31704 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

wood chips with the direct intent of 

producing a composite product. The 

commenter further stated that in order 

for this process to be economically 

feasible, the majority of the raw 

materials are sourced within close 

proximity of the mill or plant. The 

commenter stated that this practice 

greatly limits the number of species that 

could be included in the product. 

We have decided to publish another 

ANPR to solicit comments addressing 

the following questions: 

• Is the scope of the proposed 

definition for composite plant materials 

appropriate, and if not, how could it be 

revised? 

• What would be an appropriate 

threshold for a de minimis exception 

from the declaration requirement for 

composite plant materials under the 

first approach identified above? We 

especially invite comment on the 

feasibility of providing importers an 

exemption from identifying in a 

declaration the genus, species, and 

country of harvest for up to 5 percent of 

the composite plant material in a 

product being imported so long as it 

does not include material from plants of 

conservation concern that are listed in 

an appendix to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species; as an endangered or threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973; or pursuant to any State 

law that provides for the conservation of 

species that are indigenous to the State 

and are threatened with extinction. We 

also invite comment on whether that 

percentage should be higher or lower, 

and why. Additional data on why 

commenters support either the 5 percent 

threshold or an alternative threshold 

would be useful for the rulemaking 

process. We note that where a paper or 

paperboard plant product includes 

recycled plant product the statute only 

requires that the importer identify an 

average percent of recycled content 

without regard for the species or 

country of harvest of a recycled product, 

in addition to the information otherwise 

required for the non-recycled plant 

content. 

• Would the second approach 

discussed above, in which the 

declaration would have to contain the 

average percent composite plant 

content, measured on the basis of either 

weight or volume (in addition to 

information as to genus, species, and 

country of harvest for any noncomposite plant content) be appropriate 

as a de minimis exception to the Lacey 

Act declaration requirement and 

consistent with the statute? Would such 

an approach affect U.S. manufacturers 

who export finished products to Europe 

and other market nations that may 

require their traders to authenticate the 

source of wood or wood products? 

• Would an alternative approach to 

either of those described above 

concerning the import declaration 

requirement be appropriate in the case 

of composite products, and why? 

• What specific activities would 

affected entities (including importers 

and their suppliers) need to engage in in 

order to identify the species and country 

of harvest of plants in composite plant 

materials and thereby comply with the 

declaration requirement for products 

containing such plant materials? 

• How would those specific activities 

be affected by various levels of a de 

minimis exception to the declaration 

requirement products containing 

composite plant materials? 

• In commenting on any of the 

approaches described above or 

proposing an alternative threshold, 

comments should take into 

consideration that a de minimis 

exception to a statutory requirement is 

being proposed, which means that the 

exception should be appropriately 

limited and consistent with the statute. 

This action has been determined to be 

significant for the purposes of Executive 

Order 12866 and, therefore, has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d). 

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

July 2018. 

Greg Ibach, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14625 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0029] 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Water-Source Heat 

Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Extension of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On June 22, 2018, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

published in the Federal Register a 

request for information (RFI) to consider 

whether to amend DOE’s test procedure 

for commercial water-source heat 

pumps (‘‘WSHPs’’). This notice 

announces an extension of the public 

comment period for submitting 

comments on the RFI or any other 

subject within the scope of the RFI. The 

comment period is extended to 

September 21, 2018. 

DATES: The comment period for the RFI 

published on June 22, 2018 (83 FR 

29048) is extended. Written comments 

and information are requested and will 

be accepted on or before September 21, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0029, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: to WSHP2017TP0029@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0029 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

Test Procedure RFI for Water-Source 

Heat Pumps, Docket No. EERE–2017– 

BT–TP–0029, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at http://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket

Browser?rpp=25&po=0&D=EERE-2017- 

BT-TP-0029. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31705 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

4563. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–9507. Email: Eric.Stas@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) published in the Federal 

Register a request for information (RFI) 

to consider whether to amend DOE’s 

test procedure for commercial watersource heat pumps (‘‘WSHPs’’). 83 FR 

29048. The document provided for 

submitting written comments and 

information by July 23, 2018. DOE has 

received a request from the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI), dated June 23, 2018, to 

provide an additional 60 days to submit 

comments pertaining to the RFI for 

WSHP test procedures. This request can 

be found at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=

EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029-0002. 

An extension of the comment period 

would allow additional time for AHRI 

and other interested parties to consider 

the issues presented in the RFI, gather 

any additional data and information, 

and submit comments to DOE. The RFI 

can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=

EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029-0001. In view of 

the request from AHRI, DOE has 

determined that a 60-day extension of 

the public comment period is 

appropriate. The comment period is 

extended to September 21, 2018. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 

2018. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14606 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0587; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–054–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc., Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–22– 

10, which applies to certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–2C10 

(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) 

airplanes, Model CL–600–2D15 

(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, 

Model CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet 

Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL– 

600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) 

airplanes. AD 2012–22–10 requires 

repetitive inspections to determine that 

cotter pins are installed at affected 

wing-to-fuselage attachment joints and 

replacement if necessary. Since we 

issued AD 2012–22–10, we determined 

that additional nuts of the forward keel 

beam attachment joint should be 

inspected, and that repetitive 

inspections of certain wing-to-fuselage 

attachment joints are not necessary. 

This proposed AD would retain the 

initial inspection of the wing-to-fuselage 

attachment joints, and remove the 

repetitive inspections of all but the 

forward keel beam attachment joint. 

This proposed AD would also change 

the repetitive inspection interval for the 

forward keel beam attachment joint. We 

are proposing this AD to address the 

unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 23, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 

400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody 

Customer Response Center North 

America toll-free telephone 1–866–538– 

1247 or direct-dial telephone 514–855– 

5000; fax 514–855–7401; email ac.yul@

aero.bombardier.com; 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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0587; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this NPRM, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2018–0587; Product Identifier 2018– 

NM–054–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued AD 2012–22–10, 

Amendment 39–17246 (77 FR 67267, 

November 9, 2012) (‘‘AD 2012–22–10’’), 

for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL– 

600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS