Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 28647 

EARLY TERMINATIONS GRANTED MAY 1, 2018 THRU MAY 31, 2018—Continued 

20181286 ...... G TransUnion; HPS Holding Company, LLC; TransUnion. 

20181290 ...... G ECN Capital Corp.; The Kessler Family Trust, Dated September 15, 1993; ECN Capital Corp. 

20181309 ...... G Eli Lilly and Company; ARMO BioSciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company. 

20181311 ...... G Berwind Holding Corp.; Sentinel Capital Partners V, L.P.; Berwind Holding Corp. 

20181314 ...... G Belcan AE Co-Investment Partners, LP; Nicole R. Grove; Belcan AE Co-Investment Partners, LP. 

20181315 ...... G Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation; ILG, Inc.; Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation. 

05/30/2018 

20181289 ...... G Sentinel Capital Partners V, L.P.; The Huron Fund IV L.P.; Sentinel Capital Partners V, L.P. 

20181304 ...... G IIF US Holding LP; ArcLight Energy Partners Fund V, L.P.; IIF US Holding LP. 

20181312 ...... G PPL Corporation; Denali Capital Mangement, LLC; PPL Corporation. 

05/31/2018 

20181202 ...... G Zippy Shell Incorporated; Waste Management, Inc.; Zippy Shell Incorporated. 

20181227 ...... G Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A.; Hejoassu Administracao S.A.; Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A. 

20181240 ...... G Lindsay Goldberg IV L.P.; New Harbor Capital Fund, LP; Lindsay Goldberg IV L.P. 

20181251 ...... G JCF III AIV II LP; Encore Capital Group, Inc.; JCF III AIV II LP. 

20181293 ...... G OSRAM Licht AG; Build My LED, LLC; OSRAM Licht AG. 

20181310 ...... G Mondelez International, Inc.; Riverside Micro-Cap Fund III, L.P.; Mondelez International, Inc. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support 

Specialist, Federal Trade Commission 

Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of 

Competition, Room CC–5301, 

Washington, DC 20024 (202) 326–3100. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13188 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 171 0230] 

CRH plc.; Analysis To Aid Public 

Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair methods 

of competition. The attached Analysis to 

Aid Public Comment describes both the 

allegations in the complaint and the 

terms of the consent orders—embodied 

in the consent agreement—that would 

settle these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write: ‘‘CRH plc; File No. 

1710230’’ on your comment, and file 

your comment online at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

crhconsent by following the instructions 

on the web-based form. If you prefer to 

file your comment on paper, write ‘‘CRH 

plc; File No. 1710230’’ on your 

comment and on the envelope, and mail 

your comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your 

comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th 

Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex 

D), Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elyssa Wenzel (202–326–2417), Bureau 

of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement, and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

Home Page (for June 14, 2018), on the 

World Wide Web, at https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/commissionactions. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before July 16, 2018. Write ‘‘CRH plc; 

File No. 1710230’’ on your comment. 

Your comment—including your name 

and your state—will be placed on the 

public record of this proceeding, 

including, to the extent practicable, on 

the public Commission website, at 

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/publiccomments. 

Postal mail addressed to the 

Commission is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening. As a 

result, we encourage you to submit your 

comments online. To make sure that the 

Commission considers your online 

comment, you must file it at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

crhconsent by following the instructions 

on the web-based form. If this Notice 

appears at http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!home, you also may file a comment 

through that website. 

If you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, write ‘‘CRH plc; File No. 

1710230’’ on your comment and on the 

envelope, and mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580, or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street, SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20024. If possible, 

submit your paper comment to the 

Commission by courier or overnight 

service. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible FTC website 

at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely 

responsible for making sure that your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include any sensitive personal 

information, such as your or anyone 

else’s Social Security number; date of 

birth; driver’s license number or other 

state identification number, or foreign 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
28648 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure that your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— 

including in particular competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies 

the comment must include the factual 

and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public 

record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your 

comment will be kept confidential only 

if the General Counsel grants your 

request in accordance with the law and 

the public interest. Once your comment 

has been posted on the public FTC 

website—as legally required by FTC 

Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or 

remove your comment from the FTC 

website, unless you submit a 

confidentiality request that meets the 

requirements for such treatment under 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 

Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at http://

www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the 

news release describing it. The FTC Act 

and other laws that the Commission 

administers permit the collection of 

public comments to consider and use in 

this proceeding, as appropriate. The 

Commission will consider all timely 

and responsive public comments that it 

receives on or before July 16, 2018. For 

information on the Commission’s 

privacy policy, including routine uses 

permitted by the Privacy Act, see 

https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/ 

privacy-policy. 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders 

To Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to 

final approval, an Agreement 

Containing Consent Orders (‘‘Consent 

Agreement’’) designed to remedy the 

anticompetitive effects resulting from 

CRH plc’s (‘‘CRH’’) proposed acquisition 

of Ash Grove Cement Company (‘‘Ash 

Grove’’). Under the terms of the 

proposed Consent Agreement, CRH is 

required to divest the Trident cement 

plant and quarry located in Three Forks, 

Montana to Grupo Cementos de 

Chihuahua SAB de CV (‘‘GCC’’). The 

Consent Agreement additionally 

requires CRH to divest two sand-andgravel plants and one sand-and-gravel 

pit located in Omaha, Nebraska to 

Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (‘‘Martin 

Marietta’’). Last, the Consent Agreement 

requires CRH to divest two limestone 

quarries and a hot-mix asphalt plant 

located in Olathe, Kansas, as well as an 

additional limestone quarry and hot-mix 

asphalt plant located in Louisburg, 

Kansas, to Summit Materials, Inc. 

(‘‘Summit’’). 

The Consent Agreement has been 

placed on the public record for thirty 

days to solicit comments from interested 

persons. Comments received during this 

period will become part of the public 

record. After thirty days, the 

Commission will again review the 

Consent Agreement and the comments 

received, and decide whether it should 

withdraw from the Consent Agreement, 

modify it, or make final the Decision 

and Order (‘‘Order’’). 

The Transaction 

Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of 

Merger dated September 20, 2017, CRH 

proposes to acquire 100 percent of the 

existing voting securities of Ash Grove 

in a transaction valued at $3.5 billion. 

The Commission’s Complaint alleges 

that the proposed acquisition, if 

consummated, would violate Section 7 

of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 

U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 

U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening 

competition in certain regional markets 

in the United States for the manufacture 

and sale of portland cement, sand and 

gravel, and crushed limestone. The 

proposed Consent Agreement will 

remedy the alleged violations by 

preserving the competition that would 

otherwise be eliminated by the 

proposed acquisition. 

The Parties 

CRH is a multinational corporation 

headquartered in Dublin, Ireland that 

specializes in manufacturing 

construction products and materials. In 

North America, CRH operates under the 

name CRH Americas, Inc. (‘‘CRH 

Americas’’) (formerly Oldcastle, Inc.) in 

forty-four U.S. states and six Canadian 

provinces. CRH Americas operates three 

cement plants, one inland import 

terminal, and four inland terminals. In 

addition, CRH Americas operates 419 

sand-and-gravel sites, 232 quarries, 315 

ready-mix concrete plants, 457 hot-mix 

asphalt plants, and 26 product 

packaging facilities. CRH Americas 

operates a cement plant in Three Forks, 

Montana, sand-and-gravel operations in 

Omaha, Nebraska under the subsidiary 

Mallard Sand & Gravel Co., and a 

crushed limestone business in Olathe, 

Kansas under the subsidiary APACKansas. 

Ash Grove is a closely held 

corporation headquartered in Overland 

Park, Kansas, also specializing in the 

manufacture of construction products 

and materials. Ash Grove is the sixthlargest cement manufacturer in North 

America and the second-largest 

manufacturer west of the Mississippi 

River. Ash Grove owns eight cement 

plants, 23 cement terminals, 10 fly ash 

terminals, two deep-water import 

terminals, 52 ready-mix concrete plants, 

20 limestone quarries, 25 sand-andgravel pits, and nine product packaging 

facilities. Ash Grove has a cement plant 

in Montana City, Montana, a sand-andgravel business in Omaha, Nebraska 

operating under the subsidiary LymanRichey Corporation, and a crushed 

limestone business in Olathe, Kansas 

that operates under the subsidiary 

Johnson County Aggregates. 

The Relevant Products and Structure of 

the Markets 

The transaction raises competition 

concerns in three relevant product 

markets: the manufacture and sale of 

portland cement, sand and gravel, and 

crushed limestone. In the United States, 

both parties manufacture and sell 

portland cement. Users mix portland 

cement with water and aggregates 

(crushed stone, sand, or gravel) to form 

concrete, a fundamental building 

material that is widely used in 

residential, commercial, and public 

infrastructure construction projects. 

Because portland cement has no close 

substitutes and the cost of cement 

usually represents a relatively small 

portion of a project’s overall 

construction costs, few customers are 

likely to switch to other products in 

response to a small but significant 

increase in the price of portland cement. 

Both parties also supply constructiongrade sand and gravel, which are 

alluvial deposits used in concrete, road 

base, asphalt, construction fill, and 

other construction products. Because 

sand and gravel have no close 

substitutes in the Omaha, Nebraska/ 

Council Bluffs, Iowa market, it is 

appropriate to treat sand and gravel as 

a separate relevant market because 

Omaha customers are unlikely to switch 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 28649 

to other products when faced with a 

small but significant increase in the 

price of sand and gravel. 

Both parties also produce crushed 

limestone, which is used as an input in 

cement, concrete, asphalt, metal 

refining, construction base, and other 

construction products. Because there are 

no close substitutes for crushed 

limestone in the Johnson County, 

Kansas City market, it is appropriate to 

treat crushed limestone as a separate 

relevant market because Johnson County 

customers are unlikely to switch to 

other products in the event of a small 

but significant increase in the price of 

crushed limestone. 

The primary purchasers of portland 

cement are ready-mix concrete 

producers. The primary purchasers of 

sand and gravel and crushed limestone 

are producers of ready-mix concrete and 

hot-mix asphalt. Because these products 

are heavy and relatively inexpensive 

commodities, the distance over which 

they can be trucked economically is 

limited. As a result, cement and 

aggregates markets are local or regional 

in nature, though their precise scope 

depends on a number of factors, 

including the traffic density of the 

specific region and local transportation 

costs, and available rail lines. For the 

purposes of analyzing the effects of the 

proposed acquisition on the portland 

cement market, the relevant geographic 

market is the state of Montana. The 

geographic market in which to analyze 

the effects of the proposed transaction 

on sand and gravel is the Omaha, 

Nebraska/Council Bluffs, Iowa region. 

The geographic market in which to 

analyze the effects of the proposed 

transaction on crushed limestone is the 

Johnson County, Kansas region. 

These relevant markets are already 

highly concentrated. In Montana, the 

parties are two of only three suppliers 

of cement. In the Omaha/Council Bluffs 

market, the parties are the two leading 

suppliers of sand and gravel. In the 

Johnson County, Kansas, the parties are 

the two largest suppliers of crushed 

limestone and are located across the 

street from each other in Olathe, Kansas. 

Entry 

Entry into the relevant portland 

cement, sand and gravel, and crushed 

limestone markets would not be timely, 

likely, or sufficient in magnitude, 

character, and scope to deter or 

counteract the anticompetitive effects of 

the proposed transaction. Entry into the 

cement market is expensive and slow. 

The cost to construct a new portland 

cement plant of sufficient size to be 

competitive would likely cost over $500 

million and take more than five years. 

Building a rail terminal, though less 

difficult and expensive than building a 

plant, can take more than two years and 

several million dollars, and is only an 

option for firms with cement plants in 

sufficiently close proximity to supply 

the terminal economically. 

New entry into the sand and gravel 

markets may take more than two years 

to complete. Sand-and-gravel entrants 

face significant hurdles because federal 

and local permits are required before 

they can commence operation, and the 

permitting process can exceed two 

years. 

Opening a new quarry to mine and 

process crushed limestone in Kansas 

City typically costs $3 to 4 million and 

takes approximately five years to 

accomplish. Additionally, Johnson 

County has not approved a new quarry 

site in more than twenty-five years due 

to municipal opposition. 

Given the difficulties of entry in these 

three relevant markets, entry would not 

be likely, timely, and sufficient to defeat 

the likely anticompetitive effects of the 

proposed transaction in the relevant 

markets. 

Effects of the Acquisition 

Unless remedied, the proposed 

merger would likely result in 

competitive harm in each of the relevant 

portland cement, sand and gravel, and 

crushed limestone markets. The merger 

would eliminate head-to-head 

competition between the parties in each 

of these markets and significantly 

increase market concentration. For 

many customers in these markets, the 

merger would combine their two closest 

competitors, leaving the merged entity 

with the power to increase prices to 

these customers unilaterally. The 

merger would produce a de facto 

monopoly in the supply of sand and 

gravel in Omaha, leave only two 

suppliers of cement in Montana, and 

consolidate the two largest suppliers of 

crushed limestone in Johnson County. 

Further, if consummated without a 

remedy, the Acquisition would enhance 

the possibility of higher prices in the 

Montana cement market through 

collusion or coordinated action between 

the remaining two competitors. 

The Consent Agreement 

The proposed Consent Agreement 

eliminates the competitive concerns 

raised by CRH’s proposed acquisition of 

Ash Grove by requiring the parties to 

divest assets in each relevant market. 

CRH is required to divest its cement 

plant in Three Forks, Montana to GCC. 

GCC is a Mexican multinational 

corporation and experienced producer 

of cement, aggregates, and downstream 

construction materials such as concrete. 

It owns seven cement plants in the 

United States, including one in nearby 

Rapid City, South Dakota, and 21 

cement terminals. Because the CRH 

cement plant in Montana currently sells 

a significant amount of cement into 

Canada through two CRH terminals in 

Alberta, Canada, and GCC does not have 

a presence in Canada, GCC will have the 

option to use a portion of the 

throughput of those CRH terminals for 

a period of three years. Additionally, 

CRH has agreed to purchase, at GCC’s 

option, cement produced at the plant for 

distribution in Canada for up to three 

years. CRH is required to divest two 

sand-and-gravel operations and one pit 

in Omaha, Nebraska to Martin Marietta. 

CRH is further required to divest a hotmix asphalt plant and two limestone 

quarries in Olathe, Kansas, as well as 

another hot-mix asphalt plant and 

another limestone quarry in Louisburg, 

Kansas, to Summit. Each of the 

identified buyers possesses the 

experience and capability to replace one 

of the merging parties as a significant 

competitor in the relevant markets. The 

parties must accomplish the divestitures 

to these buyers within ten days after the 

proposed acquisition is accomplished. 

The Commission’s goal in evaluating 

possible purchasers of divested assets is 

to maintain the competitive 

environment that existed prior to the 

proposed acquisition. If the Commission 

determines that any of the identified 

buyers is not an acceptable acquirer, the 

proposed Order requires the parties to 

divest the assets to a Commissionapproved acquirer within 90 days of the 

Commission notifying the parties that 

the proposed acquirer is not acceptable. 

If the Commission determines that the 

manner in which any divestiture was 

accomplished is not acceptable, the 

Commission may direct the parties, or 

appoint a divestiture trustee, to effect 

such modifications as may be necessary 

to satisfy the requirements of the Order. 

To ensure compliance with the 

proposed Order, the Commission has 

agreed to appoint a Monitor to ensure 

that CRH and Ash Grove comply with 

all of their obligations pursuant to the 

Consent Agreement and to keep the 

Commission informed about the status 

of the transfer of the rights and assets to 

appropriate purchasers. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

Consent Agreement, and it is not 

intended to constitute an official 

interpretation of the proposed Order or 

to modify its terms in any way. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
28650 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13190 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Fees for Sanitation Inspection of 

Cruise Ships 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: General notice. 

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), located 

within the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) announces fees 

for vessel sanitation inspections for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. These 

inspections are conducted by HHS/ 

CDC’s Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP). 

VSP helps the cruise line industry fulfill 

its responsibility for developing and 

implementing comprehensive sanitation 

programs to minimize the risk for acute 

gastroenteritis. Every vessel that has a 

foreign itinerary and carries 13 or more 

passengers is subject to twice-yearly 

unannounced inspections and, when 

necessary, reinspection. 

DATES: These fees are effective October 

1, 2018, through September 30, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR 

Aimee Treffiletti, Chief, Vessel 

Sanitation Program, National Center for 

Environmental Health, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 

Buford Highway NE, MS F–59, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30341–3717; phone: 800–323– 

2132, 770–488–7070, or 954–356–6650; 

email: vsp@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Background 

HHS/CDC established the Vessel 

Sanitation Program (VSP) in the 1970s 

as a cooperative activity with the cruise 

ship industry. VSP helps the cruise ship 

industry prevent and control the 

introduction, transmission, and spread 

of gastrointestinal illnesses on cruise 

ships. VSP operates under the authority 

of the Public Health Service Act 

(Section 361 of the Public Health 

Service Act; 42 U.S.C. 264, ‘‘Control of 

Communicable Diseases’’). Regulations 

found at 42 CFR 71.41 (Foreign 

Quarantine—Requirements Upon 

Arrival at U.S. Ports: Sanitary 

Inspection; General Provisions) state 

that carriers arriving at U.S. ports from 

foreign areas are subject to sanitary 

inspections to determine whether 

rodent, insect, or other vermin 

infestations exist, contaminated food or 

water, or other sanitary conditions 

requiring measures for the prevention of 

the introduction, transmission, or 

spread of communicable diseases are 

present. 

The fee schedule for sanitation 

inspections of passenger cruise ships by 

VSP was first published in the Federal 

Register on November 24, 1987 (52 FR 

45019). HHS/CDC began collecting fees 

on March 1, 1988. This notice 

announces fees that are effective for FY 

2019, beginning on October 1, 2018, 

through September 30, 2019. 

The following formula will be used to 

determine the fees: 

Total cost of VSP = Total cost of 

operating the program, such as 

administration, travel, staffing, 

sanitation inspections, and outbreak 

response. Weighted number of annual 

inspections = Total number of ships and 

inspections per year accounting for 

vessel size, number of inspectors 

needed for vessel size, travel logistics to 

conduct inspections, and vessel location 

and arrivals in U.S. jurisdiction per 

year. 

The fee schedule was originally 

established and published in the 

Federal Register on July 17, 1987 (52 FR 

27060). It was most recently published 

in the Federal Register on July 17, 2017 

(82 FR 32707). The fee schedule for FY 

2019 is presented in Appendix A. 

Fee 

The fee schedule (Appendix A) will 

be effective October 1, 2018, through 

September 30, 2019. 

Applicability 

The fees will apply to all passenger 

cruise vessels for which inspections are 

conducted as part of HHS/CDC’s VSP. 

Inspections and reinspections involve 

the same procedures, require the same 

amount of time, and are therefore 

charged at the same rates. 

Dated: June 14, 2018. 

Sandra Cashman, 

Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. 

Appendix A 

FEE SCHEDULE FOR EACH VESSEL SIZE

Vessel size (GRT1) Inspection fee 

(U.S.) 

Extra Small (<3,000 GRT) ................................................................................................................................................................... $1,495 

Small (3,001–15,000 GRT) .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,990 

Medium (15,001–30,000 GRT) ............................................................................................................................................................ 5,980 

Large (30,001–60,000 GRT) ............................................................................................................................................................... 8,970 

Extra Large (60,001–120,000 GRT) .................................................................................................................................................... 11,960 

Mega (>120,001 GRT) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 17,940 

1Gross register tonnage in cubic feet, as shown in Lloyd’s Register of Shipping. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13216 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICESEN20JN18.004</GPH>