative final determinations for Spain and Turkey to correct ministerial errors.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Flessner at (202) 482-6312 (Italy), Lingjun Wang at (202) 482-2316 (Korea), Chelsey Simonovich or Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-1979 or (202) 482-0698 (Spain), Ryan Mullen or Ian Hamilton at (202) 482-5260 and (202) 482-4798, respectively (Turkey), and Alice Maldonado at (202) 482-4682 (United Kingdom), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 735(a), 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on March 28, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.1

    1See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 13230 (March 28, 2018); Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 FR 13228 (March 28, 2018) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Spain: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 83 FR 13233 (March 28, 2018) (Spain Final Determination) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 FR 13249 (March 28, 2018) (Turkey Final Determination) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the United Kingdom: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 FR 13252 (March 28, 2018) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    On March 27, 2018, Nucor Corporation, a petitioner in these investigations (the petitioner), alleged that Commerce made a ministerial error in the Turkey Final Determination with regard to programming language identifying the U.S. date of sale for respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas).2 On April 13, 2018, Commerce issued a ministerial error memorandum agreeing that it made a ministerial error, but found that revisions to the programming language had no impact on the final margin for Habas.3 On April 17, 2018, the petitioner commented on Commerce's ministerial error memorandum and alleged that Commerce misplaced the revised programming language used to correct Habas' U.S. date of sale, which incorrectly resulted in no change to the calculated margin.4 Habas did not comment on either allegation.

    2See Petitioner's Letter, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Turkey: Ministerial Error Allegation,” dated March 27, 2018.

    3See Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Turkey: Allegation of Ministerial Error in the Final Determination,” dated April 13, 2018.

    4See Petitioner's Letter, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Turkey: Comments on the Department's Ministerial Error Memorandum,” dated April 17, 2018.

    On April 3, 2018, Global Steel Wire S.A., CELSA Atlantic S.A., and Companía Española de Laminación (collectively, CELSA) alleged that Commerce made ministerial errors by mischaracterizing the destination codes in the final margin program in the Spain Final Determination. Additionally, CELSA alleges that Commerce failed to deduct all applicable U.S. constructed export price (CEP) expenses in the margin calculation program.5

    5See CELSA's Letter, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Spain: Ministerial Errors Contained in the Final Determination,” dated April 3, 2018.

    On May 11, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative final determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, by reason of LTFV imports of subject merchandise from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, and its determinations that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of wire rod from Spain and the United Kingdom that are subject to Commerce's affirmative critical circumstances findings.6

    6See Letter from the ITC to the Honorable Gary Taverman, May 11, 2018 (Notification of ITC Final Determinations); see also Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-573-574 and 731-TA-1350, 1351, 1354, 1355, and 1358 (Final) (May 2018).

    Scope of the Orders

    The product covered by these orders is wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. For a complete description of the scope of the orders, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Amendments to Final Determinations

    With respect to the Turkey Final Determination, Commerce reviewed the record and agrees that the error identified by the petitioner with respect to the placement of the revised programming language constitutes a ministerial error within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).7 Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce is amending the Turkey Final Determination to reflect the correction of this ministerial error in the calculation of the final margin assigned to Habas, which changes from 4.74 percent to 4.93 percent.8 In addition, because the “all-others” rate is based on the margins for Habas and the other mandatory respondent, Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (Icdas),9 we are revising the “all-others” rate, which changes from 6.34 percent ad valorem to 6.44 percent ad valorem, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, as stated in the Turkey Final Determination. 10

    7See Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Turkey: Allegation of Ministerial Error Memorandum for the Amended Final Determination,” dated May 16, 2018.

    8Id. at 3-4.

    9 Icdas' final margin remains unchanged; see Turkey Final Determination, 83 FR at 13250.

    10See Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Turkey: Calculation of All-Others' Rate in Amended Final Determination,” dated May 16, 2018.

    With respect to the Spain Final Determination, Commerce reviewed the record and agrees that the errors identified by CELSA constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f) and that it unintentionally incorrectly defined CELSA's U.S. destination codes in the final margin calculation program.11 Commerce also finds that it unintentionally failed to deduct one of CELSA's CEP expenses in the final margin calculation program.12

    11See Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Spain: Ministerial Error Memorandum,” dated May 15, 2018.

    12Id.

    Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce is amending the Spain Final Determination to reflect the correction of ministerial errors made in the margin calculation for CELSA, which changes the final margin from 11.08 percent to 10.11 percent. In addition, because the “all-others” rate in the Spain Final Determination was based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for CELSA,13 Commerce, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, is also amending the “all-others” rate, which changes from 11.08 percent ad valorem to 10.11 percent ad valorem, as stated in the Spain Final Determination.

    13See Spain Final Determination.

    Antidumping Duty Orders

    In accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.14 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    14See Notification of ITC Final Determinations.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 31, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations. 15

    15See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 50381 (October 31, 2017); Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 50386 (October 31, 2017); Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Spain: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 82 FR 50389 (October 31, 2017); Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Turkey: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 50377 (October 31, 2017); Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the United Kingdom: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 82 FR 50394 (October 31, 2017) (collectively, Preliminary Determinations).

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages and cash deposit rates are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average dumping margins Italy: Ferriere Nord S.p.A./Acciaierie di Verona S.p.A16 12.41 Ferriera Valsider S.p.A 18.89 All-Others 12.41 Korea: POSCO 41.10 All-Others 41.10 Spain: Global Steel Wire S.A./CELSA Atlantic S.A./Companía Española de Laminación 10.11 ArcelorMittal Espana S.A 32.64 All-Others 10.11 Weighted-average dumping margins
  • (percent)
  • Cash-deposit rate
  • (adjusted for export subsidies)
  • (percent)
  • Turkey: Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S 4.93 1.05 Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S 7.94 4.15 All-Others 6.44 2.59 Weighted-average dumping margins United Kingdom: British Steel Limited 147.63 Longs Steel UK Limited 147.63 All-Others 147.63
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    16 Ferriere Nord S.p.A. and Acciaierie di Verona S.p.A. were treated as a single entity for the final determination.

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all relevant entries of wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, effective the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determinations in the Federal Register. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below, which are adjusted for certain countervailable export subsidies, where appropriate. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations in the Federal Register, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on the subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average dumping margins, adjusted for countervailable export subsidies, where appropriate, listed below.17 The relevant “all-others” rates apply to all producers or exporters not specifically listed below.

    17See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in each case.18 Commerce published the Preliminary Determinations for all five underlying investigations on October 31, 2017. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations, ended on April 28, 2018. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that the collection of final, estimated cash deposits will begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations.

    18See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy, the Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Postponement of Final Determinations of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 51613 (November 7, 2017).

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after April 28, 2018, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect in these proceedings, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determinations in the Federal Register.

    Critical Circumstances

    The ITC notified Commerce of its determinations that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of wire rod from Spain and the United Kingdom subject to Commerce's critical circumstances finding.19 With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determinations on imports of subject merchandise from Spain and the United Kingdom, Commerce will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 2, 2017 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations), but before October 31, 2017, (i.e., the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations).

    19 Notification of ITC Final Determinations.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the antidumping orders with respect to wire rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    These amended final determinations and orders are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(e) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b) and 351.224(e) and (f).

    Dated: May 16, 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 Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by these orders are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorous, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

    The products under these orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-10879 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-837; C-489-832] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy and the Republic of Turkey: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination for the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duty Orders for Italy and the Republic of Turkey AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Italy and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). Also, as explained in this notice, Commerce is amending its final affirmative determination with respect to Turkey to correct the rates assigned to Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istih (Habas) and All-Others.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813 (Italy), Justin Neuman at (202) 482-0486 (Turkey), or Omar Qureshi at (202) 482-5307 (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 705(a), 705(d), and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on March 28, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of wire rod from Italy and Turkey.1

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy: Final Affirmative Determination, 83 FR 13242 (March 28, 2018) (Wire Rod from Italy Final Determination) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, 83 FR 13239 (March 28, 2018) (Wire Rod from Turkey Final Determination) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    On March 27, 2018, Ferriere Nord S.p.A. alleged that Commerce made ministerial errors in the Wire Rod from Italy Final Determination with regard to Commerce's calculation of the final ad valorem subsidy rate pertaining to Ferriere Nord S.p.A.2 One of the petitioners, Nucor Corporation (Nucor), filed rebuttal comments regarding Ferriere Nord S.p.A.'s allegation on April 2, 2018.3

    2See Letter from Ferriere Nord, S.p.A., “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy: Ferriere Nord Request to Correct Ministerial Errors in the Final Determination,” dated March 27, 2018.

    3See Letter from Nucor, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Italy: Rebuttal Ministerial Error Comments,” dated April 2, 2018.

    Also on March 27, 2018, Nucor alleged that Commerce made a ministerial error in the Wire Rod from Turkey Final Determination. 4 In addition, on that same date, the Government of Turkey (GOT) alleged that Commerce made a ministerial error in the Wire Rod from Turkey Final Determination. 5 Nucor filed rebuttal comments regarding the GOT's allegation on April 2, 2018.6

    4See Letter from Nucor, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Turkey: Ministerial Error Allegation,” dated March 27, 2018 (Nucor Ministerial Error Allegation).

    5See Letter from the GOT, “Request of Government of Turkey for Correction of Ministerial Error on Final Determination in CVD Proceeding on Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Turkey,” dated March 27, 2018 (GOT Ministerial Error Allegation).

    6See Letter from Nucor, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Turkey: Rebuttal Ministerial Error Comments,” dated April 2, 2018 (Nucor Rebuttal Comments).

    We reviewed the allegations and determined that we did not make ministerial errors, within the meaning of section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), with respect to the Wire Rod from Italy Final Determination; however, we did make a ministerial error in the Wire Rod from Turkey Final Determination. See “Amendment to the Final Determination” section below for further discussion.

    On May 11, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from Italy and Turkey, and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of wire rod from Turkey that are subject to Commerce's affirmative critical circumstances finding.7

    7See Letters to Gary Taverman, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Italy and the Republic of Turkey (May 11, 2018) (ITC Letter).

    Scope of the Orders

    The scope of these orders covers wire rod from Italy and Turkey. For a complete description of the scope, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Amendment to the Final Determination

    With respect to the Wire Rod from Italy Final Determination, we analyzed Ferriere Nord S.p.A.'s submission and disagree that Commerce made ministerial errors regarding the benefit calculation of the Energy Interruptibility Contracts program.8

    8See Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy: Allegations of Ministerial Errors in the Final Determination with Regards to Ferriere Nord S.p.A.,” dated May 7, 2018.

    With respect to the Wire Rod from Turkey Final Determination, we analyzed Nucor's submission and agree that Commerce made a ministerial error regarding the deduction of expenses from loans received by respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Galzlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas). However, we do not agree that the error alleged by the GOT constitutes a ministerial error. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce is amending the Wire Rod from Turkey Final Determination to reflect the correction of the ministerial error described above. The correction of this ministerial error increased Habas' subsidy rate from 3.86 percent ad valorem to 3.88 percent ad valorem. 9 Because the “all-others” rate is based, in part, on Habas' ad valorem subsidy rate, the correction noted above also increases the “all-others” rate determined in the Wire Rod from Turkey Final Determination from 3.84 percent ad valorem to 3.85 percent ad valorem. 10

    9See Memorandum, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Turkey: Amended Final Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation Pursuant to Ministerial Error Allegation,” dated May 3, 2018.

    10Id.

    Countervailing Duty Orders

    On May 11, 2018, in accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of wire rod from Italy and Turkey.11 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing these countervailing duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of wire rod from Italy and Turkey are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Italy and Turkey, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of countervailing duties.

    11See ITC Letter.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of wire rod from Italy and Turkey. Countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of wire rod from Italy and Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 5, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations, 12 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

    12See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 82 FR 41931 (September 5, 2017) (Italy Wire Rod Preliminary Determination) and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum; see also Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part., 82 FR 41929 (September 5, 2017) (Turkey Wire Rod Preliminary Determination) and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (collectively, Preliminary Determinations).

    Amended Cash Deposits and Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of wire rod from Italy and Turkey, as further described below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the subsidy rates listed below.13 The all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

    13See section 706(a)(3) of the Act.

    Wire Rod From Italy Company Subsidy
  • rate
  • (%)
  • Ferriere Nord S.p.A 14 4.16 Ferriera Valsider S.p.A 44.18 All-Others 4.16

    14 Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Ferriere Nord S.p.A: FIN FER S.p.A., Acciaierie di Verona S.p.A., and SIAT S.p.A. See Wire Rod From Italy Final Determination (unchanged from Italy Wire Rod Preliminary Determination and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 6).

    Wire Rod From Turkey Company Subsidy
  • rate
  • (%)
  • Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istih (Habas) 3.88 Icdas Celik Eberji Tersane Ve Ulasim San (Icdas) 3.81 All-Others 3.85
    Provisional Measures

    Section 703(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the Preliminary Determinations on September 5, 2017. As such, the four-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determinations ended on January 3, 2018. Furthermore, section 707(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act and our practice, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of wire rod from Italy and Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after January 3, 2018, the date the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

    Critical Circumstances

    The ITC notified Commerce of its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of wire rod from Turkey subject to Commerce's critical circumstances finding.15 With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of wire rod steel from Turkey, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated countervailing duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after June 7, 2017 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of the publication of the Turkey Wire Rod Preliminary Determination), but before September 5, 2017 (i.e., the date of publication of the Turkey Wire Rod Preliminary Determination).

    15See ITC Letter.

    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the countervailing duty orders with respect to wire rod from Italy and Turkey pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: May 16, 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 Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by these orders are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorous, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

    The products under these orders are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-10880 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-880] Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE resin) from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Toby Vandall, Emily Halle, or Aimee Phelan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1664, (202) 482-0176, or (202) 482-0697, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This final determination is made in accordance with section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of this investigation on March 8, 2018.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the publication of the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.2 A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. 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 is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the 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 Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 83 FR 9842 (March 8, 2018) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is PTFE resin from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,3 Commerce provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope). Although certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice, 4 we preliminarily made no modifications to the scope of the investigation.5 No parties commented on our Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. As a result, in this final determination, we are adopting the preliminary decision not to modify the scope language.

    3See Memorandum, “Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India and the People's Republic of China: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated February 28, 2018 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    4See Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 49592 (October 26, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    5See Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.6

    6See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because the government of India did not act to the best of its ability to respond to our requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.7 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    7See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, and minor corrections presented at verification, we made certain changes to the respondent's sales figures and subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Final Calculation Memorandum.8

    8See Memorandum, “Final Determination Calculations for Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited,” dated concurrently with this notice (Final Calculation Memorandum).

    All-Others Rate

    Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited (GFL),9 the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the countervailable subsidy rate calculated for GFL is the rate assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

    9 As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 5-6, Commerce found Inox Leasing and Finance Limited to be cross-owned with GFL within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii). No parties commented on this preliminary finding. Accordingly, our finding of cross-ownership remains unchanged for this final determination.

    Final Determination

    Commerce determines that the following countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited (GFL) 3.60 All-Others 3.60
    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this final determination within five days of its public announcement of our final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of PTFE resin from India as described in Appendix I to this notice, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after March 8, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. Furthermore, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise at the rates shown above, pursuant to section 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.

    U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our final affirmative countervailing duty (CVD) determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination regarding whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PTFE resin 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 a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn for 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

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an 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 the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 14, 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 product covered by this investigation is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin, including but not limited to granular, dispersion, or coagulated dispersion (also known as fine powder). PTFE is covered by the scope of this investigation whether filled or unfilled, whether or not modified, and whether or not containing co-polymer additives, pigments, or other materials. Also included is PTFE wet raw polymer. The chemical formula for PTFE is C2F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number is 9002-84-0.

    PTFE further processed into micropowder, having particle size typically ranging from 1 to 25 microns, and a melt-flow rate no less than 0.1 gram/10 minutes, is excluded from the scope of this investigation.

    PTFE is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 3904.61.0010 and 3904.61.0090. Subject merchandise may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 3904.69.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS Number are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Subsidies Valuation VI. Benchmarks and Discount Rates VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether Commerce is Conducting this Investigation in Accordance with its Obligations Comment 2: Commerce's Application of AFA for the GOI's Failure to Provide Requested Information Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should Use GFL's Corrections Presented at Verification Comment 4: Whether EPCGS Continues to Confer a Countervailable Benefit Comment 5: Whether the GOI Maintains a Reasonable or Effective Input Verification System for AAP Comment 6: Whether GFL Has a Reliable AAP Database Comment 7: Whether Commerce's Decision to find SHIS Countervailable is in Accordance with its Statutory Obligations Comment 8: Whether Commerce Should Use GFL's Minor Correction to the Electricity Duty Exemption for Wind Power Comment 9: Whether GFL Received a Countervailable Benefit from SGOG Preferential Water Rates Comment 10: Countervailability of Renewable Energy Certificates Comment 11: Whether a Tier-One Benchmark is Appropriate for SGOG Provision of Land for LTAR Comment 12: Whether MEIS is Tied to Non-Subject Merchandise Comment 13: Whether GFL Received a Benefit from Income Tax Exemption (80-IA) and Section 32AC (32AC) of the Income Tax Act X. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-10780 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-858] Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Partial Rescission of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is partially rescinding the expedited review of the countervailing duty order (CVD) on certain softwood lumber products (softwood lumber) from Canada for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4793.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 3, 2018, Commerce published the CVD order on softwood lumber from Canada.1 Subsequently, Commerce received requests for an expedited review from 34 companies. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k), Commerce initiated an expedited review of the CVD order on softwood lumber from Canada for those companies that requested a review and published the Initiation Notice on March 8, 2018.2

    1See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 83 FR 347 (January 3, 2018).

    2See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Initiation of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 83 FR 9833 (March 8, 2018) (Initiation Notice).

    Between March 2 and May 7, 2018, Commerce received letters from 25 companies withdrawing their requests for an expedited review.3 For a listing of the companies that withdrew their expedited review requests, see Attachment to this notice.

    3 The withdrawal of expedited review request letters are available via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), which is available at http://access.trade.gov.

    Partial Rescission of the Expedited Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), Commerce will rescind the expedited review for any company that withdraws its request for an expedited review within 60 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation. The Initiation Notice for this expedited review was published on March 8, 2018.4 The withdrawals of review requests were timely filed within the 60-day deadline. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1), we are rescinding the expedited review of the CVD order on softwood lumber from Canada with respect to the 25 companies listed in the Attachment. The expedited review will continue with respect to all other firms for which a review was initiated.

    4See Initiation Notice.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3) and 351.214(k)(3).

    Dated: May 15, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Attachment

    Below is the list of companies that withdrew their requests for an expedited review of the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada.

    (1) Olympic Industries, Inc. (2) Hainesville Sawmill Ltd. (3) Ivor Forest Products Ltd. (4) Haida Forest Products Ltd. (5) Maibec Inc. (6) Canadian Bavarian Millwork and Lumber (7) Cedarline Industries Ltd. (8) Deep Cove Forest Products Inc. (9) Aquila Cedar Products Ltd. (10) Delco Forest Products Ltd. (11) Devon Lumber Co. Ltd. (12) H.J. Crabbe & Sons Ltd. (13) Marwood Ltd. (14) MP Atlantic Wood Ltd. (15) 752615 B.C. Ltd., Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc., Gillwood Lumber, dba Fraserview Cedar Products (16) Matériaux Blanchet Inc. (17) Central Cedar Ltd. (18) Leslie Forest Products Ltd. (19) Rielly Lumber Inc. (20) Antrim Cedar Corporation (21) Chaleur Sawmills LP (22) North Enderby Timber Ltd. (23) Pacific Lumber Remanufacturing Inc. (24) Power Wood Corp. (25) Canyon Lumber Company Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10779 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-983] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that certain companies covered by this administrative review made sales of drawn stainless steel sinks (drawn sinks) from the People's Republic of China (China) at less than normal value.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Janz or Ajay Menon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2972 and (202) 482-1993, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The final results of this administrative review cover two mandatory respondents, Feidong Import and Export Co., Ltd. (Feidong), and Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd (Zhaoshun). We continue to determine that neither mandatory respondent qualifies for a separate rate, and, therefore, both are considered part of the China-wide entity. Additionally, we continue to include two companies that failed to demonstrate their entitlement to a separate rate (i.e., Jiangmen Hongmao Trading Co., Ltd. (Hongmao) and Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Yuyao)) as part of the China-wide entity. We also continue to grant separate rates to the following companies which were not selected for individual examination: Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd. (New Star); KaiPing Dawn Plumbing Products, Inc. (KaiPing); Guangdong New Shichu Import and Export Company Limited (New Shichu); and Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Afa). Finally, we continue find that B&R Industries Limited (B&R); Xinhe Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd. (Xinhe); Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Superte); and Zhuhai KOHLER Kitchen & Bathroom Products Co., Ltd. (Zhuhai KOHLER) made no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR) April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 For events occurring after the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 Commence conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    1See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017, 83 FR 658 (January 5, 2018) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).

    2See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China,” issued concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now May 8, 2018.3

    3See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government.” dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order include drawn stainless steel sinks. Imports of subject merchandise are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.4

    4 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 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 https://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made no changes to our Preliminary Results.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily determined that B&R, Xinhe, Superte, and Zhuhai KOHLER had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.5 We received no comments since the issuance of the Preliminary Results on this issue. Thus, we continue to determine that B&R, Xinhe, Superte, and Zhuhai KOHLER had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and we intend to issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that are consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification for these final results of review.6

    5See Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 658.

    6See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65694-95 (October 24, 2011); see also “Assessment Rates” section of this notice.

    Separate Rate Respondents

    In the Preliminary Results, we found that evidence provided by KaiPing, New Shichu, New Star, and Ningbo Afa supported finding an absence of both de jure and de facto government control; therefore, we preliminarily granted a separate rate to each of these companies.7 We received no comments since the issuance of the Preliminary Results on this issue with respect to these companies. Therefore, Commerce continues to find that KaiPing, New Shichu, New Star, and Ningbo Afa meet the criteria for a separate rate.

    7See Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 658-659.

    With respect to Hongmao, Yuyao, and Zhaoshun, we preliminarily determined that these companies failed to establish their entitlement to a separate rate.8 We received no comments since the issuance of the Preliminary Results on this issue with respect to these companies. Therefore, Commerce continues to find that Hongmao, Yuyao, and Zhaoshun are not eligible for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity.

    8Id.

    With respect to Feidong, we preliminarily determined that Feidong failed to demonstrate an absence of de facto government control, and, thus, Commerce did not grant Feidong a separate rate.9 For these final results, we continue to find that Feidong failed to demonstrate an absence of de facto government control based on record evidence. Accordingly, we continue to find that Feidong is not eligible for a separate rate and is part of the China-wide entity. For further discussion of this issue, see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    9Id. at 659.

    Rate for Non-Examined Separate Rate Respondents

    In the Preliminary Results, consistent with our recent practice, we preliminarily assigned the non-selected companies a weighted-average dumping margin of 1.78 percent (i.e., the most recently assigned separate rate in this proceeding) 10 because we did not calculate any individual rates or assign a rate based on facts available during this review.11 No parties commented on the methodology for calculating this separate rate. Therefore, in these final results of the review, we continue to assign a rate of 1.78 percent for those companies that were not individually examined and are eligible for a separate rate. These companies, KaiPing, New Shichu, New Star, and Ningbo Afa, are also listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”

    10See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 82 FR 28639, 28640 (June 23, 2017).

    11See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 81 FR 62717 (September 12, 2016), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 10-11, unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 11431 (February 23, 2017).

    Final Results of the Review

    In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily found that Feidong, Hongmao, Yuyao, and Zhaoshun were not eligible for a separate rate, and therefore, were part of China-wide entity, subject to the China-wide entity rate of 76.45 percent.12 Because the status of these companies has not changed since the Preliminary Results, we continue to find that they are ineligible for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity and Commerce no longer considers the China-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,13 we did not conduct a review of the China-wide entity. Thus, the rate for the China-wide entity is not subject to change as a result of this review.

    12See Preliminary Results, and accompanying PDM, at 8-11.

    13See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    Final Results of the Review

    We continue to determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Guangong New Shichu Import and Export Company Limited 1.78 KaiPing Dawn Plumbing Products, Inc 1.78 Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd 1.78 Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd 1.78
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.

    For the above-listed respondents which were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review and qualified for a separate rate, we will instruct CBP to assess dumping duties at the rate of 1.78 percent.

    For Feidong, Hongmao, Yuyao, and Zhaoshun, because Commerce determined that these companies did not qualify for a separate rate, we will instruct CBP to assess dumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by these companies at a rate of 76.45 percent.

    For B&R, Superte, Xinhe, and Zhuhai KOHLER, because Commerce determined that these companies had no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries of subject merchandise from these companies will be liquidated at China-wide rate.14

    14 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed China and non-China exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all China exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for China-wide entity, which is 76.45 percent; and (4) for all non-China exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to China exporter(s) that supplied that non-China exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.

    Dated: May 8, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1. Feidong's Separate Rate Status V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-10697 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Deep Seabed Mining Exploration Licenses.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0145.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection)

    Number of Respondents: One.

    Average Hours per Response: Annual reports, 40 hours; extension applications, 100 hours (every five years, annualized to 20 hours).

    Burden Hours: 60.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    NOAA's regulations at 15 CFR 970 govern the issuing and monitoring of exploration licenses under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. Any persons seeking a license must submit certain information that allows NOAA to ensure the applicant meets the standards of the Act. Persons with licenses are required to conduct monitoring and make reports, and they may request revisions, transfers, or extensions of licenses.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: Annually and every five years.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10747 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Marine Debris Program Performance Progress Report AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Tom Barry at 240-533-0425 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of an existing information collection.

    The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) supports national and international efforts to research, prevent, and reduce the impacts of marine debris. The MDP is a centralized office within NOAA that coordinates and supports activities, both within the bureau and with other federal agencies, which address marine debris and its impacts. In addition to inter-agency coordination, the MDP uses partnerships with state and local agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, academia, and industry to investigate and solve the problems that stem from marine debris through research, prevention, and reduction activities, in order to protect and conserve our nation's marine environment and ensure navigation safety.

    The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.) as amended by the Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-213, Title VI, Sec. 603, 126 Stat. 1576, December 20, 2012) outlines three central program components for the MDP to undertake: (1) Mapping, identification, impact assessment, removal, and prevention; (2) reducing and preventing fishing gear loss; and (3) outreach to stakeholders and the general public. To address these components, the Marine Debris Act authorized the MDP to establish several competitive grant programs on marine debris research, prevention and removal that provide federal funding to non-federal applicants throughout the coastal United States and territories.

    The terms and conditions of the financial assistance awarded through these grant programs require regular progress reporting and communication of project accomplishments to MDP. Progress reports contain information related to, among other things, the overall short and long-term goals of the project, project methods and monitoring techniques, actual accomplishments (such as pounds of debris removed from an ecosystem, numbers of volunteers participating in a cleanup project, etc.), status of approved activities, challenges or potential roadblocks to future progress, and lessons learned. This information collection enables MDP to monitor and evaluate the activities supported by federal funds to ensure accountability to the public and to ensure that funds are used consistent with the purpose for which they were appropriated. It also ensures that reported information is standardized in such a way that allows for it to be meaningfully synthesized across a diverse set of projects and project types. MDP uses the information collected in a variety of ways to communicate with federal and non-federal partners and stakeholders on individual project and general program accomplishments.

    The MDP operates within the Office of Response and Restoration as part of NOAA's National Ocean Service.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents to this collection may choose to submit electronically or in paper format.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0718.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of an existing information collection).

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

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 70.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours (semi-annually).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,400.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

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

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

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10748 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Preliminary Case Study Assessing Economic Benefits of Marine Debris Reduction.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0756.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (revision of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 1,600.

    Average Hours per Response: On-site intercept, 2 minutes; full survey, 10 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 729.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for revision of a currently approved information collection. A pretest was conducted at one site, and the survey is now being extended to 4 sites.

    The National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Marine Debris Program is sponsoring this data collection. The Marine Debris Program was created under the 2006 “Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act” (33 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.) which was reauthorized in 2012 as the “Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012” (H.R. 1171) as part of the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act (H.R. 2838). Among other activities, the bill requires NOAA “. . . to address the adverse impacts of marine debris on the United States economy . . .” To that aim, the proposed data collection will support the goals of a larger study whose purpose is to develop a regional economic model to estimate the value to local economies of increased spending on recreation and tourism from the reduction or elimination of marine debris on beaches in seven coastal communities of the continental U.S. The data collection will consist of on-site sampling to generate a pool of respondents who will be sent a mail survey that asks questions related to beach attributes, local beach familiarity, number of beach trips taken, and ratings of marine debris encountered while on these trips. Onsite sampling will involve intercepting people at several beaches in each study area and asking them to participate in a mail survey. For those willing to take the mail survey, a brief onsite interview will ask the respondent's name and mailing address, as well as several demographic questions such as age and education. Those who do not agree to participate in the mail survey will only be asked the demographic questions, whether they participated in a single or multi-day trip, and zip code. A mail-survey mode will be used for the follow-up questionnaire. The mail survey instrument will combine a selection of questions from a previously OMB-approved survey instrument used in Orange County, California with new contingent behavior questions developed specifically for this study to determine the impact of the presence of marine debris on respondents' recreation choices. This data collection will determine the impact of marine debris on survey respondents' recreation choices at these seven coastal communities and represents the first component to be undertaken as part of the larger study.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10746 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on a proposed extension of an existing information collection; 0651-0080: Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0080: Generic Clearance comment” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-8123; or by email to [email protected] with “Paperwork” in the subject line.

    Additional information about this collection can be found at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Executive Order 12862 (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12862.pdf) directs Federal agencies to provide services to the public that matches or exceeds the best services available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that its programs are effective and meet its customers' needs, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereafter “USPTO” or “the Agency”) proposes the following generic clearance to collect qualitative feedback on its service delivery. Qualitative feedback refers to information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but is not in the form of statistical surveys which yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.

    Collecting feedback will allow for the Agency to have a pulse on customer satisfaction and adjust where necessary to meet and exceed expectations. This feedback collection will provide for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communication between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It also will enable the Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient and timely manner, in accordance with the USPTO's commitment to improving services. The information collected from Agency customers and stakeholders will help ensure users have an opportunity to convey their experience with USPTO programs. This collection will also provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations, which will allow the Agency to focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations may be necessary.

    Improving Agency programs requires ongoing assessment. The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services. Based on feedback received, the Agency will identify operational changes needed to improve programs and services. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. The Agency is committed to hearing feedback from its customers. Responses will be assessed to identify service areas in need of improvement. If this information is not collected, then the Agency will miss opportunities to obtain vital feedback from its customers and stakeholders on ways to improve their program and services.

    The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

    • The collection is voluntary;

    • The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

    • The collection is noncontroversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;

    • Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;

    • Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;

    • Information gathered will only be used internally for general program and service improvement as well as program administrative purposes, and is not intended for release outside the Agency;

    • Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

    • Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections are not designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results nor used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

    As a general matter, these information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature.

    II. Method of Collection

    The USPTO uses surveys, focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and usability testing to collect feedback from its customers. These may be conducted via telephone, through electronic means, or in person. The USPTO expects customers will respond to the questionnaires and surveys primarily through electronic means, and to the focus groups, interviews, and usability testing primarily in person.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0080.

    IC Instruments and Forms: The individual instruments in this collection, as well as their associated forms, are listed in the table below.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 143,000 responses per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: Between 3 minutes (0.05 hours) and 120 minutes (2 hours), depending on the instruments used and the item being completed.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 18,475 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden: $4,387,986.75. The USPTO expects that attorneys, paralegals and pro se applicants will complete these applications. The professional hourly rate for attorneys is $438, and the hourly rates for paralegals and pro se applicants are $145 and $30, respectively. The average of the combined respondent rate is $204.33. Using this blended hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $4,387,986.75 per year.

    IC No. Information collection item Estimated
  • time for
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • annual burden
  • hours
  • Rate
  • (S/hr)
  • (a) (b) (a) x (b) = (c) 1 Customer Surveys 5 40,000 3,333.33 $204.33 2 Questionnaires/Customer Comment Cards/Complaint Forms 5 600 50.00 $204.33 3 Focus Groups/Interviews 15 500 125.00 $204.33 4 Small Discussion Groups 120 400 800.00 $204.33 5 Usability Tests (In-person observation (i.e., Website/Software) 30 1,000 500.00 $204.33 6 ForeSee Surveys (USPTO.GOV) 10 100,000 16,666.67 $204.33 Total (Three-Year Period) 143,000
  • (429,000)
  • 18,475
  • (55,425)
  • Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden: $0. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, postage, recordkeeping costs, or any other fees associated with this information collection.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

    (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10768 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Proposed Collection; Comment Request; “Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees” AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed extension of an existing information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0016 Rules for Patent Maintenance Fees” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313- 1450; by telephone at 571-272-7728; or by email at [email protected] with “Paperwork” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Under 35 U.S.C. § 41 and 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(h) and 1.362-1.378, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) charges fees for maintaining in force all utility patents based on applications filed on or after December 12, 1980. Payment of these maintenance fees is due at 31/2, 71/2, and 111/2 years after the date the patent was granted. If the USPTO does not receive payment of the appropriate maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge within a grace period of six months following each of the above due dates (at 4, 8, or 12 years after the date of grant), the patent will expire at that time. After a patent expires, it is no longer enforceable. Maintenance fees are not required for design, plant, or reissue patents if the patent being reissued did not require maintenance fees.

    Payments of maintenance fees that are submitted during the six-month grace period before patent expiration must include the appropriate surcharge as indicated by 37 CFR 1.20(h). Submissions of maintenance fee payments and surcharges must include the relevant patent number and the corresponding United States application number in order to identify the correct patent and ensure proper crediting of the fee being paid.

    If the USPTO refuses to accept and record a maintenance fee payment that was submitted prior to the expiration of a patent, the patentee may petition the Director to accept and record the maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.377. This petition must be accompanied by the fee indicated in 37 CFR 1.17(g), which may be refunded if it is determined that the refusal to accept the maintenance fee was due to an error by the USPTO.

    If a patent has expired due to nonpayment of a maintenance fee, the patentee may petition the Director to accept a delayed payment of the maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.378. The Director may accept the payment of a maintenance fee after the expiration of the patent if the petitioner shows to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in payment was unintentional. Petitions to accept unintentionally delayed payment must also be accompanied by the required maintenance fee and the petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m). If the Director accepts the maintenance fee payment upon petition, then the patent is reinstated. If the USPTO denies a petition to accept delayed payment of a maintenance fee in an expired patent, the patentee may petition the Director to reconsider that decision under 37 CFR 1.378(d).

    The rules of practice (37 CFR 1.33(d) and 1.363) permit applicants, patentees, assignees, or their representatives of record to specify a “fee address” for correspondence related to maintenance fees that is separate from the correspondence address associated with a patent or application. A fee address must be an address that is associated with a USPTO customer number. Customer numbers may be requested by using the Request for Customer Number Form (PTO/SB/125), which is covered under OMB control number 0651-0035. Maintaining a correct and updated address is necessary so that fee-related correspondence from the USPTO will be properly received by the applicant, patentee, assignee, or authorized representative. If a separate fee address is not specified for a patent or application, the USPTO will direct fee-related correspondence to the correspondence address of record.

    The USPTO offers forms to assist the public with providing information covered by this collection, including the information necessary to submit a patent maintenance fee payment (PTO/SB/45) and to designate or change a fee address (PTO/SB/47). The USPTO offers two different versions of the petition to accept unintentionally delayed payment of maintenance fee in an expired patent under 37 CFR 1.378(b). In addition to the basic PDF that may be filled out electronically and then printed and mailed (or submitted online) (Form PTO/SB/66), the USPTO offers a Web-based ePetition, which the public can complete on a computer using a Web browser and then click a submit button to send the information to the USPTO over the internet (ePetition). No form is associated with the petition to the Director to accept and record the maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.377, or the petition the Director to reconsider a decision to refuse to accept a delayed payment in an expired patent under 37 CFR 1.378(d). Both may be submitted in paper and electronic format.

    Customers may submit maintenance fee payments and surcharges incurred during the six-month grace period before patent expiration by using the Maintenance Fee Transmittal Form (PTO/SB/45) or by paying online through the USPTO website. However, to pay a maintenance fee after patent expiration, the maintenance fee payment and the petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m) must be filed together with a petition to accept unintentionally delayed payment. The USPTO accepts online maintenance fee payments by credit card, deposit account, or electronic funds transfer (EFT). Otherwise, non-electronic payments may be made by check, credit card, or deposit account.

    II. Method of Collection

    By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0016.

    IC Instruments: The individual instruments in this collection, as well as their associated forms, are listed in the table below.

    IC # Form and function Form # 1 Maintenance Fee Transmittal Form, electronic and paper PTO/SB/45. 2 Electronic Maintenance Fee Form, electronic No Form Associated. 3 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(b)), electronic and paper PTO/SB/66. 4 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(b))—ePetition, electronic ePetition. 5 Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377), electronic and paper No Form Associated. 6 Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(d)), electronic and paper No Form Associated. 7 “Fee Address” Indication Form, electronic and paper PTO/SB/47.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 533,910 responses per year. The USPTO estimates that approximately 25% of these responses will be from small entities.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 20 seconds (0.006 hours) to 8 hours to submit the information in this collection, including the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or petition, and submit the completed request to the USPTO. The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 13,878.89 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden (Hourly): $5,117,750.56. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by both attorneys and paralegals. The professional hourly rate for attorneys is $438 and the professional hourly rate for paraprofessionals is $145. These rates are established by estimates in the 2017 Report on the Economic Survey, published by the Committee on Economics of Legal Practice of the American Intellectual Property Law Association and the 2017 National Utilization and Compensation Survey published by the National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA). Therefore, the estimated total respondent cost burden for this collection will be approximately $5,117,750.56 per year.

    IC # Item Minutes Responses
  • (yr)
  • Burden
  • (hrs/yr)
  • Rate
  • ($/hr)
  • Total cost
  • ($/yr)
  • (a) (b) (c)(a × b)/60 (d) (e)(c × d) 1 Maintenance Fee Transmittal Transactions (PTO/SB/45) 5 11,000 916.67 $145.00 $132,916.67 2 Electronic Maintenance Fee Transactions 0.33 425,500 2,363.89 145.00 342,763.89 3 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(b)) (PTO/SB/66) 60 300 300 438.00 131,400.00 4 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(b)) (PTO/SB/66)—ePetition 60 1,500 1,500 438.00 657,000.00 5 Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377) 240 10 40 438.00 17,520.00 6 Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(d)) 480 100 800 438.00 350,400.00 7 “Fee Address” Indication Form (PTO/SB/47) 5 95,500 9,137.5 145.00 3,485,750.00 Totals 533,910 13,878.89 5,117,750.56

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden (Non-Hourly): $1,209,457,959.50. This information collection has annual (non-hour) cost burden in the form of filing fees and postage costs.

    In this collection there are filing fees associated with the maintenance of patents, which are listed in the table below.

    IC # Item Respondents Filing fee Burden (a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c)
  • ($)
  • 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 3.5 Years (large entity) 188,800 $1,600.00 *$302,080,000.00 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 3.5 Years (small entity) 40,800 800.00 32,640,000.00 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 3.5 Years (micro entity) 2,600 400.00 1,040,000.00 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 7.5 Years (large entity) 96,000 3,600.00 345,600,000.00 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 7.5 Years (small entity) 16,200 1,800.00 29,160,000.00 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 7.5 Years (micro entity) 900 900.00 810,000.00 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 11.5 Years (large entity) 61,700 7,400.00 456,580,000.00 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 11.5 Years (small entity) 9,800 3,700.00 36,260,000.00 1 For Maintaining an Original or Any Reissue Patent, Due at 11.5 Years (micro entity) 500 1,850.00 925,000.00 1 Surcharge—3.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (large entity) 3,500 160.00 560,000.00 1 Surcharge—3.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (small entity) 6,200 80.00 496,000.00 1 Surcharge—3.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (micro entity) 700 40.00 28,000.00 1 Surcharge—7.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (large entity) 2,000 160.00 320,000.00 1 Surcharge—7.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (small entity) 2,500 80.00 200,000.00 1 Surcharge—7.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (micro entity) 300 40.00 12,000.00 1 Surcharge—11.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (large entity) 2,200 160.00 352,000.00 1 Surcharge—11.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (small entity) 1,700 80.00 136,000.00 1 Surcharge—11.5 year—Late Payment Within 6 Months (micro entity) 200 40.00 8,000.00 3 Petition for the Delayed Payment of the Fee for Maintaining a Patent in Force (large entity) 500 2,000.00 1,000,000.00 3 Petition for the Delayed Payment of the Fee for Maintaining a Patent in Force (small entity) 1,200 1,000.00 1,200,000.00 3 Petition for the Delayed Payment of the Fee for Maintaining a Patent in Force (micro entity) 100 500.00 50,000.00 Totals 438,400 1,209,457,000.00

    The public may submit the forms and petitions in this collection to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. If the submission is sent by first-class mail, the public may also include a signed certification of the date of mailing in order to receive credit for timely filing. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 50 cents and that approximately 1,919 submissions per year may be mailed to the USPTO, for a total postage cost of $959.50 per year.

    IC # Item Responses Postage cost Total non-hour
  • cost burden
  • (postage)
  • (a) (b) (c)(a) × (b) 3 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(b)) 6 $0.50 $3.00 5 Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377) 1 0.50 0.50 6 Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(d)) 2 0.50 1.00 7 “Fee Address” Indication Form 1,910 0.50 955.00 Totals 1,919 959.50

    The total (non-hour) respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of filing fees and postage costs is estimated to be $1,209,457,959.50 per year.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

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

    Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, USPTO.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10690 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is establishing a new system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974: CFTC-52, Training Records. New CFTC-52 addresses information collected from individuals who participate in or assist with CFTC training.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2018. This action will be effective without further notice on June 20, 2018, unless revised pursuant to comments received.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments to this notice by any of the following methods:

    Agency website, via its Comments Online process: https://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the website.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Comments may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations, 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or all of a submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the notice will be retained in the comment file, will be considered as required under all applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chief Privacy Officer, [email protected], Office of the Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Training Records

    The Training Records system contains information about individuals who participate in or assist with CFTC training. Collection of this information is necessary to facilitate, track, and report on administrative and mission-related training provided by CFTC.

    II. The Privacy Act

    Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, a “system of records” is defined as any group of records under the control of a federal government agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act establishes the means by which government agencies must collect, maintain, and use personally identifiable information associated with an individual in a government system of records.

    Each government agency is required to publish a notice in the Federal Register of a system of records in which the agency identifies and describes each system of records it maintains, the reasons why the agency uses the personally identifying information therein, the routine uses for which the agency will disclose such information outside the agency, and how individuals may exercise their rights under the Privacy Act to determine if the system contains information about them.

    SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER

    Training Records; CFTC-52.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Records for this system are stored in a vendor Government Cloud based Learning Management Solution, 1601 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 600S, Santa Monica, CA 90404 and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    Office of Executive Director (OED), Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    The collection of this information is authorized by or under 5 U.S.C. 4103; 5 CFR part 410; 5 CFR part 412; Public Law 107-347, E-Government Act of 2002; Executive Order 11348—Providing for the further training of Government employees; Executive Order 13111—Using Technology to Improve Training Technologies for Federal Government Employees.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    This records system will collect and document CFTC training given to CFTC employees, contractors, and others who are provided CFTC training. This system will provide CFTC with a means to track training registrations, scheduling, scores, completions, and other training metrics to assess the effectiveness of training, identify patterns, respond to requests for information related to the training of CFTC personnel and other individuals, and facilitate the compilation of statistical information about training.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Current and former employees of the CFTC, contractors, consultants, interns, any individual who participated in or assisted with a training program including instructors, course developers, observers, and interpreters.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    The system of records includes information that may contain: Staff member name (First, Middle Initial, and Last Name), CFTC generated employee number, CFTC email address, division, office and/or branch, geographic location, position/title, job series, employment type (Federal employee, contractor, consultant, intern, or volunteer), participation/transaction data, including training sessions begun or completed by staff member, percentage of completion, assessments scores from any quizzes in training sessions, and length of time required to complete training sessions.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Information in this system originates from CFTC or is obtained directly from the individual who is the subject of these records.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    These records and information in these records may be used:

    (a) To disclose information to contractors, grantees, volunteers, experts, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or job for the Federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function;

    (b) To disclose information to Congress upon its request, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction, pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;

    (c) To disclose information to Federal, State, local, territorial, Tribal, or foreign agencies for use in meeting their statutory or regulatory requirements;

    (d) To disclose to a Federal agency in response to its request in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, the issuance of a license, or a grant or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information may be relevant to the requesting agency's decision on the matter;

    (e) To disclose to a prospective employer in response to its request in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, to the extent that the information is believed to be relevant to the prospective employer's decision in the matter;

    (f) To disclose to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; or

    (g) To disclose to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    The Training Records system of records stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities. Electronic records are stored on the Learning Management System's secure servers or on the Commission's secure network and other electronic media as needed, such as encrypted hard drives and back-up media. Paper records are stored in secured facilities.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    Certain information covered by this system of records may be retrieved by employee name, or employee id number.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    Records for this system will be maintained in accordance with all applicable records schedules approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) including GRS 2.6, items 010, 020, 030 and GRS 2.7, item 030. All approved records schedules can be found at http://www.cftc.gov, or http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/grs.html.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    Records are protected from unauthorized access and improper use through administrative, technical, and physical security measures. Administrative safeguards include agency-wide Rules of Behavior, agency-wide procedures for safeguarding personally identifiable information, and required annual privacy and security training. Technical security measures within CFTC include restrictions on computer access to authorized individuals who have a legitimate need-to-know the information; required use of strong passwords that are frequently changed; multi-factor authentication for remote access and access to many CFTC network components; use of encryption for certain data types and transfers; firewalls and intrusion detection applications; and regular review of security procedures and best practices to enhance security. Physical safeguards include restrictions on building access to authorized individuals, 24-hour security guard service, and maintenance of records in lockable offices and filing cabinets.

    RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves or seeking access to records about themselves in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.3 for full details on what to include in Privacy Act access request.

    CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES:

    Individuals contesting the content of records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.8 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act amendment request.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking notification of any records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.3 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act notification request.

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    HISTORY:

    None.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2018, by the Commission. Robert Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10773 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2018-0020] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Modified Systems of Record.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) gives notice of the establishment of a modified Privacy Act System of Records.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than June 20, 2018. This Modification will be effective upon publication in today's Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: [email protected] or http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Claire Stapleton, Chief Privacy Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Claire Stapleton, Chief Privacy Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

    Comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by telephoning (202) 435-7220. All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Claire Stapleton, Chief Privacy Officer, at (202) 435-7220. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau revises each of its Privacy Act System of Records Notices contained in its inventory of record systems.

    The Bureau modifies the purpose(s) for which each system is maintained to clarify that the information in each Bureau system will be used to ensure quality control, performance, and improve management processes. This clarification will be added to the purpose section of each Bureau system of record notice published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register citation for all Bureau system of records notices can be found in the History section of this Notice of a Modified System of Records.

    The Bureau also modifies the list of routine uses of records maintained in each Bureau system in accordance with Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 2017 guidance to assist Federal agencies prepare for and respond to a breach of personally identifiable information. The first routine use in each Bureau system of records notice is revised to mirror the text presented in the first routine use below. The second routine use presented below is being added to each Bureau system of records notice; and, the routine uses in each system of records are renumbered to account for this new routine use. These revisions will be added to the section that lists the routine uses for records in each Bureau system of records notice published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register citation for all Bureau system of records notices can be found in the History section of this Notice of a Modified System of Records.

    The report of the modified systems of records has been submitted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to OMB Circular A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act” and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r).

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Claire Stapleton, Chief Privacy Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. SYSTEM NAMES AND NUMBERS

    CFPB.001 CFPB Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act System; CFPB.002 CFPB Depository Institution Supervision Database; CFPB.003 CFPB Non-depository Supervision Database; CFPB.004 CFPB Enforcement Database; CFPB.005 CFPB Consumer Response System; CFPB.006 Social Networks and Citizen Engagement System; CFPB.007 CFPB Directory Database; CFPB.008 Transit Subsidy Program; CFPB.009 Employee Administrative Records System; CFPB.010 Ombudsman System; CFPB.011 Correspondence Tracking System; CFPB.013 External Contact Database; CFPB.014 Direct Registration and User Management System; CFPB.015 CFPB Ethics Program Records; CFPB.016 CFPB Advisory Boards and Committees; CFPB.017 CFPB Small Business Review Panels and Cost of Credit Consultations; CFPB.018 Litigation Files; CFPB.019 Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry; CFPB.020 CFPB Site Badge and Visitor Management Systems; CFPB.021 CFPB Consumer Education and Engagement Records; CFPB.022 Market and Consumer Research Records; CFPB.023 CFPB Prize Competitions Program Records; CFPB.025 Civil Penalty Fund and Bureau-Administered Redress Program Records; CFPB.026 Biographies.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Bureau information systems do not contain any classified information or data.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    The location of a Bureau system can be found by reviewing the system of records notice published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register citation for all Bureau system of records notices can be found in the History section of this Notice of a Modified System of Records.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    The system manager of a Bureau system can be found by reviewing the system of records notice published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register citation for all Bureau system of records notices can be found in the History section of this Notice of a Modified System of Records.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    The information collected for each system will also be used for administrative purposes to ensure quality control, performance, and improve management processes.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    These records may be disclosed in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-17-12, “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information,” to:

    (1) appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) CFPB suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (b) CFPB has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed there is a risk of harm to individuals, CFPB (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government or national security; and (b) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with CFPB's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    (2) another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the CFPB determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.

    HISTORY:

    79 FR 78837 (Dec. 31, 2014) (CFPB.001 CFPB Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act System); 76 FR 45765 (Aug. 1, 2011) (CFPB.002 CFPB Depository Institution Supervision Database); 76 FR 45761 (Aug. 1, 2011) (CFPB.003 CFPB Non-depository Supervision Database); 76 FR 45757 (Aug. 1, 2011) (CFPB.004 CFPB Enforcement Database); 79 FR 21440 (Apr. 16, 2014) (CFPB.005 CFPB Consumer Response System); 78 FR 50041 (Aug. 16, 2013) (CFPB.006 Social Networks and Citizen Engagement System); 78 FR 54630 (Sept. 5, 2013) (CFPB.007 CFPB Directory Database); 76 FR 68395 (Nov. 4, 2011) (CFPB.008 CFPB Transit Subsidy Program); 81 FR 27104 (May 5, 2016) (CFPB.009 Employee Administrative Records System); 79 FR 6192 (Feb. 3, 2014) (CFPB.010 Ombudsman System); 78 FR 76286 (Dec. 17, 2013) (CFPB.011 Correspondence Tracking System); 77 FR 59386 (Sept. 27, 2012) (CFPB.013 CFPB External Contact Database); 77 FR 24185 (Apr. 23, 2012) (CFPB.014 Direct Registration and User Management System); 77 FR 1049 (Jan. 9, 2012) (CFPB.015 CFPB Ethics Program Records); 78 FR 25428 (May 1, 2013) (CFPB.016 CFPB Advisory Boards and Committees); 77 FR 24183 (Apr. 23, 2012) (CFPB.017 CFPB Small Business Review Panels and Cost of Credit Consultations); 77 FR 27446 (May 10, 2012) (CFPB.018 Litigation Files); 77 FR 35359 (June 13, 2012) (CFPB.019 Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry); 77 FR 56623 (Sept. 13, 2012) (CFPB.020 CFPB Site Badge and Visitor Management Systems); 79 FR 78839 (Dec. 31, 2014) (CFPB.021 CFPB Consumer Education and Engagement Records); 77 FR 67802 (Nov. 14, 2012) (CFPB.022 Market and Consumer Research Records); 77 FR 64962 (Oct. 24, 2012) (CFPB.023 CFPB Prize Competitions Program Records); 78 FR 34991 (June 11, 2013) (CFPB.025 Civil Penalty Fund and Bureau-Administered Redress Program Records); 78 FR 69834 (Nov. 21, 2013) (CFPB.026 Biographies).

    [FR Doc. 2018-10809 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2018-0002] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—CPSC Playground Surfaces Survey AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announces that CPSC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a new proposed collection of information by the agency on a survey that will assess children's potential exposure to playground surfaces, including recycled tire material. In the Federal Register of February 5, 2018 (83 FR 5073), CPSC published a notice announcing the agency's intent to seek approval of this collection of information. CPSC received several comments in response to that notice. After review and consideration of the comments, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to the OMB a request for approval of this collection of information.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this request for approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments about this request by email: [email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881.

    Comments by mail should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2018-0002.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bretford Griffin, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7037, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Comments

    On February 5, 2018, the CPSC published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the agency's intent to seek approval of a new collection of information on a CPSC Playground Surfaces Survey that will assess children's potential exposure to playground surfaces, including recycled tire material or “tire crumb” rubber (83 FR 5073). CPSC received five comments in response to that notice. Two commenters did not address the survey or any issues related to the survey. These commenters raised concerns about smart phones and bullying. One commenter supported the information collection. Two commenters requested that the CPSC analyze peer-reviewed research on the safety of rubber mulch, apply scientific methodologies to the research, and identify the constituents found in recycled rubber at acceptable risk levels.

    The CPSC Playground Surfaces Survey will apply scientific survey methodologies to provide national estimates for the exposure of children less than 6 years old to playground surfaces, including, but not limited to, rubber mulch. The survey will not assess the safety of rubber mulch or whether children are at an increased health risk if they play on rubber mulch. Rather, the survey will help CPSC gain a better understanding of children's potential exposures to playground surfaces, including surfaces made from recycled tires, based on children's play behaviors on playgrounds. Potential exposures include skin contact, ingestion, and contact through open wounds.

    The CPSC, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) are working together on the Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds (Plan). The four components of the Plan and the agencies' responsibilities are as follows:

    • Literature Review/Gap Analysis (EPA and CDC/ATSDR) • Tire Crumb Characterization (EPA and CDC/ATSDR) • Exposure Characterization Study (EPA and CDC/ATSDR) • Playground Surfaces Study (CPSC)

    The EPA and the CDC/ATSDR are charged with assessing the existence, if any, of potentially hazardous chemicals or substances in recycled tire materials on athletic playing fields. Accordingly, EPA and CDC/ATSDR will be responsible for analyzing and considering the appropriate scientific methodologies and peer reviewed research in any hazard analysis. CPSC is tasked with research to establish the level of risk and the extent to which children may be exposed to potential hazard(s) related to recycled rubber on playgrounds. The CPSC Playground Surfaces Survey will help to inform CPSC staff's analysis regarding children's potential risk of exposure, and the extent of the exposure from playground surfaces derived from recycled tires, but the survey will not address any potential hazards.

    Accordingly, after consideration of these comments, CPSC will request approval of this collection of information from OMB.

    B. Survey

    CPSC has contracted with the Fors Marsh Group, LLC (FMG) to design the CPSC Playground Surfaces Survey. SSRS, LLC will program and administer the survey. Trained interviewers will dial and conduct the survey using a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) system, in a secure location, to which only authorized personnel have access. Participants will be recruited by re-contacting respondents of the SSRS Omnibus. The SSRS Omnibus is a national, weekly, dual-frame bilingual RDD telephone survey designed to meet standards of quality associated with custom research studies. Each weekly wave of the SSRS Omnibus consists of 1,000 interviews; 600 interviews are obtained with respondents on their cell phones, and approximately 35 interviews are completed in Spanish. The topic of the surveys varies week to week. Interviewers will conduct follow-up re-contacts to target specific populations on certain issues. SSRS will use existing data from this sample source to pre-screen individuals in the target population (parents of children who are currently 0-5 years old). These targeted households will be re-contacted to administer the proposed survey. Participants will be re-screened at the beginning of the call to make sure that they meet the target criteria and to identify which subset of questions they will be given for the survey. Participation is voluntary and all responses will be kept confidential.

    Each telephone interview will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. CPSC estimates the number of respondents to be 2,200. CPSC estimates the total annual burden hours for respondents to be 726 hours. The monetized hourly cost is $35.28, as defined by the average total hourly cost to employers for employee compensation for employees across all occupations as of June 2017, reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accordingly, CPSC estimates the total annual cost burden to all respondents to be $25,613 (726 hours × $35.28 = $25,613.28). The total cost to the federal government for the contract to design and conduct the survey issued to FMG under contract number CPSC-D-16-0002 is $243,593.

    Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10736 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Intended Disinterment AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intended disinterment.

    SUMMARY:

    Army National Military Cemeteries (ANMC) is honoring the requests of four families to disinter the human remains of four Native American students from the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The decedent names are Little Plume (aka Hayes Vanderbilt Friday), George Ell (aka George Eli), Herbert Little Hawk (aka Herbert J. Littlehawk), and Her Pipe Woman (aka as Dora Brave Bull). These students died in the 1880s and 1890s while attending the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. At the request of the closest living relative for each decedent, ANMC will disinter, transfer custody, transport, and reinter the remains in private cemeteries chosen by the families. This disinterment will be conducted in accordance with Army Regulation 210-190. This is not a Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) action because the remains are not part of a collection as they are interred in graves that are individually marked at the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery.

    DATES:

    The disinterment is scheduled to begin on June 14, 2018. Transportation to and re-interment in private cemeteries will take place as soon as practical after the disinterment. If other living relatives object to the disinterment of these remains, please provide written objection to Lieutenant Colonel Brent Kauffman at the email address listed below prior to June 7, 2018. Such objections may delay the disinterment for the decedent in question.

    ADDRESSES:

    Objections from family members and public comments can be mailed to Lieutenant Colonel Brent Kauffman, ANMC Project Manager, 1 Memorial Avenue, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211 or emailed to [email protected] (preferred).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Colonel Brent Kauffman, ANMC Project Manager at the email address listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additional information related to Native Americans buried at the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery can be found at http://www.belvoir.army.mil/ANMC/ReturnOfNativeAmericanRemains.asp.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10772 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0029] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to add a new system of records, Spouse Education and Career Opportunities (SECO) Program, DPR 46 DoD. This program makes available the resources and tools to help military spouses with career exploration and discovery, career education and training, employment readiness, and career connections at any point within the military spouse's career. The records allow the spouse to build a profile including their contact information, education, and employment data. This allows the individual to save information over time in order to easily prepopulate it into tools such as resume builders and career and education planning resources. Records may also be used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness and conducting research.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before June 20, 2018. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPD2), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) Spouse Education and Career Opportunities (SECO) Program (DPR 46 DoD) is the primary source of education, career and employment counseling for all military spouses seeking post-secondary education, training, licenses and credentials necessary for portable career employment. The SECO program delivers the resources and tools necessary to assist spouses of service members with career exploration/discovery, career education and training, employment readiness, and career connections at any point within the military spouse's career. It is imperative the DoD collect data to ensure the SECO program meets its overarching goal of increasing employment opportunities for military spouses. The DoD requires the information in the proposed collection for program planning and management purposes. Collected information will ensure the SECO program can assemble relevant metrics and make determinations of program viability and improvement. Additionally, the data collected is utilized to build a spouse profile allowing information to be saved over time and to prepopulate information into tools such as resume builders and career and education planning resources.

    This program complies with 10 U.S.C. 1784, Employment Opportunities for Military Spouses and 10 U.S.C. 1784a, Education and Training Opportunities for Military Spouses to Expand Employment and Portable Career Opportunities by requiring the DoD to assist military spouses with education, training, and career opportunities.

    Military spouses may learn about the SECO program in various ways including through the Military OneSource program, installation service providers, from other military spouses and via general online searches. Once aware of the SECO program, a military spouse can access it by simply going online to the following URL: https://myseco.militaryonesource.mil. Users are able to review resources at that time or select to log in to create an account.

    All information is collected from military spouses online via the SECO system and utilized to provide military spouses with education and employment resources tailored to their specific needs. Military spouse eligibility is verified through the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting Systems (DEERS).

    Once logged in, military spouses may opt in to receive email notifications from their account to remind them of outstanding tasks (e.g. completing their profile) and to receive updates on upcoming events and news. Spouses opting into email notifications receive them once per month.

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division website at http://defense.gov/privacy.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on April 26, 2018, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to Section 6 to OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER

    Spouse Education and Career Opportunities (SECO) Program, DPR 46 DoD.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Enterprise Computing Centers (DECC) Montgomery, 401 East Moore Drive, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36114-3000.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    Director, Office of Family Readiness Policy (OFRP) or SECO Program Manager, Military Community and Family Policy (MC&FP), 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300; email: [email protected], phone: 571-372-5314.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 10 U.S.C. 1144, Employment Assistance, Job Training Assistance, and Other Transitional Services: Department Of Labor; 10 U.S.C. 1784, Employment opportunities for military spouses; 10 U.S.C. 1784a, Education and training opportunities for military spouses to expand employment and portable career opportunities; and DoD Instruction 1342.22, Military Family Readiness.

    PURPOSE OF THE SYSTEM:

    The SECO Program is the primary source of education, career and employment counseling for all military spouses. The SECO website delivers the resources and tools necessary to assist military spouses with career exploration/discovery, career education and training, employment readiness, and career connections at any point within the military spouse's career.

    Records may also be used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness and conducting research.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Participating spouses of members of the United States Armed Forces (military spouses).

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Military spouse's name, DoD ID number, date of birth, gender, mailing and home address, years as military spouse, personal email address, personal cell and home telephone number, work experience, education, certificates and licenses, skills, abilities, competencies, and other information related to the individual concerning career networking providers, affiliations, and materials; Military sponsor's name, pay grade, current projected date of separation, branch of service, service eligibility, and time in service.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The individual, Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS).

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    a. To civilian educational institutions where the participant is enrolled, for the purposes of ensuring correct enrollment and billing information.

    b. To the Department of Education, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Justice for the purpose of complying with E.O. 13607, Establishing Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members.

    c. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.

    d. To the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.

    e. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    f. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.

    g. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    h. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.

    i. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the DoD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    j. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    Records are maintained in electronic storage media, in accordance with the safeguards mentioned below.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    Information in this system may be retrieved by name or DoD ID number.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    These records are retained and disposed of consistent with the National Archives and Records Administration approved records disposition schedule (General Records Schedule 3.2, Item 30). User accounts are deleted after 3 consecutive years of inactivity.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    Unauthorized access to records is low due to SECO being hosted on a DoD Risk Management Framework life-cycle cybersecurity infrastructure. Electronic records are maintained on a military installation in a secure building in a controlled area accessible only to authorized personnel. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks and passwords and administrative procedures which are changed periodically. The system is designed with access controls, comprehensive intrusion detection, and virus protection. Access to personally identifiable information is role based and restricted to those requiring the data in the performance of their official duties and upon completing annual information assurance and privacy training. Records are encrypted during transmission to protect session information and at rest. Encrypted random tokens are implemented to protect against session hijacking attempts.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this record system should address inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should include the individual's full name, DoD ID number, current address, and telephone number and this system of records notice number.

    In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized signature or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rules for accessing records and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this record system should address inquiries to the Director, Office of Family Readiness Policy (OFRP) or SECO Program Manager, Military Community and Family Policy (MC&FP), 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria VA 22350-2300.

    Signed, written requests should include the individual's full name, DoD ID number, current address, and telephone number.

    In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized signature or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    HISTORY:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2018-10770 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2018-OS-0025] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24 Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Office of Military Compensation Policy, ATTN: Mr. Andrew Corso, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1500, or call (703) 693-1059.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Data for Payment of Retired Personnel; DD Form 2656; OMB Control Number 0704-0569.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain applicable retirement information from Uniformed Service members and allow those members to make certain retired pay and survivor annuity elections prior to retirement from service or prior to reaching eligibility to receive retired pay. The form will also allow eligible members covered by the Blended Retirement System to make a voluntary election of a partial lump sum of retired pay, as required by Section 1415 of title 10, United States Code.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 16,700.

    Number of Respondents: 66,800.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 66,800.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Frequency: As required.

    Every member of the Uniformed Services who retires or reaches the age of eligibility to begin receiving retired pay, in the case of members of the Reserves and National Guard, will voluntarily complete this form to request retired pay, designate beneficiaries, and make a Survivor Benefit Plan election. In an average calendar year, approximately 66,800 members of the Uniformed Service will complete this form. The spouses of retiring members of the Uniformed Services are only required to complete Part V of this form if the Service member declines or reduces his or her level of under the Survivor Benefit Plan.

    Dated: May 9, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10745 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018—Emergency Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education Program AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 3, 2018, we published in the Federal Register a notice inviting pre-applications and applications for the fiscal year (FY) 2018 Emergency Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.938T. This notice corrects the Application and Submission Instructions.

    DATES:

    The correction is applicable May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beatriz Ceja, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 260-04, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 453-6239. Email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

    On May 3, 2018, we published in the Federal Register a notice inviting pre-applications and applications for new awards for the FY 2018 Emergency Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education Program (CFDA number 84.938T) (83 FR 19550). This notice corrects the Application and Submission Instructions section of that document by clarifying that applications are to be submitted via email, and not through Grants.gov.

    Correction

    In FR Doc. 2018-09417, we are revising the sentence beginning on page 19551 in the middle column, at line 17 from the top of the page, under the heading “Content and Form of Application Submission” to delete the words “through Grants.gov” and insert in their place “at [email protected]”.

    Program Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Public Law 115-123.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the pre-application and the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You also may access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Frank T. Brogan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10799 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs AGENCY:

    Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2019 for the Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers 84.305A, 84.305C, 84.305D, 84.305H, 84.305L, 84.324A, 84.324B, 84.324L, and 84.324N.

    DATES:

    The dates when applications are available and the deadlines for transmittal of applications invited under this notice are indicated in the chart at the end of this notice and in the Requests for Applications (RFAs) that are posted at the following websites: https://ies.ed.gov/funding, https://www.ed.gov/programs/edresearch/index.html, and https://www.ed.gov/programs/specialedresearch/index.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The contact person associated with a particular research competition is listed in the chart at the end of this notice, as well as in the relevant RFA and application package.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: In awarding these grants, the Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) intends to provide national leadership in expanding fundamental knowledge and understanding of (1) developmental and school readiness outcomes for infants and toddlers with or at risk for a disability, (2) education outcomes for all students from early childhood education through postsecondary and adult education, and (3) employment and wage outcomes when relevant (such as for students who engaged in career and technical, postsecondary, or adult education). The Institute's research grant programs are designed to provide interested individuals and the general public with reliable and valid information about education practices that support learning and improve academic achievement and access to education opportunities for all students. These interested individuals include parents, educators, students, researchers, and policymakers. In carrying out its grant programs, the Institute provides support for programs of research in areas of demonstrated national need.

    Competitions in This Notice: The Institute will conduct nine research competitions in FY 2019 through two of its centers:

    The Institute's National Center for Education Research (NCER) will hold a total of five competitions—one competition in each of the following areas: Education research; education research and development centers; statistical and reseach methodology in education; partnerships and collaborations focused on problems of practice or policy; and low-cost, short-duration evaluation of education interventions.

    The Institute's National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) will hold a total of four competitions—one competition in each of the following areas: Special education research; research training programs in special education; low-cost, short-duration evaluation of special education interventions; and research networks focused on critical problems of policy and practice in special education.

    NCER Competitions

    The Education Research Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following topics:

    • Career and Technical Education.

    • Cognition and Student Learning.

    • Early Learning Programs and Policies.

    • Education Leadership.

    • Education Technology.

    • Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching.

    • English Learners.

    • Improving Education Systems.

    • Postsecondary and Adult Education.

    • Reading and Writing.

    • Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.

    • Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning.

    • Special Topics, which include—

    • Social Studies.

    • Foreign Language Education.

    The Education Research and Development Centers Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following two topics:

    • Improving Rural Education.

    • Writing in Secondary Schools.

    The Statistical and Research Methodology in Education Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following two topics:

    • Statistical and Research Methodology Grants.

    • Early Career Statistical and Research Methodology Grants.

    The Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy Competition. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address one of the following two topics:

    • Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research.

    • Evaluation of State and Local Education Programs and Policies.

    The Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Education Interventions Competitions. Under this competition, NCER will consider only applications that address low-cost, short-duration evaluation of education interventions.

    NCSER Competitions

    The Special Education Research Competition. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address one of the following topics:

    • Autism Spectrum Disorders.

    • Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education.

    • Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education.

    • Families of Children with Disabilities.

    • Professional Development for Teachers and School-Based Service Providers.

    • Reading, Writing, and Language Development.

    • Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.

    • Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning.

    • Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems.

    • Technology for Special Education.

    • Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students with Disabilities.

    • Special Topics, which include—

    • Career and Technical Education for Students with Disabilities.

    • English Learners with Disabilities.

    • Systems-Involved Students with Disabilities.

    The Research Training Programs in Special Education Competition. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address early career development and mentoring.

    The Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Special Education Interventions Competitions. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address low-cost, short-duration evaluation of special education interventions.

    The Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education Competition. Under this competition, NCSER will consider only applications that address research on Multi-Tiered Systems of Support under the following topic:

    • Research Team.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 9501 et seq.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. In addition, the regulations in 34 CFR part 75 are applicable, except for the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100, 75.101(b), 75.102, 75.103, 75.105, 75.109(a), 75.200, 75.201, 75.209, 75.210, 75.211, 75.217(a)-(c), 75.219, 75.220, 75.221, 75.222, 75.230, and 75.708. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

    Note: The open licensing requirement in 2 CFR 3474.20 does not apply for this program.

    II. Award Information

    Types of Awards: Discretionary grants and cooperative agreements.

    Fiscal Information: Although Congress has not yet enacted an appropriation for FY 2019, the Institute is inviting applications for these competitions now so that applicants can have adequate time to prepare their applications. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. The Department may announce additional competitions later in 2018. The actual award of grants will depend on the availability of funds.

    Estimated Range of Awards: See chart at the end of this notice.

    Estimated Size and Number of Awards: The size of the awards will depend on the scope of the projects proposed. The number of awards made under each competition will depend on the quality of the applications received for that competition, the availability of funds, and the following limits on awards for specific competitions and topics set by the Institute. See the chart at the end of this notice for additional information.

    The Institute may waive any of the following limits on awards for a specific competition or topic in the special case that the peer review process results in a tie between two or more grant applications, making it impossible to adhere to the limits without funding only some of the equally ranked applications. In that case, the Institute may make a larger number of awards to include all applications of the same rank.

    For NCER's Education Research and Development competition, we intend to fund one grant under the Writing topic and up to two grants under the Rural Education topic if they are deemed complementary rather than duplicative (e.g., if the research is conducted in different States or regions of the country, and/or addressing different problems or issues in rural education).

    For NCSER's Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education competition, we intend to fund no more than five Research Team grants.

    Contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 from the list of highly-rated unfunded applications from the FY 2019 competitions.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: See chart at the end of this notice.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Applicants that have the ability and capacity to conduct scientifically valid research are eligible to apply. Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, nonprofit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions of higher education, such as colleges and universities.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: These programs do not require cost sharing or matching.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

    2. Other Information: Information regarding program and application requirements for the competitions will be contained in the NCER and NCSER RFAs, which will be available on or before May 31, 2018, on the Institute's website at: https://ies.ed.gov/funding/. The dates on which the application packages for these competitions will be available are indicated in the chart at the end of this notice.

    3. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application are contained in the RFA for the specific competition. The forms that must be submitted are in the application package for the specific competition.

    4. Submission Dates and Times: The deadline date for transmittal of applications for each competition is indicated in the chart at the end of this notice and in the RFAs for the competitions.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    5. Intergovernmental Review: These competitions are not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in CFR part 79.

    6. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: For all of its grant competitions, the Institute uses selection criteria based on a peer-review process that has been approved by the National Board for Education Sciences. The Peer Review Procedures for Grant Applications can be found on the Institute's website at https://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/application_review.asp.

    For the 84.305A, 84.305D, 84.324A, and 84.324N competitions, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, and the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFAs.

    For the 84.324B competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the quality of the career development plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, and the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.

    For the 84.305C competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan for the focused program of research, the quality of the plans for other center activities, the quality of the management and institutional resources, and the qualifications and experience of the personnel. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.

    For the 84.305H, 84.305L, and 84.324L competitions, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the partnership, the quality of the research plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, and the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFAs.

    For all of the Institute's competitions, applications should include budgets no higher than the relevant maximum award as set out in the relevant RFA. The Institute will not make an award exceeding the relevant maximum award amount as set out in the relevant RFA.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Institute may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Institute may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Institute also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under these competitions the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Institute may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Grant Administration: Applicants should budget for an annual two-day meeting for project directors to be held in Washington, DC.

    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under one of the competitions announced in this notice, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Institute. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Institute under 34 CFR 75.118. The Institute may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    5. Performance Measures: To evaluate the overall success of its education research and special education research grant programs, the Institute annually assesses the percentage of projects that result in peer-reviewed publications, the number of newly developed or modified interventions with evidence of promise for improving student education outcomes, and the number of Institute-supported interventions with evidence of efficacy in improving student outcomes including school readiness outcomes for young children and student academic outcomes and social and behavioral competencies for school-age students. School readiness outcomes include pre-reading, reading, pre-writing, early mathematics, early science, and social-emotional skills that prepare young children for school. Student academic outcomes include learning and achievement in core academic content areas (reading, writing, math, and science) and outcomes that reflect students' successful progression through the education system (e.g., course and grade completion; high school graduation; postsecondary enrollment, progress, and completion). Social and behavioral competencies include social and emotional skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are important to student's academic and post-academic success. Additional education outcomes for students with or at risk of a disability (as defined in the relevant RFA) include developmental outcomes for infants and toddlers (birth to age three) pertaining to cognitive, communicative, linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, functional, or physical development; and developmental and functional outcomes that improve education outcomes, transition to employment, independent living, and postsecondary education for students with disabilities.

    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Institute considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in meeting the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Institute has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has met the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Institute also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the RFA in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the appropriate program contact person listed in the chart at the end of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Mark Schneider, Director, Institute of Education Sciences. CFDA No. and name Application package
  • available
  • Deadline for
  • transmittal of
  • applications
  • Estimated range of awards * Project period For further
  • information contact
  • National Center for Education Research (NCER) 84.305A Education Research  Career and Technical Education  Cognition and Student Learning  Early Learning Programs and Policies  Education Leadership  Education Technology  Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching  English Learners  Improving Education Systems June 21, 2018 August 23, 2018 $100,000 to $760,000 Up to 5 years Molly Faulkner-Bond
  • [email protected].
  •  Postsecondary and Adult Education  Reading and Writing  Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education  Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning  Special Topics ○ Social Studies ○ Foreign Language Education 84.305C Education Research and Development Centers  Improving Rural Education June 21, 2018 August 9, 2018 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 Up to 5 years Corinne Alfed
  • [email protected].
  •  Writing in Secondary Schools 84.305D Statistical and Research Methodology in Education  Statistical and Research Methodology Grants June 21, 2018 August 23, 2018 $40,000 to $300,000 Up to 3 years Phill Gagne
  • [email protected].
  •  Early Career Statistical and Research Methodology Grants 84.305H Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy  Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research June 21, 2018 August 23, 2018 $50,000 to $1,000,000 Up to 5 years Allen Ruby
  • [email protected].
  •  Evaluation of State and Local Education Programs and Policies 84.305L Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Education Interventions January 10, 2019 March 7, 2019 $50,000 to $125,000 Up to 2 years Phill Gagne
  • [email protected].
  • National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) 84.324A Special Education Research  Autism Spectrum Disorders  Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education  Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education  Families of Children with Disabilities  Professional Development for Teachers and School-Based Service Providers  Reading, Writing, and Language Development  Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education  Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning June 21, 2018 August 23, 2018 $100,000 to $760,000 Up to 5 years Amy Sussman
  • [email protected].
  •  Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems  Technology for Special Education  Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students with Disabilities  Special Topics ○ Career and Technical Education for Students with Disabilities ○ English Learners with Disabilities ○ Systems-Involved Students with Disabilities 84.324B Research Training Programs in Special Education June 21, 2018 August 23, 2018 $50,000 to $125,000 Up to 4 years Katherine Taylor
  • [email protected].
  •  Early Career Development and Mentoring 84.324L Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation of Special Education Interventions January 10, 2019 March 7, 2019 $50,000 to $125,000 Up to 2 years Sarah Brasiel
  • [email protected].
  • 84.324N Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education June 21, 2018 August 9, 2018 $300,000 to $1,000,000 Up to 5 years Amy Sussman
  • [email protected].
  •  Research Team * These estimates are annual amounts. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Note: If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10802 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-479-000] Notice of Applications; Portland Natural Gas Transmission System

    Take notice that on May 7, 2018, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (Portland Natural Gas), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002-2700, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (15 U.S.C. section 717 f(c)) and Parts 157 of the Commission's rules and regulations for Phase II of the Portland Xpress Project. Portland Natural Gas requests authorization to increase the certificated capacity on its jointly-owned system from Westbrook, Maine, to Dracut, Massachusetts, by 11.321 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d), and approval of a lease between Portland Natural Gas and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., effective November 1, 2019, all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Portland Natural Gas states that it's Phase II of the Portland XPress Project would expand gas service delivery options for the New England market. Portland Natural Gas proposes no construction or modifications to its existing system facilities in connection with this request, and as such, there are no costs associated with the project except for the lease payment as further described in the application.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Robert Jackson, Manager, Certificates & Regulatory Administration, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or call (832) 320-5487, or email: [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 4, 2018.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10751 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3193-012; ER11-2042-013; ER11-2041-013; ER10-2924-012; ER10-2718-028; ER10-2538-009; ER14-1317-008; ER10-3028-004; ER17-2074-002; ER17-2364-002; ER10-2719-028; ER16-2462-007; ER14-2500-008; ER14-2498-008; ER10-2961-013; ER10-3099-020.

    Applicants: Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P., Seneca Energy II, LLC, Innovative Energy Systems, LLC, Kleen Energy Systems, LLC, Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., Panoche Energy Center, LLC, Sunshine Gas Producers, LLC, Elk Hills Power, LLC, Burney Forest Products, A Joint Venture, St. Joseph Energy Center, LLC, East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.C., Oregon Clean Energy, LLC, Newark Energy Center, LLC, EIF Newark, LLC, Edgecombe Genco, LLC, RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Ares EIF Notice Parties.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1414-002.

    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Revenue Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1580-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Response to Order to Show Cause under EL18-76 to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180511-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1583-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Response to Order to Show Cause under EL18-65 to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-5014.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1585-000.

    Applicants: Rockland Electric Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: RECO submits revisions to OATT, Att. H-12, Schedules 7 & 8 re: EL18-111 to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1588-000.

    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: NYSEG and RG&E response to show cause order re: Corporate income tax rate change to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6027.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1591-000.

    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.

    Description: Request of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. for Authorization to Make Wholesale Power Sales to an Affiliate.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6043.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1595-000.

    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, West Penn Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: APS submits revisions to OATT Attachment H-11 re Tax Reform EL18-101 to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1596-000.

    Applicants: Sky River LLC.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Response to Order to Show Cause to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1598-000.

    Applicants: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Central Hudson response to show cause order re: Corporate income tax rate change to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6104.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1599-000.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Response to Order to Show Cause under EL18-105 to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1600-000.

    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Response to Order to Show Cause (Long Sault Division OATT) under EL18-72 to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1601-000.

    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Response to Order to Show Cause (Tapoco Division OATT) under EL18-73 to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1602-000.

    Applicants: Cube Yadkin Transmission LLC.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Response to Order to Show Cause to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1603-000.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: OATT Tax Rate Changes in Compliance with Show Cause Order 03/18/18 to be effective 3/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1604-000.

    Applicants: Cogentrix of Alamosa, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Notification of Succession and Update to Tariff to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1605-000.

    Applicants: Diablo Winds, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Notice of Change in Status to be effective 5/14/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1606-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of Adjacent Balancing Authority Coordination Agreement (Rate Schedule No. 29) of Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1607-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-05-15 Tariff revisions to clarify Manual Redispatch Processes to be effective 5/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1608-000.

    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company

    Description: Compliance filing: Order 842 Filing to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1609-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order 842 Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1610-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA, SA No. 4776, Queue No. AB1-014/AC2-066 to be effective 4/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1611-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Notification of Tariff Discrepancy and Request for Limited Tariff Waiver of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1612-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: SCE Compliance Filing Amended WDAT GIP—Order No. 842 to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1613-000.

    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 842 Compliance Filing (Long Sault Divison OATT) to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1614-000.

    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 842 Compliance Filing (Tapoco Divison OATT) to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5216.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1615-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SA 31 18th Rev—NITSA with Phillips 66 Company to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1616-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-05-15 Frequency Response FERC Order 842 Compliance to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5228.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1617-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 842 Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1618-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Primary Frequency Response to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1619-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA SA No. 5071; Queue No. AB1-132 to be effective 4/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1620-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing Order No. 842 tariff revisions to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5241.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1621-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: FERC Order No. 842 Amendment to Wholesale Distribution Tariff GIP, SGIA, LGIA to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5242.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1622-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 4038; Queue No. Z2-001 to be effective 5/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1623-000.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 842 Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1624-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL-FPUC Revisions to the NITSA No. 337 to be effective 4/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5249.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1625-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: FPL Order No. 842 Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5250.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1626-000.

    Applicants: Sky River LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Sky River LLC Order No. 842 Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1627-000.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 842 Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10725 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-147-000] Notice of Complaint; Alabama Municipal Electric Authority and Cooperative Energy v. Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company and Southern Company Services, Inc.

    Take notice that on May 10, 2018, pursuant to sections 206 and 306, of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2012) and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2018), Alabama Municipal Electric Authority and Cooperative Energy (collectively, Joint Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company and Southern Company Services, Inc., acting as an agent for the transmission owning subsidiaries of the Southern Company (collectively, Southern Companies or Respondents) alleging that the 11.25% base return on common equity currently included in the formula transmission rate of the Southern Companies is unjust and unreasonable and should be reduced with refunds made effective as of the filing date of the Complaint, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    Joint Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served in accordance with rule 206(c).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondents' answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 4, 2018.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10728 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR18-24-000] Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver; Merit Energy Company, LLC, Lambda Energy Resources, LLC

    Take notice that on May 14, 2018, pursuant to Rule 204 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204, Merit Energy Company, LLC and Lambda Energy Resources, LLC filed a petition seeking waiver of ICA sections 6 and 20 and Commission's implementing regulations at 18 CFR parts 341 and 357 with respect to the Kalkaska, Michigan pipeline which transports ethane and other natural gas liquids, and is being sold by Merit Energy Company, LLC to Lambda Energy Resources, LLC or an affiliate of Lambda, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 31, 2018.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10757 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM93-11-000] Notice of Annual Change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods; Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992

    The Commission's regulations include a methodology for oil pipelines to change their rates through use of an index system that establishes ceiling levels for such rates. The Commission bases the index system, found at 18 CFR 342.3, on the annual change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG), plus one point two three percent (PPI-FG + 1.23). The Commission determined in an Order Establishing Index Level, 1 issued December 17, 2015, that PPI-FG + 1.23 is the appropriate oil pricing index factor for pipelines to use for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2016.

    1 153 FERC 61,312 at P 52 (2015).

    The regulations provide that the Commission will publish annually, an index figure reflecting the final change in the PPI-FG, after the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the final PPI-FG in May of each calendar year. The annual average PPI-FG index figures were 191.9 for 2016 and 198.0 for 2017.2 Thus, the percent change (expressed as a decimal) in the annual average PPI-FG from 2016 to 2017, plus 1.23 percent, is positive 0.044087.3 Oil pipelines must multiply their July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, index ceiling levels by positive 1.044087 4 to compute their index ceiling levels for July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, in accordance with 18 CFR 342.3(d). For guidance in calculating the ceiling levels for each 12 month period beginning January 1, l995,5 see Explorer Pipeline Company, 71 FERC 61,416 at n.6 (1995).

    2 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the final figure in mid-May of each year. This figure is publicly available from the Division of Industrial Prices and Price Indexes of the BLS, at 202-691-7705, and in print in August in Table 1 of the annual data supplement to the BLS publication Producer Price Indexes via the internet at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm. To obtain the BLS data, scroll down to PPI Databases and click on Top Picks of the Commodity Data including headline FD-ID indexes (Producer Price Index—PPI). At the next screen, under the heading PPI Commodity Data, select the box, Finished goods—WPUFD49207, then scroll to the bottom of this screen and click on Retrieve data.

    3 [198.0−191.9]/191.9 = 0.031787 + 0.0123 = + 0.044087.

    4 1 + 0.044087 = 1.044087.

    5 For a listing of all prior multipliers issued by the Commission, see the Commission's website, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/oil/gen-info/pipeline-index.asp.

    In addition to publishing the full text of this Notice in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print this Notice via the internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The full text of this Notice is available on FERC's Home Page at the eLibrary link. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field and follow other directions on the search page.

    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of FERC's website during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 (email at [email protected]), or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY 202-502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    Dated: May 11, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10756 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC18-13-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-537); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-537 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition, and Abandonment).

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due July 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-13-000) by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-537 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition, and Abandonment.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0060.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-537 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The FERC-537 information collection requires natural gas companies to file the necessary information with FERC in order for the Commission to determine if the requested certificate should be authorized. Certain self-implementing construction and abandonment programs do not require the filing of applications. However, those types of programs do require the filing of annual reports, so many less significant actions can be reported in a single filing/response and less detail would be required.

    The data required to be submitted in a normal certificate filing consists of identification of the company and responsible officials, factors considered in the location of the facilities and the impact on the area for environmental considerations. Also to be submitted are the following, as applicable to the specific request:

    • Flow diagrams showing the design capacity for engineering design verification and safety determination;

    • Cost of proposed facilities, plans for financing, and estimated revenues and expenses related to the proposed facility for accounting and financial evaluation.

    • Existing and proposed storage capacity and pressures and reservoir engineering studies for requests to increase storage capacity;

    • An affidavit showing the consent of existing customers for abandonment of service requests.

    Additionally, requests for an increase of pipeline capacity must include a statement that demonstrates compliance with the Commission's Certificate Policy Statement by making a showing that the cost of the expansion will not be subsidized by existing customers and that there will not be adverse economic impacts to existing customers, competing pipelines or their customers, nor to landowners and to surrounding communities.

    Type of Respondents: Natural gas companies.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:1 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    1 “Burden” is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-537 [Gas pipeline certificates: Construction, acquisition, and abandonment] Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average burden and
  • cost per
  • response 2
  • Total annual
  • burden hours and
  • total annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 3 18 CFR 157.5-.11 (Interstate Certificate and Abandonment Applications) 52 1.19 62 500 hrs.; $39,500 31,000; $2,449,000 $47,096 18 CFR 157.53 (Pipeline Purging/Testing Exemptions) 1 1 1 50 hrs.; $3,950 50 hrs.; $3,950 3,950 18 CFR 157.201-.209; 157.211; 157.214-.218 (Blanket Certificates Prior to Notice Filings) 21 1.86 39 200 hrs; $15,800 7,800 hrs.; $616,200 29,343 18 CFR 157.201-.209; 157.211; 157.214-.218 (Blanket Certificates—Annual Reports) 129 4 1.05 135 50 hrs.; $3,950 6,750 hrs.; $533,250 4,134 18 CFR 284.11 (NGPA Section 311 Construction—Annual Reports) 83 5 1.01 84 50 hrs.; $3,950 4,200 hrs.; $331,800 3,998 18 CFR 284.8 178 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 18 CFR 284.13(e) and 284.126(a) (Interstate and Intrastate Bypass Notice) 2 1 2 30 hrs.; $2,370 60 hrs.; $4,740 2,370 18 CFR 284.221 (Blanket Certificates) 6 5 7 1.4 7 100 hrs.; $7,900 700 hrs.; $55,300 11,060 18 CFR 224 (Hinshaw Blanket Certificates) 2 1 2 75 hrs.; $5,925 150 hrs.; $11,850 5,925 18 CFR 157.5-.11; 157.13-.20 (Non-facility Certificate or Abandonment Applications) 3 1 3 75 hrs.; $5,925 225 hrs.; $17,775 5,925 Total 8 335 50,935 hrs.; $4,023,865

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Kwhether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    2 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $79.00/hour = Average cost/response. The figure is the 2018 FERC average hourly cost (for wages and benefits) of $79.00 (and an average annual salary of $164,820/year). Commission staff is using the FERC average salary because we consider any reporting requirements completed in response to the FERC-537 to be compensated at rates similar to the work of FERC employees.

    3 Each of the figures in this column are rounded to the nearest dollar.

    4 This figure was derived from 135 responses ÷ 129 respondents = 1.046 or ~1.05 responses/respondent.

    5 This figure was derived from 84 responses ÷ 83 respondents = 1.012 or ~1.01 responses/respondent.

    6 One-time filings, new tariff and rate design proposal, or request for exemptions.

    7 This figure was derived from 7 responses ÷ 5 respondents = 1.4 responses/respondent.

    8 The 335 responses are derived from 214 individual respondents.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10753 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project Nos. 2897-048, 2932-047, 2941-043, 2931-042, 2942-051] Notice of Applications Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, Recommendations, and Prescriptions; S.D. Warren Company

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Applications: Surrender of License; Amendment of Licenses.

    b. Project Nos.: 2897-048 (Surrender); 2932-047, 2941-043, 2931-042, 2942-051 (Amendments).

    c. Date Filed: March 23, 2018.

    d. Applicant: S.D. Warren Company.

    e. Name of Projects: Saccarappa Hydroelectric Project (Surrender); Mallison Falls, Little Falls, Gambo, and Dundee Hydroelectric Projects (Amendments).

    f. Location: On the Presumpscot River in Westbrook, Cumberland County, Maine.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Barry Stemm, Engineering Manager, Sappi North America, P.O. Box 5000, Westbrook, ME 04098, (207) 856-4584, and Briana K. O'Regan, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Sappi North America, 179 John Roberts Road, South Portland, ME 04106, (207) 854-7070.

    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Jennifer Ambler, (202) 502-8586, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 30 Days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket numbers P-2897-048, P-2932-047, P-2941-043, P-2931-042, and/or P-2942-051, as appropriate.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Project Facilities:

    The Saccarappa Project (P-2897-048) consists of two 10- to 12-foot-high concrete diversion dams, referred to as eastern and western spillways, separated by an island, a headgate structure, a concrete-lined forebay, and a powerhouse containing three turbine-generator units with a total rated generating capacity of 1,350 kilowatts (kW). The project also includes a 345-foot-long tailrace channel and two bypass reaches measuring 475 and 390 feet long extending from the respective spillway to the downstream end of the tailrace channel.

    The Mallison Falls Project (P-2932-047) includes a 358-foot-long, 14-foot-high concrete, masonry and cut granite diversion dam, a headgate structure, an intake power canal, and a powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated generating capacity of 800 kW. The Mallison Falls Dam creates an 8-acre impoundment. The project has a 675-foot-long bypass reach between the dam and the powerhouse tailwaters.

    The Little Falls Project (P-2941-043) includes a 310-foot-long, 14-foot-high L-shaped concrete and masonry dam that creates a 29-acre impoundment extending 1.7 miles to the tailwaters of the Gambo Project, and a powerhouse integral with the dam, containing four turbine-generator units with a total rated generating capacity of 1,000 kW. The project has a 300-foot-long bypass reach between the upper section of the dam and the powerhouse tailwaters.

    The Gambo Project (P-2931-042) includes a 300-foot-long, 24-foot-high concrete dam, a headgate structure, an intake and power canal, and a powerhouse containing four turbine-generator units with a total rated generating capacity of 1,900 kW. The Gambo Dam creates a 151-acre impoundment. The project has a 300-foot-long bypass reach between the dam and the powerhouse tailwaters.

    The Dundee Project (P-2942-051) includes a 1,492-foot-long, 50-foot-high concrete dam that creates a 197-acre impoundment, extending 1.7 miles upstream to the tailwaters of the North Gorham Project (P-2519), and a powerhouse integral with the dam, containing three turbine-generator units with a total rated generating capacity of 2,400 kW. The Dundee Project also includes a 1,075-foot-long tailrace channel, which creates a bypass reach.

    l. Description of Requests:

    For the Saccarappa Project (P-2897-048):

    The licensee filed an application to surrender its license for the Saccarappa Project. The licensee proposes to: (1) Remove the existing powerhouse and other ancillary structures; (2) remove the eastern and western spillways; (3) partially fill the existing tailrace; (4) construct a double Denil fishway within the filled tailrace area to provide fish passage over the lower falls; (5) alter and repair the tailrace guard wall to support the operation of the Denil; (6) construct a fish counting facility at the exit of the Denil; and (7) modify the bedrock in the eastern and western channels to facilitate nature-like fish passage over both the eastern and western sections of the upper falls.

    For the Mallison Falls (P-2932-047), Little Falls (P-2941-043), Gambo (P-2931-042), and Dundee (P-2942-051) Projects:

    Concurrent with the request to surrender the license for the Saccarappa Project as described above, the licensee proposes to amend its upstream project licenses for the Mallison Falls, Little Falls, Gambo, and Dundee Projects to: (1) Amend the Mallison Falls Project license (the next upstream project from Saccarappa) to include the new Denil fish passage facilities built at the Saccarappa Dam site; (2) extend by ten years, until 2053, the license expiration dates for its four upstream projects (Mallison Falls, Little Falls, Gambo, and Dundee Projects); and (3) remove all fish passage requirements from the Gambo and Dundee licenses.

    The proposed actions reflect conditions agreed to by parties to a Settlement Agreement executed on November 15, 2016, as amended on March 7, 2018, between the licensee and the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Maine Department of Marine Resources; Conservation Law Foundation; Friends of the Presumpscot River; and City of Westbrook, Maine.

    These applications have been accepted for filing and are now ready for environmental analysis.

    m. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371.

    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    o. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    p. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, MOTION TO INTERVENE, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRESCRIPTIONS, as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to the licensee's requests that are the subject of this notice. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    q. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments.

    Dated: May 11, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10755 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD18-12-000; Docket No. EL17-45-000; Docket No. ER18-370-000] Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments; Transmission Planning Within the California Independent System Operator Corporation; California Public Utilities Commission, Northern California Power Agency, City and County of San Francisco, State Water Contractors, Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Southern California Edison Company

    On May 1, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff convened a technical conference to discuss the processes used by participating transmission owners (PTOs) in the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) to determine which transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities, including, but not limited to, transmission-related capital additions, are subject to the CAISO Transmission Planning Process (TPP).

    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on the topics relating to the processes used by PTOs to determine which activities/facilities are subject to the CAISO TPP as discussed during the technical conference, including the questions listed in the Supplemental Notice issued in this proceeding on April 10, 2018. Commission staff is particularly interested in comments on the following topics:

    1. Technical conference participants used the terms asset management and asset management program during the technical conference. Please provide a definition for those terms when they are used to address or administer transmission capability.

    2. Describe the criteria, standards, or industry best practices that the PTOs use in their asset management programs or activities.

    3. Technical conference participants used the terms “incremental” and “incidental” at the technical conference. Provide a definition for those terms when they are used to describe any increases to transmission capability that result from the use of new technology when replacing one-for-one assets.

    4. Explain how any incremental or incidental increases to transmission capacity are accounted for by each PTO in relation to “asset management” activities, and how these increases in transmission capacity are communicated to CAISO.

    5. Technical conference participants used the terms “expansion” and “enhancement” at the technical conference. Provide the definitions of those terms when they are used to describe certain changes to the configuration of the CAISO transmission system resulting from “asset management” activities that are subject to the CAISO TPP.

    6. Do CAISO's tariff or BPMs provide guidance and clarity to CAISO PTOs regarding what transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities must be considered and reviewed through CAISO's TPP? If so, please list the relevant sections.

    7. How does each CAISO PTO decide whether to pursue reliability related transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities that are not required by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), or other regulatory entities? What criteria or parameters are used by each CAISO PTO to make this decision? Where are such criteria or parameters documented or otherwise made available?

    8. Is there a difference between (a) the process through which each CAISO PTO pursues solutions to transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities that arise from NERC and WECC reliability standards or reliability standards established by other regulatory entities, and (b) the process through which each CAISO PTO pursues solutions to other transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities? If so, please explain (1) the difference between the two processes and (2) elaborate on the reasons for the differences.

    9. What benefits and/or concerns, if any, would arise from introducing greater transparency and more opportunities for stakeholder input into each CAISO PTO's asset management process in the early stages of the assessment, ranking, and selection of particular “asset management” projects? To the extent that you support additional opportunities for stakeholder input, please describe the ideal format and/or frequency of such opportunities.

    Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions asked. Commenters may reference materials previously filed in the above-captioned dockets, including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. Initial comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2018, and reply comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2018. Initial comments should not exceed 15 pages and reply comments should not exceed 10 pages.

    For further information, please contact individuals identified for each topic:

    Technical Information, Laura Switzer, Office of Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6231, [email protected] Legal Information for Docket Nos. AD18-12-000 and EL17-45-000, Linda Kizuka, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8773, [email protected] Legal Information for Docket Nos. AD18-12-000 and ER18-370-000, Susanna Ehrlich, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6260, [email protected] Dated: May 15, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10724 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1398-006.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Opinion No. 528-B Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2011.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-813-000.

    Applicants: MC Global Gas Corporation, Mitsubishi Corporation.

    Description: Joint Petition of Mitsubishi Corporation, et al. for Temporary Waiver of Capacity Release Requirements and Related Interstate Pipeline Tariff Provisions.

    Filed Date: 5/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20180514-6198.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-814-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Reservation of Capacity to be effective 6/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180515-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/29/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10726 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2325-077; Project No. 2322-054; Project No. 2574-069] Notice of Application for Amendment of License To Extend Operational Dates for Volitional Upstream Fish Passage and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests; Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, Merimil Limited Partnership

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Amendment of license.

    b. Project Nos: P-2325-077, P-2322-054, P-2574-069.

    c. Date Filed: March 20, 2018.

    d. Applicants: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, and Merimil Limited Partnership.

    e. Name of Projects: Weston, Shawmut, and Lockwood Hydroelectric Projects.

    f. Locations: The three projects are located on the Kennebec River in Somerset and Kennebec Counties, Maine.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Kelly Maloney, Licensing and Compliance Manager, Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, 150 Main Street, Lewiston, ME 04240; (207) 775-5605.

    i. FERC Contact: B. Peter Yarrington (202) 502-6129; [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 Days from the issuance of this notice.

    All documents may be filed electronically via the internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.

    Please include the docket numbers (P-2325-077, P-2322-054, and P-2574-069, as needed) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC, licensee for the Weston (P-2325) and Shawmut (P-2322) Projects, and Merimil Limited Partnership, licensee for the Lockwood Project (2574), together request amendment of the Interim Species Protection Plan (Interim SPP) that the Commission approved for the three projects in an order issued May 19, 2016. The Interim SPP identifies measures that will be implemented at the three projects in the years 2013 through 2019 to protect federally-listed endangered Atlantic salmon. Under the Interim SPP and subsequent extensions of time, volitional upstream fish passage facilities are being designed and constructed at the projects, and are to be operational in May 2019 at the Shawmut Project, and in May 2020 at the Weston and Lockwood Projects. In their request, the licensees request that two years be added to the operational dates for those facilities at each project, so that those facilities would be operational in May 2021 at the Shawmut Project, and in May 2022 at the Weston and Lockwood Projects. The licensees request the extension so that they can complete, collaboratively with state and federal resource agencies and other entities, a feasibility assessment of options for multi-dam fish passage which would include but not be limited to options in the Interim SPP.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS; PROTESTS, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10754 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Prohibited: Docket No. File date Presenter or requester 1. CP15-554-000 5-1-2018 Lewis Airstrip, LLC. 2. CP15-554-000 5-7-2018 Joseph Romano. 3. CP15-554-000 5-9-2018 Lewis Airstrip, LLC. Exempt: Docket No. File date Presenter or requester 1. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-000 4-30-2018 U.S. Congress.1 2. CP17-117-000, CP17-118-000 4-30-2018 FERC Staff.2 3. CP17-458-000 4-31-2018 FERC Staff.3 4. CP17-458-000 4-31-2018 FERC Staff.4 5. P-10808-000 5-2-2018 Midland County Board of Commissioners.5 6. P-2082-062, P-14803-000 5-7-2018 Jackson County Board of Commissioners.6 7. CP15-93-000 5-7-2018 U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown. 8. CP15-550-000, CP15-551-000 5-10-2018 U.S. Congress.7 1 Senators Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy. House Representatives Steve Scalise, Garret Graves, Ralph Abraham, Clay Higgins, and Mike Johnson. 2 3 Record of 4-24-18 conference call with Environmental Resources Management, Inc. and Midship Pipeline, LLC. 4 Record of 4-30-18 conference call with Environmental Resources Management, Inc. and Midship Pipeline, LLC. 5 Commissioner Jeanette M. Snyder. 6 Chairman Rick Dyer, and Commissioners Bob Strosser and Colleen Roberts. 7 Senators Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy. House Representatives Steve Scalise, Garret Graves, Ralph Abraham, Clay Higgins, and Mike Johnson. Dated: May 15, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10729 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EF18-4-000] Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 4, 2018, Western Area Power Administration submitted tariff filing per: CRSP_OLM_WAPA177-20180504 to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 4, 2018.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10727 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-146-000] Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company

    Take notice that on May 11, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2017), KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company (Petitioner), filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting that the Commission find that payment of dividends from FERC Account 211—Miscellaneous Paid in Capital, until such time as Petitioner has retained earnings to pay the full dividend amount to its sole shareholder, Great Plains Energy (or its successor), complies with section 305(a) of the Federal Power Act,1 as more fully explained in the petition.

    1 16 U.S.C. 825d.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 11, 2018.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10752 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9976-69—Region 6] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Yuhuang Chemical Company, Inc. Methanol Plant, St James Parish Louisiana AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final Order on Petitions for objection to Clean Air Act title V operating permit.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated April 2, 2018 denying Petitions dated March 30, 2017 and August 3, 2017 from the Louisiana Environmental Action Network and the Sierra Club (collectively, the Petitions and Petitioners, respectively). The Petitions requested that the EPA object to the Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit 1560-00295-V1 issued on June 30, 2017 by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (the LDEQ) to Yuhuang Chemical Company, Inc. (YCI) for its Methanol Plant located in St. James, St. James Parish, Louisiana.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting information. You may review copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., excluding federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final Order and Petition are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/ title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brad Toups, EPA Region 6, by phone (214) 665-7258, or email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

    The EPA received the Petitions from the Petitioners dated March 30, 2017 and August 3, 2017, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. 1560-00295-V1, issued by the LDEQ to YCI in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The Petitioners requested that the Administrator object to the proposed operating permit on several bases which are described in detail in Section IV of the Order. In summary, the issues raised include: Emissions limits for preconstruction purposes were not properly made (various claims, introduction to Order Section IV); and numerous claims concerning monitoring of emissions, such as the Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) carbon monoxide (CO) and Auxiliary Boiler CO emissions (Section IV.A.); claims concerning SMR volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions (Section IV.B.); claims concerning Auxiliary Boiler VOC emissions (Section IV.C.); claims concerning fugitive CO emissions (Section IV.D.), claims concerning truck, railcar, and marine loading VOC emissions (Section IV.E.); claims concerning storage tank VOC and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions (Section IV.F.); and claims concerning flare VOC, particulate matter (PM), and CO emissions (Section IV.G.). The Order issued on April 2, 2018 responds to all claims in both petitions and explains the basis for the EPA's decision.

    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than June 11, 2018.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10774 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA HQ-OA-2008-0701; FRL-9977-91-OA] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Focus Groups as Used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Focus Groups as used by EPA for Economics Projects (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2205.17, OMB Control No. 2090-0028) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed renewal of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2008-0701, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nathalie Simon, Office of Policy, (MC 1809T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2347; fax number: 202-566-2338 email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking renewal of a generic information collection request (ICR) for the conduct of focus groups and protocol interviews (hereafter jointly referred to as focus groups) related to economics projects. Over the next three years, the Agency anticipates working on a number of survey development efforts associated with a variety of economics projects including those related to valuation of ecosystems, health risk reductions, and improvements to coastal waters, to name a few. Focus groups are an important part of any survey development process, allowing researchers to directly gauge what specific issues are important to the public and providing a means for explicitly testing draft survey materials. Through these focus groups, the Agency will be able to gain a more in-depth understanding of the public's attitudes, beliefs, motivations and feelings regarding specific issues and will provide valuable information regarding the quality of draft survey instruments.

    The information collected in the focus groups will be used to develop and improve economics-related surveys. To the extent that these surveys are ultimately successfully administered, they will serve to expand the Agencies understanding of benefits and costs of a variety of actions and could provide the means to quantitatively assess the effects of others. Participation in the focus groups will be voluntary and the identity of the participants will be kept confidential.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Individuals.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,584 (total).

    Frequency of response: Once.

    Total estimated burden: 2,745 hours (total). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $0, includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Dated: May 1, 2018. Al McGartland, Director, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10793 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9977-98—Region 6] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Pasadena Refining System, Pasadena Refinery, Harris County, Texas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final Order on Petition for objection to Clean Air Act title V operating permit.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated May 1, 2018, granting in part and denying in part a Petition dated November 8, 2016 from the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and Air Alliance Houston. The Petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to Pasadena Refining System (Pasadena) for its Pasadena Refinery located in Harris County, Texas.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting information. You may review copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., excluding federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final Order and Petition are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aimee Wilson, EPA Region 6, (214) 665-7596, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

    The EPA received the Petition from the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and Air Alliance Houston dated November 8, 2016, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O3711, issued by TCEQ to Pasadena Refinery in Harris County, Texas. The Petition claims that: (1) The proposed permits' incorporation by reference of minor NSR authorizations fails to assure compliance with applicable requirements, (2) the proposed permits' incorporation by reference of Permit by Rule (PBR) and Standard Exemption authorizations fails to assure compliance with applicable requirements, (3) the proposed permits' incorporation by reference of minor NSR permits and PBRs that apply to the same emission unit makes it impossible to determine the emission limits that apply to such units, (4) the proposed permit fails to require monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that assure compliance with applicable limits (PBRs and Standard Exemptions), (5) the proposed permit fails to establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that assure compliance with emission limits for multiple emission units (Claims C, D, E, F, and G), (6) the proposed permit fails to require monitoring that assures compliance with the emission limits for Pasadena Refining's flares, (7) the proposed permit fails to require monitoring that assures compliance with the 90% removal efficiency requirement for the acid relief neutralization system, and (8) the proposed permit fails to specify and assure compliance with planned maintenance, startup, and shutdown emission limits and operating requirements for boiler #6.

    On May 1, 2018, the EPA Administrator issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Petition. The Order explains the basis for EPA's decision.

    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than July 20, 2018.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Anne L. Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10761 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9977-97-OW] Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Draft Supplemental Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Elmer's Island Access Project Modification AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 20, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group (Louisiana TIG) Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities (Draft RP/EA #2) and requested comments from the public. In response to the public comments received on the Elmer's Island Access project proposed in the Draft RP/EA #2, the Louisiana TIG is proposing a modification to the original Elmer's Island Access project feature. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal and State natural resource trustee agencies for the Louisiana TIG prepared a Draft Supplemental Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Elmer's Island Access Project Modification (Draft Supplemental RP/EA). The Draft Supplemental RP/EA evaluates the proposed change to the Elmer's Island Access project and alternatives considered by the Louisiana TIG under criteria set forth in the OPA natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) regulations, and evaluates their environmental effects in accordance with NEPA. The proposed modification to the Elmer's Island Access project is consistent with the restoration alternatives selected in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PDARP/PEIS). The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental RP/EA and to seek public comments on the document.

    DATES:

    The Louisiana TIG will consider public comments received on or before June 20, 2018.

    Public Meeting: The Louisiana TIG will also take verbal comments at a public meeting that will be held at the Tulane River and Coastal Center on May 22, 2018; Open House 5:30 p.m., Meeting 6:00 p.m.; 1370 Port of New Orleans Place, New Orleans, LA 70130.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: You may download the Draft Supplemental RP/EA at any of the following sites:

    http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.

    http://www.la-dwh.com.

    Alternatively, you may request a CD of the Draft Supplemental RP/EA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may also view the document at any of the public facilities listed at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments on the Draft Supplemental RP/EA by one of the following methods:

    Via the Web: http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-areas/louisiana.

    Via U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 49567, Atlanta, GA 30345.

    In Person: Verbal comments may be provided at the public meeting on May 22, 2018.

    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The Louisiana TIG may publish any comment received on the document. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The Louisiana TIG 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). Please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will become part of the public record. Please note that mailed comments must be postmarked on or before the comment deadline of 30 days following publication of this notice to be considered.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    • Louisiana—Joann Hicks, 225-342-5477.

    • EPA—Tim Landers, 202-566-2231.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for BP Exploration and Production, Inc. (BP), in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-MC252), experienced a significant explosion, fire, and subsequent sinking in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the seabed. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest off shore oil spill in U.S. history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days.

    The Trustees conducted the natural resource damage assessment for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). Under OPA, Federal and State agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. OPA further instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship, including the loss of use and services from those resources from the time of injury until the time restoration to baseline (the resource quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred) is complete.

    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill Trustees are:

    • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

    • U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service,

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

    • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);

    • State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA), Oil Spill Coordinator's Office (LOSCO), Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), and Department of Natural Resources (LDNR);

    • State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;

    • State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;

    • State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and

    • State of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, General Land Office, and Commission on Environmental Quality.

    On April 4, 2016, the Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in the Louisiana Restoration Area are now chosen and managed by the Louisiana TIG. The Louisiana TIG is composed of the following Trustees: CPRA, LOSCO, LDEQ, LDWF, LDNR, EPA, DOI, NOAA, USDA.

    Background

    In the December 2017 Draft RP/EA #2, the Louisiana TIG presented to the public its plan for providing partial compensation for recreational use services lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The public comment period for the Draft RP/EA #2 began on December 20, 2017, and closed on February 2, 2018. The Louisiana TIG hosted a public meeting on January 24, 2018, in New Orleans. The Draft RP/EA #2 proposed four restoration projects, evaluated in accordance with OPA and NEPA, including the Elmer's Island Access project. As proposed, the Elmer's Island Access project would enhance recreational opportunities within the Elmer's Island Refuge by incorporating a suite of features to improve upon existing access points, enhance the natural features of the area through reconnected hydrology, and develop a solution for improved access for recreational fishing activities targeting the eastern portion of Elmer's Island adjacent to Caminada Pass. In response to the public comments received on the Elmer's Island Access project proposed in the Draft RP/EA #2, the Louisiana TIG is proposing a modification to the original project feature. This modification would eliminate the proposed boardwalk and associated small boat launch and parking area at Elmer's Island, and provide a beach shuttle service that would allow improved public access to Caminada Pass, the most popular location for recreational fishing on Elmer's Island. The Louisiana TIG has prepared the Draft Supplemental RP/EA to inform the public about the proposed modification to the Elmer's Island Access project and to seek public comment.

    Next Steps

    The public is encouraged to review and comment on the Draft Supplemental RP/EA. A public meeting is scheduled to also help facilitate the public review and comment process. Comments provided on the Draft Supplemental RP/EA will be considered along with comments previously received on the Draft RP/EA #2. A summary of comments received on the Draft Supplemental RP/EA and the Draft RP/EA #2 and the Louisiana TIG's responses, where applicable, will be included in the Final Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities (Final RP/EA #2). Public comments on the Draft Supplemental RP/EA will inform the Louisiana TIG's decision on whether to select the Elmer's Island Access project, as modified, in the Final RP/EA #2.

    Administrative Record

    The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the Draft Supplemental RP/EA can be viewed electronically at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/administrativerecord.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), its implementing NRDA regulations found at 15 CFR part 990, and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    Dated: May 3, 2018. Benita Best-Wong, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10112 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9039-04-OP] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 05/07/2018 Through 05/11/2018 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20180095, Final, USFWS, CA, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/21/2018, Contact: Nina Bicknese 916-414-6633. EIS No. 20180096, Final Supplement, BLM, CA, Palen Solar Project (formerly Palen Solar Power Project), Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report/Land Use Plan Amendment, Review Period Ends: 06/21/2018, Contact: Mark DeMaio 760-833-7124. EIS No. 20180097, Final, USFS, CO, Travel Management—Rico West Dolores Roads and Trails Project, Review Period Ends: 06/21/2018, Contact: Deborah Kill 970-882-6822. EIS No. 20180098, Final, USFS, MT, Starry Goat, Review Period Ends: 06/21/2018, Contact: Lisa Osborn 406-295-7426. EIS No. 20180099, Draft, FAA, AZ, Tucson International Airport—Airfield Safety Enhancement Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/09/2018, Contact: David B. Kessler, AICP 310-725-3615. EIS No. 20180100, Final, USFS, CO, P District-wide Salvage Project, Review Period Ends: 07/05/2018, Contact: Mike Tooley 719-274-6321. EIS No. 20180101, Draft Supplement, Caltrans, CA, SR 710 North Study FRDEIR/SDEIS_05-09-18, Comment Period Ends: 07/05/2018, Contact: Jason Roach 213-897-0357. EIS No. 20180102, Draft, NMFS, FL, Coral Habitat Areas Considered for Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designation in the Gulf of Mexico, Comment Period Ends: 07/05/2018, Contact: Lauren Waters 727-209-5991. EIS No. 20180103, Final, USFWS, CA, Otay River Estuary Restoration Project, South San Diego Bay Unit of the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, California, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Review Period Ends: 06/21/2018, Contact: Brian Collins 619-575-2704. Dated: May 17, 2018. Brittany Bolen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10937 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6759] Establishing Effectiveness for Drugs Intended To Treat Male Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism Attributed to Nonstructural Disorders; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Establishing Effectiveness for Drugs Intended to Treat Male Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism Attributed to Nonstructural Disorders.” This guidance provides recommendations for establishing clinical effectiveness for drugs intended to treat male hypogonadotropic hypogonadism associated with obesity and other conditions that do not cause structural disorders of the hypothalamus or pituitary gland. This guidance incorporates advice FDA received at a December 2014 advisory committee meeting on the appropriate indicated population for testosterone therapy and a December 2016 advisory committee meeting on hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on January 3, 2018.

    DATES:

    The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6759 for “Establishing Effectiveness for Drugs Intended to Treat Male Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism Attributed to Nonstructural Disorders; Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

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

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave, Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeannie Roule, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 22, Rm. 5332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3993.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Establishing Effectiveness for Drugs Intended to Treat Male Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism Attributed to Nonstructural Disorders.” This guidance provides recommendations for establishing clinical effectiveness for drugs intended to treat male hypogonadotropic hypogonadism associated with obesity and other conditions that do not cause structural disorders of the hypothalamus or pituitary gland. This guidance incorporates advice FDA received at a December 2014 advisory committee meeting on the appropriate indicated population for testosterone therapy and a December 2016 advisory committee meeting on hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on January 3, 2018 (83 FR 383). The guidance includes editorial changes and a new sentence clarifying that the recommendations do not apply to testosterones and testosterone esters seeking the traditional indication of replacement therapy in adult males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on establishing effectiveness for drugs intended to treat male hypogonadotropic hypogonadism attributed to nonstructural disorders. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10732 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA 2018-D-1711] Cytomegalovirus in Transplantation: Developing Drugs To Treat or Prevent Disease; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Cytomegalovirus in Transplantation: Developing Drugs to Treat or Prevent Disease.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in all phases of development of drugs and biologics for the treatment or prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in patients who have undergone solid organ transplantation (SOT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 20, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA 2018-D-1711 for “Cytomegalovirus in Transplantation: Developing Drugs to Treat or Prevent Disease; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

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

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Murray, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6360, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1500.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Cytomegalovirus in Transplantation: Developing Drugs to Treat or Prevent Disease.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs for the treatment or prevention of CMV disease in patients who have undergone SOT or HSCT. Specifically, this guidance addresses FDA's current thinking regarding the overall development program and clinical trial designs for the development of drugs and biologics to support an indication for the treatment or prevention of CMV disease in post-transplant populations. This guidance does not address drug development for the prevention or treatment of congenital CMV infection or CMV infection in patients other than those undergoing SOT or HSCT.

    This guidance also discusses the use of CMV DNAemia (CMV deoxyribonucleic acid in blood determined by polymerase chain reaction, an indirect measure of CMV viremia) as a surrogate endpoint in trials designed to support accelerated approval.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on developing drugs to treat or prevent CMV disease in transplantation. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10733 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0821] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified Risk Claims AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the investigation of consumer perceptions of expressed modified risk claims.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 20, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 20, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0821 for “Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified Risk Claims.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified Risk Claims OMB Control Number 0910—NEW

    FDA's Center for Tobacco Products proposes to conduct a study to develop generalizable scientific knowledge to help inform its implementation of section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387k), wherein FDA will be evaluating information submitted to the Agency about how consumers understand and perceive modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs). Section 911 of the FD&C Act authorizes FDA to grant orders to persons to allow the marketing of MRTPs. The term “modified risk tobacco product” means any tobacco product that is sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products. FDA can issue a risk modification order under section 911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act authorizing the marketing of a MRTP only if the Agency determines that the product, as it is used by consumers, will significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users and benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products (section 911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act). Alternatively, with respect to tobacco products that may not be commercially marketed under section 911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA may issue an exposure modification order under section 911(g)(2) of the FD&C Act authorizing the marketing of a MRTP if, the Agency determines that the standard in section 911(g)(2) of the FD&C Act is met, including, among other requirements, that: Any aspect of the label, labeling, or advertising that would cause the product to be an MRTP is limited to an explicit or implicit representation that the tobacco product or its smoke does not contain or is free of a substance or contains a reduced level of a substance, or presents a reduced exposure to a substance in tobacco smoke; the order would be appropriate to promote the public health; the issuance of the order is expected to benefit the population as a whole taking into account both users and nonusers of tobacco products; and the existing evidence demonstrates that a measurable and substantial reduction in morbidity and mortality among individual tobacco users is reasonably likely to be shown in subsequent studies (section 911(g)(2) of the FD&C Act). In addition, section 911 of the FD&C Act requires that any advertising or labeling concerning modified risk products enable the public to comprehend the information concerning modified risk and to understand the relative significance of such information in the context of total health and in relation to all the diseases and health-related conditions associated with the use of tobacco products (section 911(h)(1) of the FD&C Act). The proposed research will inform the Agency's efforts to implement the provisions of the FD&C Act related to MRTPs.

    FDA proposes conducting a study to assist in determining appropriate methods for gathering information about how consumers perceive and understand modified risk information. The study would develop and validate measures of consumer perceptions of health risk from using tobacco products. Moreover, the study would test how participants' responses on these measures are affected by viewing modified risk labeling or advertising, participants' characteristics such as prior beliefs about the harmfulness of tobacco products, current use of tobacco products, and sociodemographic characteristics. Finally, the study would examine factors that may influence the effectiveness of debriefing at the end of a consumer perception study to ensure that people read and recall key information about the study. This research is significant because it will validate methods that can be used in studies of the impact of labels, labeling, and advertising on consumer perceptions and understanding of the risks of product use.

    Measures of consumer health risk perception will be developed and validated by conducting a study on two product types: Moist snuff smokeless tobacco products and electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products. For each product type, we will assess individual-level factors that may moderate the impact of modified risk information on consumer responses. Potential moderating factors under study include: Beliefs (prior to viewing the modified risk information) about the harmfulness of tobacco products, and the strength with which those beliefs are held; current tobacco use behaviors; and sociodemographic characteristics including age and educational attainment. For each product type, participants will be randomized to view one of two conditions: Tobacco product labeling and advertising that either does or does not contain modified risk claims about a product. The labeling will consist of a product package. The advertising will consist of a print advertisement. The study will assess participants' perceptions of various health risks from using the product, as well as their perceptions of health risk from using the product compared to smoking cigarettes, using nicotine replacement therapies, and quitting all tobacco and nicotine products. The study will also assess participants' intentions to use the product and their level of doubt about whether tobacco products are harmful to users' health. Measures of intentions and doubt will be used to help assess the validity of the measures of health risk perception.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Invitation: Young Adults (Ages 18-25) 29,000 1 29,000 0.02 580 Invitation: Adults (Ages 26+) 29,000 1 29,000 0.02 580 Consent and Screener: Young Adults (Ages 18-25) 11,000 1 11,000 0.10 1,100 Consent and Screener: Adults (Ages 26+) 16,500 1 16,500 0.10 1,650 Study: Young Adults (Ages 18-25) 3,300 1 3,300 0.33 1,089 Study: Adults (Ages 26+) 3,300 1 3,300 0.33 1,089 Total 6,088 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with research that is similar to this proposed study. Approximately 58,000 people will receive a study invitation, estimated to take 1 minute to read (approximately 0.02 hours), for a total of 1,160 hours for invitations. Approximately 27,500 people will complete the informed consent and screener to determine eligibility for participation in the study, estimated to take 6 minutes (0.10 hours), for a total of 2,750 hours for informed consent and screening activities. Approximately 6,600 people will complete the full study, estimated to take 20 minutes (approximately 0.33 hours), for a total of 2,178 hours for study completion activities. The estimated total hour burden of the collection of information is 6,088 hours.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10723 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1708] Blood Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 22, 2018, from 11 a.m. to 4:20 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Great Room A, Building 31, FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Emery or Joanne Lipkind, Division of Scientific Advisors and Consultants, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, Bldg. 71, Rm. 6132, at 240-402-8054, [email protected] and Rm. 6270, at 240-402-8106, [email protected], respectively, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be available via webcast. The webcast will be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/bpac0618/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: On June 22, 2018, in the morning open session, under Topic 1, the Committee will hear presentations on the research programs in the Laboratory of Emerging Pathogens (LEP), Laboratory of bacterial and TSE Agents (LBTSE), and from the Laboratory of Molecular Virology (LMV) in the Division of Emerging Transfusion-Transmitted Diseases (DETTD), Office of Blood Research and Review (OBRR), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), FDA. After the conclusion of the open session, the meeting will be closed to permit discussion where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).

    In the afternoon, in open session, under Topic II, the Committee will hear presentations on the research program in the Hemostasis Branch (HB), in the Division of Plasma Protein Therapeutics (DPPT), Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), FDA. After the open session, the meeting will be closed to the public to permit discussion where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.b(c)(6).

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the venue of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material will be available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: On June 22, 2018, from 11 a.m. to 12:55 p.m. and 2:20 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.., the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June 15, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 12:25 p.m. to 12:55 p.m. and from 3:15 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. on June 22, 2018. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June 7, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 8, 2018.

    Closed Committee Deliberations: On June 22, 2018 between 12:55 p.m. and 1:40 p.m. and between 3:45 p.m. and 4:20 p.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)). During the closed sessions, the Committee will discuss the research progress made by staff involved in the intramural research programs and make recommendations regarding personnel actions and staffing.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bryan Emery at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.2).

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10734 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0001] Advisory Committee; Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee, Renewal AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; renewal of advisory committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee (the Committee) by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until May 1, 2020.

    DATES:

    Authority for the Committee will expire on May 1, 2020, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Moon Hee Choi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; 301-796-9001, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Committee. The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner.

    The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.

    The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products including analgesics, e.g., abuse-deterrent opioids, novel analgesics, and issues related to opioid abuse, and those for use in anesthesiology and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.

    The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of anesthesiology, analgesics (such as: abuse deterrent opioids, novel analgesics, and issues related to opioid abuse) epidemiology or statistics, and related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.

    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AnestheticandAnalgesicDrugProductsAdvisoryCommittee/default.htm or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be made to 21 CFR 14.100.

    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please check https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10731 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0052] Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft revised guidance for industry (GFI) #197 entitled “Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs.” This draft revised guidance is provided to inform sponsors of recommendations for documenting electronic data files and statistical analyses submitted to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) to support new animal drug applications.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft revised guidance by July 20, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0052 for “Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

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

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Virginia Recta, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-160), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0840, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft revised GFI #197 entitled “Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs.” This draft revised guidance is provided to inform sponsors of recommendations for documenting electronic data files and statistical analyses submitted to CVM to support new animal drug applications. These recommendations are intended to reduce the number of revisions that may be required for CVM to effectively review data submissions and to simplify submission preparation by providing a recommended documentation framework.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft revised guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10722 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0361] Mary C. Holloway; Order Revoking a Proposed Order of Debarment AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is revoking a proposed order, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), to debar Mary C. Holloway (Holloway) for 5 years from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. Holloway, through counsel, filed a request for a hearing, as well as information and analysis in support of that request, in response to the proposed debarment order. FDA has determined that pursuing debarment of Holloway is no longer appropriate.

    DATES:

    This order is applicable May 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nathan Sabel, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4206, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On April 8, 2009, Holloway, formerly a regional sales manager at Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Inc. (Pharmacia), pled guilty to a Federal misdemeanor offense under sections 301(a), 303(a)(1), and 502(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a), 333(a)(1), and 352(f)). In June 2009, the U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered the conviction and sentenced Holloway to probation. The basis for the conviction was Holloway's involvement in Pharmacia's introduction into interstate commerce of its drug BEXTRA, a pain reliever and anti-inflammatory, for the unapproved use of treating pre- and postoperative surgical pain. Before it was removed from the market several years later, BEXTRA was only approved for treatment of arthritis and primary dysmenorrhea. In September 2009, Pharmacia pled guilty to a felony violation of the FD&C Act for the promotion of BEXTRA and other drugs for unapproved uses.

    By letter dated January 20, 2010, FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) notified Holloway of a proposal to debar her for 5 years from providing services in any capacity to a person having an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal stated that Holloway is subject to permissive debarment based on a finding, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(2)(B)(i)), that she was convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product and that the type of conduct serving as the basis for the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs. The proposal further concluded that Holloway should be debarred for the maximum period of 5 years under section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act based on four applicable considerations in section 306(c)(3).

    In a letter dated February 18, 2010, through counsel, Holloway requested a hearing on the proposal. On March 24, 2010, Holloway submitted materials and arguments in support of her request. In her submissions, Holloway acknowledged her conviction of a misdemeanor under Federal law. Holloway conceded that she is subject to debarment as a result of this conviction, but she argues nonetheless that she is entitled to a hearing to determine whether permissive debarment is appropriate. Specifically, Holloway argued that, with respect to the considerations for determining the appropriateness and period of debarment under section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act, there are genuine and substantial issues of fact for resolution at a hearing.

    By letter dated April 3, 2013, the Office of the Commissioner, in order to determine whether granting a hearing would be appropriate, requested that ORA submit a response to Holloway's request for a hearing. ORA was invited to include any documentary evidence, information, or analysis that it deemed appropriate in support of its response. Holloway was afforded an opportunity to submit evidence and arguments in opposition. ORA submitted its response on August 30, 2013. Holloway, through counsel, replied to ORA's response on November 15, 2013.

    Under § 12.26 (21 CFR 12.26), if FDA determines upon review of a request for hearing that the order at issue should be modified or revoked, FDA may modify or revoke the order by notice in the Federal Register. Based upon a review of the record, the Acting Chief Scientist concludes that it is appropriate under § 12.26, in this instance, to revoke the proposed order to debar Holloway for 5 years.

    II. Arguments

    In the proposal to debar Holloway for 5 years, ORA noted that there are four applicable considerations for determining the appropriateness and period of Holloway's debarment under section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act: (1) The nature and seriousness of her offense under section 306(c)(3)(A); (2) the nature and extent of management participation in the offense under section 306(c)(3)(B); (3) the nature and extent of voluntary steps taken to mitigate the impact on the public under section 306(c)(3)(C); and (4) prior convictions involving matters within the jurisdiction of FDA under section 306(c)(3)(F). ORA found that the first three of those considerations weigh in favor of debarment and noted, as to the fourth consideration, that FDA is unaware of any prior convictions. In finding that the each of the first three considerations weighs in favor of debarment, ORA appears to have characterized Holloway's conduct based on contested allegations from Holloway's criminal proceedings.

    Holloway challenged both ORA's conclusions with respect to all three considerations in dispute and the factual underpinnings of those conclusions. Holloway contended that, under section 306(i) of the FD&C Act, FDA may not take any action under sections 306(b) or section 306(c) with respect to any person “unless [FDA] has issued an order for such action made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing on disputed issues of material fact.” Section 306(c)(3) explicitly requires that FDA consider, “where applicable,” certain factors “[i]n determining the appropriateness and the period of debarment” for any permissive debarment.

    In proposing to debar Holloway for 5 years, ORA appears to have based its findings with respect to certain considerations in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act largely on the factual allegations in the criminal information to which Holloway pled guilty under her plea agreement. As Holloway argues, however, the records of her criminal proceedings reflect that she did not admit to any of the specific factual allegations in the information during the plea colloquy conducted by the court. In fact, her attorney during the criminal proceedings explicitly stated, “[The information] contains many allegations that Ms. Holloway disputes.” After the prosecution summarized the evidence that it planned to introduce at trial, which closely mirrored the allegations in the information, the court accepted Holloway's guilty plea on the basis of the following exchange:

    THE COURT: Okay. I gather that some of the facts are in dispute; is that correct?

    THE DEFENDANT: Correct.

    THE COURT: Do you want to make a statement or, counsel, do you want to make a statement?

    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ms. Holloway is, she is prepared to admit that she promoted BEXTRA for off label usage, and she understands that that constitutes the introduction of BEXTRA into interstate commerce with inadequate directions for use.

    THE COURT: All right. Ms. Holloway, do you agree, do you accept your counsel's representation as to the facts that you accept to be true?

    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

    In her request for a hearing and subsequent submissions (March 24, 2010, and November 15, 2013), Holloway argued that her lack of admission to any specific facts during her criminal proceedings calls into question ORA's findings with respect to certain considerations under section 306(c)(3). In addition, with regard to certain ORA allegations in the proposed order to debar Holloway (January 20, 2010), and in support of facts weighing against debarment, Holloway has presented particularized challenges supported by explanations or documentary evidence.

    After a review of the record, the Acting Chief Scientist concludes that, given the exceptional circumstances of this matter, it appears that it would likely be necessary to grant the pending request for a hearing. Such a hearing would require a broad scope to address any genuine and substantial issues of fact that are material to weighing the applicable considerations under section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act. As a result of this extraordinary posture, the scope of the disputed facts in this matter includes many of the facts that a prior criminal proceeding would typically have established, as well as those additional facts in dispute that relate to certain of the applicable debarment considerations in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act. Because few factual findings relating to Holloway's specific conduct and actions between December 2001 and April 2005 underlying her 2009 conviction were generated during the criminal proceedings, a hearing to establish ORA's proposed findings would require a substantial devotion of the Agency's limited resources to this individual debarment proceeding.

    The Acting Chief Scientist has weighed the Agency's limited resources against the factors that weigh in favor of proceeding to evaluate ORA's proposed debarment order at an evidentiary hearing. Chief among these countervailing considerations are the nature and seriousness of the offense articulated by ORA and the Agency's interest in effectuating the remedial purpose of the statute in furtherance of the public health. The Acting Chief Scientist has accorded significant weight to those countervailing considerations but, in reaching a decision in this matter, has balanced those considerations against the extraordinary resources necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the factual underpinnings for ORA's proposed findings as to the considerations in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act, when there were few specific facts established as part of the criminal proceeding.

    After a careful evaluation of the arguments and information provided by both ORA and Holloway as they relate to the nature and breadth of the factual disputes at issue here, and after a consideration of the resources necessary to proceed under this unusual set of circumstances, the Acting Chief Scientist has determined that the revocation of the proposed order to debar Holloway is appropriate in this instance.

    III. Order

    Upon review of the request for hearing, evidence, and arguments, the Acting Chief Scientist revokes the January 20, 2010, proposed order to debar Holloway and provides this notice of revocation in the Federal Register as required by § 12.26.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Denise Hinton, Acting Chief Scientist.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10685 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Recruitment of Sites for Assignment of National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program Participants AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the listing of entities that will receive priority for assignments of National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Scholarship recipients (NHSC scholars) was posted on the Health Workforce Connector website (formerly known as the NHSC Jobs Center) at https://connector.hrsa.gov/. The Health Workforce Connector includes sites approved to receive an assignment of NHSC scholars who are available for service during the period of October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019, as well as the site's Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) scores. Please note that entities on this list may or may not have current job vacancies.

    DATES:

    Entities interested in providing additional data and information in support of their inclusion on the proposed listing, or in support of a higher priority determination, must do so in writing no later than June 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Entities wishing to submit information to support an entity's inclusion on the list or to request a higher priority determination should submit it to Beth Dillon, Director, Division of Regional Operations, Bureau of Health Workforce, 1961 Stout Street, Denver, CO 80294. HRSA will consider this information when preparing the final list of entities that receive priority for the assignment of NHSC scholars.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (as implemented through 45 CFR part 100).

    Evaluation and Selection Process

    In approving applications for the assignment of NHSC scholars, the HHS Secretary shall give priority to any such application that is made for a position in a HPSA with the greatest shortage. HPSAs of greatest shortage are defined by its HPSA scores.

    For the program year October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019, priority for assignment of NHSC scholars will be determined as follows: (1) Primary medical care HPSAs with scores of 18 and above are authorized for the assignment of NHSC scholars who are primary care physicians, primary care nurse practitioners, primary care physician assistants, or certified nurse midwives; (2) mental health HPSAs with scores of 18 and above are authorized for the assignment of NHSC scholars who are psychiatrists, mental health nurse practitioners, or mental health physician assistants; and (3) dental HPSAs with scores of 18 and above are authorized for the assignment of NHSC scholars who are dentists. The NHSC has determined that a minimum HPSA score of 18 for all service-ready NHSC scholars will enable it to meet its statutory obligation to identify a number of entities eligible for NHSC scholar placement that is at least equal to, but not greater than, twice the number of NHSC scholars available to serve in the 2018-2019 placement cycle.

    Beginning on April 1, 2019, and on or about April 1 of each subsequent year, HRSA will publish on its website https://connector.hrsa.gov/, the HPSA scores used to determine priority for assignment of NHSC scholars for placement cycles after September 30, 2019, and entities that would receive priority for the placement of NHSC scholars. Entities wishing to provide additional data and information to support their inclusion on the proposed list of entities receiving priority in assignment of NHSC scholars, or to support a higher priority determination, must do so in writing no later than May 1, 2019, or within 30 days following the publication of a revised list in subsequent years.

    Sites wishing to request an additional scholar must complete an Additional Scholar Request form available at http://nhsc.hrsa.gov/downloads/additionalrequestform.pdf. NHSC-approved sites that do not meet the authorized threshold HPSA may post job openings on the Health Workforce Connector; however, scholars seeking placement will be advised that they can only compete for positions at sites that meet the threshold that is in effect at the time they seek to be placed at an NHSC-approved site. Although vacancies in HPSAs that have scores less than the authorized threshold are not eligible for scholar placements, such vacancies will be used by the NHSC when evaluating the HPSA threshold score for the next annual scholarship placement cycle.

    Application Requests

    The list of HPSAs and entities eligible to receive priority for the placement of NHSC scholars is updated periodically. New entities may be added to the Health Workforce Connector during a Site Application competition. Likewise, entities that no longer meet eligibility criteria, including those sites whose 3-year approval as an NHSC service site has lapsed or whose HPSA designation has been withdrawn or whose withdrawal is being processed, will be removed from the priority listing.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. George Sigounas, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10699 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Request for Information for the Development of the Fiscal Year 2021-2023 Trans-NIH Strategic Plan for HIV and HIV-Related Research AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this Request for Information (RFI), the Office of AIDS Research (OAR) in the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), invites feedback from investigators in academia, industry, health care professionals, patient advocates and health advocacy organizations, scientific or professional organizations, federal agencies, community, and other interested constituents on the development of the fiscal year (FY) 2021-2023 Trans-NIH Strategic Plan for HIV and HIV-Related Research (the Plan). The Plan is designed to identify and articulate future directions to maximize the NIH's investments in HIV research.

    DATES:

    The OAR's Request for Information is open for public comment for a period of 30 days. Comments must be received by June 20, 2018 to ensure consideration. After the public comment period has closed, the comments received by OAR will be considered in a timely manner for the development of the FY 2021-2023 Trans-NIH Strategic Plan for HIV and HIV-related Research.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submissions may be electronically entered at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/rfi/rfi.cfm?ID=76.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions about this request for information should be directed to the Office of AIDS Research, National Institutes of Health, email: [email protected], 5601 Fishers Lane Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    To respond this RFI, go to the following web address: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/rfi/rfi.cfm?ID=76.

    As legislatively mandated, OAR plans and coordinates research through the development of an annual Trans-NIH Strategic Plan for HIV and HIV-Related Research that articulates the overarching HIV research priorities and serves as the framework for developing the trans-NIH HIV research budget. OAR oversees and coordinates the conduct and support of all HIV research activities across the NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs). The NIH-sponsored HIV research programs include both extramural and intramural research, buildings and facilities, research training, program evaluation, and supports a comprehensive portfolio of research representing a broad range of basic, clinical, behavioral, social sciences, and translational research on HIV and its associated coinfections and comorbidities.

    The Plan provides information about the NIH's HIV research priorities to the scientific community, Congress, community stakeholders, HIV-affected communities, and the broad public at large. The fiscal year 2018 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research was recently distributed on the OAR website: (https://www.oar.nih.gov/strategic_plan/plan_18.asp).

    The current overarching priorities for HIV/AIDS research are defined in the NIH Director's Statement of August 12, 2015, and Guide Notice NOT-OD-15-137 (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-137.html).

    High Priority topics of research for support include:

    (1) Reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS;

    (2) Developing the next generation of HIV therapies;

    (3) Identifying strategies towards a cure;

    (4) Improving the prevention and treatment of HIV-associated comorbidities, coinfections, and complications; and

    (5) Cross-cutting areas that includes basic research, behavioral and social sciences research, health disparities, trainings, capacity-building, and infrastructure.

    This RFI is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation for applications or proposals, or as an obligation in any way on the part of the United States Federal Government. The Federal Government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the government's use. Additionally, the government cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the information provided.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10784 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Neural Regulation of Cancer.

    Date: June 7, 2018.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Manzoor Zarger, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6208, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2477, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Projects: Drug Abuse.

    Date: June 8, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Sheraton Seattle Hotel, 1400 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

    Contact Person: Jasenka Borzan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 4214, Bethesda, MD 20892-7814, 301-435-1787, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Macromolecular Structure and Function D Study Section.

    Date: June 13, 2018.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Allerton Hotel, 701 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611.

    Contact Person: James W. Mack, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4154, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2037, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Rodent Testing Centers for Development of Reporter Systems and Evaluation of Somatic Cell Genome Editing Tools (U42).

    Date: June 13, 2018.

    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Alok Mulky, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4203, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3566, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Academic Research Enhancement Award.

    Date: June 13, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Reigh-Yi Lin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-6009, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Transplantation, Tolerance, and Tumor Immunology Study Section.

    Date: June 14-15, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle NW, Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: Jin Huang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4199, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1230, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics Integrated Review Group; Macromolecular Structure and Function C Study Section.

    Date: June 14, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Allerton Hotel, 701 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611.

    Contact Person: William A. Greenberg, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4168, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1726, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Auditory Science.

    Date: June 14, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Marriott Georgetown, 1221 22nd Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Jana Drgonova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5213, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-2549, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group; Biostatistical Methods and Research Design Study Section.

    Date: June 14-15, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites by Hilton Chicago Downtown, 600 North State Street, Chicago, IL 60654.

    Contact Person: Peter J. Kozel, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3139, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1116, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Respiratory Sciences.

    Date: June 14-15, 2018.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ghenima Dirami, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4122, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-498-7546, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Par Panel: Academic-Industrial Partnerships Research for Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment.

    Date: June 15, 2018.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Guo Feng Xu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5122, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-9870, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 15, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10676 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Innovative Molecular and Cellular Analysis Technologies (IMAT).

    Date: June 15, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant application.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Yasuko Furumoto, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W634, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5287, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI UG1 Review.

    Date: June 19-20, 2018.

    Time: 5:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Wlodek Lopaczynski, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of the Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W514, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6340, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI U01 Review.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W624, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Tushar Deb, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W624, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6132, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 15, 2018. David D. Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10678 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Initial Review Group; Mental Health Services Research Committee.

    Date: June 12, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6136, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-443-1225, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 15, 2018. David D. Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10682 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NHLBI Short-Term Experience in Research.

    Date: June 13, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lindsay M Garvin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Suite 7189, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7911, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NHLBI Single-Site CLTR Review.

    Date: June 14, 2018.

    Time: Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard Chevy Chase by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

    Contact Person: Chang Sook Kim, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7188, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-827-7940, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 15, 2018. Michelle D. Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10680 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors for Clinical Sciences and Epidemiology National Cancer Institute.

    Date: July 9, 2018.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Wing C; 6th Floor, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Brian E. Wojcik, Ph.D., Senior Review Administrator, Institute Review Office, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center, Room 3W414, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5664, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors for Basic Sciences National Cancer Institute.

    Date: July 10, 2018.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Wing C; 6th Floor, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Mehrdad M. Tondravi, Ph.D., Chief, Institute Review Office, Office of the Director, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center, Room 3W302, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5664, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 15, 2018. David D. Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10677 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Reproduction, Andrology, and Gynecology Subcommittee.

    Date: June 23, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2717, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; The Role of Stem/Progenitor Cells in the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Gynecologic Disorders.

    Date: June 18, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Exeuctive Blvd., Rm. 5B01 Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Biology Subcommittee.

    Date: June 22, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Peter Zelazowski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, NICHD, SRB, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6902, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Health, Behavior, and Context Subcommittee.

    Date: June 25, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Kimberly L. Houston, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Children Health and Human Development, 6701B Rockledge Drive, Room 2127B, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-4902, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Reproductive Scientist Development Program (RSDP).

    Date: June 29, 2018.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administratorl Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Exeuctive Blvd., Rm. 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 15, 2018. Michelle D. Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10681 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.

    Date: June 11, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 6th Floor, Room 6S233, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Robert S. Balaban, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research National Institutes of Health, NHLBI Building 10, 4th Floor, Room 1581, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-2116, [email protected].

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/node/80103, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 15, 2018. Michelle D. Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10679 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

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

    Proposed Project: Division of State Programs—Management Reporting Tool (DSP-MRT) (OMB No. 0930-0354)—Revision

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) aims to monitor several substance abuse prevention programs through the DSP-MRT, which reports data using the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). Programs monitored through the DSP-MRT include: SPF-Partnerships for Success, SPF- Prescription Drugs, Prescription Drug Overdose, and First Responder-Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This request for data collection includes a revision from a previously approved OMB instrument.

    Monitoring data using the SPF model will allow SAMHSA's project officers to systematically collect data to monitor their grant program. In addition to assessing activities related to the SPF steps, the performance monitoring instruments covered in this statement collect data to assess the following grantee required specific performance measures:

    • Number of training and technical assistance activities per funded community provided by the grantee to support communities • Number of training and technical assistance activities (numbers served) provided by the grantee • Number of subrecipient communities that improved on one or more targeted National Outcome Measures • Number of grantees who integrate Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data into their program needs assessment • Num