Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Notices 30687 

whether the implementation or expansion of 

an eCMS would promote the objectives 

identified in Recommendation 1 as well as 

the agency’s statutory mission without 

impairing the fairness of proceedings or the 

participants’ satisfaction with them. This 

consideration of the costs and benefits 

should include the following non-exclusive 

factors: 

a. Whether the agency’s budget would 

allow for investment in appropriate and 

secure technology as well as adequate 

training for agency staff. 

b. Whether the use of an eCMS would 

reduce case processing times and save costs, 

including printing of paper and the use of 

staff resources to store, track, retrieve, and 

maintain paper records. 

c. Whether the use of an eCMS would 

foster greater accessibility and better public 

service. 

d. Whether users of an eCMS, such as 

administrative law judges, other adjudicators, 

other agency staff, parties, witnesses, 

attorneys or other party representatives, and 

reviewing officials would find the eCMS 

beneficial. 

e. Whether the experiences of other 

agencies’ eCMS implementations provide 

insight regarding other factors which may 

bear on the manner of an eCMS 

implementation. 

3. The following possible eCMS features, 

currently implemented by some federal 

adjudicative agencies, should be considered 

by other agencies for their potential benefits: 

a. Web access to the eCMS that allows 

parties the flexibility to file a claim, 

complaint, or petition; submit documents; 

and obtain case information at any time. 

b. Streamlining of agency tasks in 

maintaining a case file, such as sorting and 

organizing case files, providing simultaneous 

access to files and documents by authorized 

users, tracking deadlines and elapsed age of 

a case, notifying parties of new activity in a 

case, and pre-populating forms with data 

from the case file. 

c. The comprehensive capture of structured 

and unstructured data that allows for robust 

data analysis to identify opportunities for 

improving an agency’s operations, budget 

formulation, and reporting. 

d. Streamlined publication of summary 

data on agency operations. 

4. Federal adjudicative agencies that 

decide to implement or expand an eCMS 

should plan and manage their budgets and 

operations in a way that balances the needs 

of a sustainable eCMS with the possibility of 

future funding limitations. Those agencies 

should also: 

a. Consider the costs associated with 

building, maintaining, and improving the 

eCMS. 

b. Consider whether the adoption of an 

eCMS requires modifications of an agency’s 

procedural rules. This would include 

addressing whether the paper or electronic 

version of a case file will constitute the 

official record of a case and whether filing 

methods and deadlines need to be changed. 

c. Consider whether to require non-agency 

individuals to file claims, complaints, 

petitions, and other papers using the eCMS. 

Such consideration should include the 

accessibility, suitability, usability, and 

burden of the eCMS for its likely user 

population, and whether creating exceptions 

to electronic filing procedures would assist 

in maintaining sufficient public access. 

d. Create a map or flow chart of their 

adjudicative processes in order to identify 

the needs of an eCMS. This involves listing 

the tasks performed by employees at each 

step in the process to ensure the eCMS 

captures all of the activities that occur while 

the case is pending, from initial filing to final 

resolution. It also includes identifying how 

members of the public or other non-agency 

users will access and interact with the eCMS. 

To the extent practical, this effort should also 

involve mapping or flow-charting the legal 

and policy requirements to decisional 

outcomes. 

e. Put in place a management structure 

capable of: (1) Restoring normal operations 

after an eCMS goes down (incident 

management); (2) eliminating recurring 

problems and minimizing the impact of 

problems that cannot be prevented (problem 

management); (3) overseeing a new release of 

an eCMS with multiple technical or 

functional changes (release management); (4) 

handling modifications, improvements, and 

repairs to the eCMS to minimize service 

interruptions (change management); and (5) 

identifying, controlling, and maintaining the 

versions of all of the components of the 

eCMS (configuration management). 

f. Establish a ‘‘service desk,’’ which is a 

central hub for reporting issues with the 

eCMS, providing support to eCMS users, and 

receiving feedback on the resolution of 

problems. A service desk should gather 

statistics of eCMS issues in order to help 

guide future improvements of the eCMS. A 

service desk could also enable eCMS users to 

offer suggestions for improving the eCMS. 

g. Plan adequate and timely training for 

staff on the use of the eCMS. 

5. Federal adjudicative agencies that 

decide to implement or expand an eCMS 

must do so in such a way that appropriate 

protections for privacy, transparency, and 

security are preserved by: 

a. Ensuring that the agency’s compliance 

with the Privacy Act, other statutes 

protecting privacy, and the agency’s own 

privacy regulations and policies remains 

undiminished by the implementation or 

expansion of an eCMS. 

b. To the extent it is consistent with 

Recommendation 5(a) above, making case 

information available online to parties and, 

when appropriate, the public, taking into 

account both the interests of transparency (as 

embodied in, for example, the Freedom of 

Information Act’s proactive disclosure 

requirements) as well as the benefits of 

having important adjudicative documents 

publicly available. 

c. Adopting security measures, such as 

encryption, to ensure that information held 

in an eCMS cannot be accessed or changed 

by unauthorized persons. 

d. Ensuring that sensitive information is 

not provided to unintended third parties 

through private email services, unsecured 

data transmission, insider threats, or 

otherwise. 

e. Keeping track of the evolution of 

security technologies and considering the 

adoption of those technologies as they 

mature in order to ensure the integrity of 

agency information systems. 

6. Federal adjudicative agencies that 

decide to implement or expand an eCMS 

should consider how to analyze and leverage 

data that is captured by the eCMS to improve 

their adjudicative processes, including 

through the use of natural language 

processing, machine learning, and predictive 

algorithms. Agencies should consider: 

a. Evaluating how eCMS features could 

generate the types of data that would be 

useful for evaluating the effectiveness of their 

adjudicative processes and policies. 

b. Capturing and analyzing such data about 

adjudicative processes and policies to detect 

and define problem areas that present 

opportunities for improvement. 

c. Upon identification of areas for 

improvement in the adjudication process, 

taking corrective action, refining performance 

goals, and measuring performance under the 

newly improved process. 

d. Hiring staff trained in data science to 

facilitate data analysis and giving that staff 

access to subject matter experts within 

agencies. 

e. Collaborating with other agencies on best 

practices for data analytics. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14075 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6110–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Office of the Secretary 

Determination of Total Amounts of 

Fiscal Year 2019 WTO Tariff-Rate 

Quotas for Raw Cane Sugar and 

Certain Sugars, Syrups and Molasses 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

the Department of Agriculture (the 

Secretary) announces the establishment 

of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (October 1, 

2018–September 30, 2019) in-quota 

aggregate quantity of raw cane sugar at 

1,117,195 metric tons raw value 

(MTRV), and the establishment of the 

FY 2019 in-quota aggregate quantity of 

certain sugars, syrups, and molasses 

(also referred to as refined sugar) at 

192,000 MTRV. 

DATES: These quantities are established 

as of June 29, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Souleymane Diaby, Import 

Policies and Export Reporting Division, 

Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Stop 1021, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20250–1021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Souleymane Diaby, (202) 720–2916, 

Souleymane.Diaby@fas.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

provisions of paragraph (a)(i) of the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
30688 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Notices 

Additional U.S. Note 5, Chapter 17 in 

the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(HTS) authorize the Secretary to 

establish the in-quota tariff-rate quota 

(TRQ) amounts (expressed in terms of 

raw value) for imports of raw cane sugar 

and certain sugars, syrups, and molasses 

that may be entered under the 

subheadings of the HTS subject to the 

lower tier of duties during each fiscal 

year. The Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR) is responsible for 

the allocation of these quantities among 

supplying countries and areas. 

Section 359(k) of the Agricultural 

Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 

requires that at the beginning of the 

quota year the Secretary of Agriculture 

establish the TRQs for raw cane sugar 

and refined sugars at the minimum 

levels necessary to comply with 

obligations under international trade 

agreements, with the exception of 

specialty sugar. 

The Secretary’s authority under 

paragraph (a)(i) of the Additional U.S. 

Note 5, Chapter 17 in the U.S. 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and 

Section 359(k) of the Agricultural 

Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 

has been delegated to the Under 

Secretary for Trade and Foreign 

Agricultural Affairs (7 CFR 2.26). 

Notice is hereby given that I have 

determined, in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(i) of the Additional U.S. 

Note 5, Chapter 17 in the HTS and 

section 359(k) of the 1938 Act, that an 

aggregate quantity of up to 1,117,195 

MTRV of raw cane sugar may be entered 

or withdrawn from warehouse for 

consumption during FY 2019. This is 

the minimum amount to which the 

United States is committed under the 

WTO Uruguay Round Agreements. I 

have further determined that an 

aggregate quantity of 192,000 MTRV of 

sugars, syrups, and molasses may be 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse 

for consumption during FY 2019. This 

quantity includes the minimum amount 

to which the United States is committed 

under the WTO Uruguay Round 

Agreements, 22,000 MTRV, of which 

20,344 MTRV is established for any 

sugars, syrups and molasses, and 1,656 

MTRV is reserved for specialty sugar. 

An additional amount of 170,000 MTRV 

is added to the specialty sugar TRQ for 

a total of 171,656 MTRV. 

Because the specialty sugar TRQ is 

first-come, first-served, tranches are 

needed to allow for orderly marketing 

throughout the year. The FY 2019 

specialty sugar TRQ will be opened in 

five tranches. The first tranche, totaling 

1,656 MTRV, will open October 1, 2018. 

All specialty sugars are eligible for entry 

under this tranche. The second tranche 

will open on October 10, 2018, and be 

equal to 50,000 MTRV. The third 

tranche of 50,000 MTRV will open on 

January 23, 2019. The fourth tranche of 

35,000 MTRV will open on April 17, 

2019. The fifth tranche will open on 

July 17, 2019, and be equal to 35,000 

MTRV. The second, third, fourth, and 

fifth tranches will be reserved for 

organic sugar and other specialty sugars 

not currently produced commercially in 

the United States or reasonably 

available from domestic sources. 

* Conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 

1.10231125 short tons. 

Dated: June 25, 2018. 

Jason Hafemeister, 

Acting Under Secretary, Trade and Foreign 

Agricultural Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14018 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2018–0034] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement; 

Movement and Outdoor Use of Certain 

Genetically Engineered Organisms 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) plans to 

prepare a programmatic environmental 

impact statement (EIS) in connection 

with potential changes to the 

regulations regarding the importation, 

interstate movement, and environmental 

release of certain genetically engineered 

organisms. This notice identifies 

potential issues to be evaluated in the 

EIS and requests public comments to 

define the scope of the alternatives and 

environmental impacts and issues for 

APHIS to consider. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before July 30, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;D=APHIS-2018-0034. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2018–0034, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Any comments we receive may be 

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

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0034 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

Room 1141 of the USDA South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal 

reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Joanne Serrels, Biotechnologist, 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238; (301) 851– 

3867. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Plant Protection Act (PPA) 

authorizes the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) to protect 

plant health in the United States. Under 

that authority, APHIS currently 

regulates the introduction (movement 

into the United States or interstate, or 

release into the environment) of 

genetically engineered (GE) organisms 

that may present a plant pest risk 

through its regulations in 7 CFR part 

340, ‘‘Introduction of Organisms and 

Products Altered or Produced Through 

Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant 

Pests or Which There Is Reason to 

Believe Are Plant Pests.’’ These 

regulations are intended to protect 

against plant pest risks to plant health 

by providing for the safe importation, 

interstate movement, or release into the 

environment of certain GE organisms. 

APHIS’ regulation of certain GE 

organisms to protect plant health is 

aligned with the Federal Coordinated 

Framework for the Regulation of 

Biotechnology (henceforth referred to as 

the Coordinated Framework), the 

comprehensive Federal regulatory 

policy for ensuring the safety of 

biotechnology research and products in 

the United States. The Coordinated 

Framework describes how Federal 

agencies will use their regulatory 

authorities under existing Federal 

statutes to ensure public health and 

environmental safety while maintaining 

regulatory flexibility to avoid impeding 

the growth of the biotechnology 

industry. The Coordinated Framework 

sets forth a science- and risk-based 

approach for the oversight of activities 

that introduce biotechnology products 

into the environment and describes the 

roles and responsibilities for the three 

major Federal agencies involved in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES