Federal Register Vol. 82, No.212,

Title: Importation of Fresh Bananas From the Philippines Into Hawaii and U.S. Territories.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0415.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States.

The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-80, referred to as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

The regulations in § 319.56-58 provide the requirements for the importation of fresh bananas from the Philippines into Hawaii and the U.S. Territories. As a condition of entry, the bananas must be produced in accordance with a systems approach that includes requirements for importation of commercial consignments, monitoring of fruit flies to establish low-pest prevalence places of production, harvesting only of hard green bananas, and inspection for quarantine pests by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the Philippines. In addition, the bananas must also be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that they were grown, packed, and inspected and found to be free of quarantine pests in accordance with the regulations.

Allowing the importation of fresh bananas from the Philippines into Hawaii and U.S. Territories requires the completion of information collection activities such as an operational workplan, monitoring and oversight of production sites, records of forms and documents, trapping, identifying shipping documents, post-harvest inspections, and a phytosanitary certificate.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of APHIS' estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response.

Respondents: Producers and importers of bananas from the Philippines and the NPPO of the Philippines.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 41.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 32.

Estimated annual number of responses: 1,322.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,968 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Council is authorized under Section 9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (the Act), as amended by Title XII, Section 1219 of the Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Approve the 2017 Accomplishment and Recommendations report;

2. Approve the 2019 request for proposals draft and discuss the 2018 proposals;

3. Conduct a listening session with constituents on community and urban forestry concerns and opportunities;

4. Provide updates on the implementation of the Ten Year Urban Forestry Action Plan (2016-2026); and

5. Receive Forest Service budget and program updates.

The meeting and listening session are open to the public. The Monday meeting agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. The listening session is an open agenda. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement at the Monday business meeting should submit a request in writing by Tuesday November 7, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members, however anyone who would like to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Nancy Stemple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, Sidney Yates Building, Room 3SC-01C, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC, 20024, or by email at [email protected].

Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 27, 2017.1 On August 23, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation, and the revised deadline is now October 27, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary 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 to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The products covered by this investigation are carton-closing staples from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).5 An interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments submitted on the record for this investigation, and accompanying discussion and analysis of the comments timely received, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.6 The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, the Department has calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In addition, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, the Department preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the PRC-wide entity, including Zhejiang Best Nail Industrial Co., Ltd. (Best Nail). For a full description of the methodology underlying the Department's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, 7 the Department stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.8

The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above as follows: (1) For the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of PRC producers/exporters of subject merchandise that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all third-county exporters of subject merchandise not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC producer/exporter combination (or the PRC-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the verification report is issued in this investigation, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.11 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), the Department requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On October 10, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), Yueda requested12 that the Department postpone its final determination and extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 773(d) of the Act and 19 CFR.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months. In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) the preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, the Department is granting Yueda's request by postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, the Department's final determination will publish no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 30, 2017.1 On August 15, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now October 30, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an Appendix to this notice. The Preliminary 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 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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The merchandise covered by this investigation includes all grades and granulation sizes of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate in their unblended forms, whether dry or in solution, and regardless of packaging type. The scope also includes blends of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate; as well as blends with other ingredients, such as sugar, where the unblended form(s) of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate constitute 40 percent or more, by weight, of the blend.

The scope also includes all forms of crude calcium citrate, including dicalcium citrate monohydrate, and tricalcium citrate tetrahydrate, which are intermediate products in the production of citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate.

The scope includes the hydrous and anhydrous forms of citric acid, the dihydrate and anhydrous forms of sodium citrate, otherwise known as citric acid sodium salt, and the monohydrate and monopotassium forms of potassium citrate. Sodium citrate also includes both trisodium citrate and monosodium citrate which are also known as citric acid trisodium salt and citric acid monosodium salt, respectively.

The scope does not include calcium citrate that satisfies the standards set forth in the United States Pharmacopeia and has been mixed with a functional excipient, such as dextrose or starch, where the excipient constitutes at least 2 percent, by weight, of the product.

Citric acid and sodium citrate are classifiable under 2918.14.0000 and 2918.15.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), respectively. Potassium citrate and crude calcium citrate are classifiable under 2918.15.5000 and, if included in a mixture or blend, 3824.99.9295 of the HTSUS. Blends that include citric acid, sodium citrate, and potassium citrate are classifiable under 3824.99.9295 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of this investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

The Department intends to issue its preliminary decision regarding comments concerning the scope of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations in the preliminary determination of the companion AD investigations.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines 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

The Department preliminary determines that critical circumstances do not exist. For a full description of the methodology and results of the Department's analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of citric acid and certain citrate salts based on a request made by the petitioners.7 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than March 14, 2018, unless postponed.

For this preliminary determination, the Department calculated de minimis estimated countervailable subsidies for all individually examined producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. Consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department has disregarded the de minimis rates. The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Consistent with section 703(d) of the Act, the Department has not calculated an estimated weighted-average subsidy rate for all other producers/exporters because it has not made an affirmative preliminary determination.

Because the Department preliminarily determines that no countervailable subsidies are being provided to the production or exportation of subject merchandise, the Department will not direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any such entries.

The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.8 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 75 days after the Department's final determination.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as amended, is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.

The shark research fishery was established, in part, to maintain time series data for stock assessments and to meet NMFS' research objectives. Since the shark research fishery was established in 2008, the research fishery has allowed for: The collection of fishery-dependent data for current and future stock assessments; the operation of cooperative research to meet NMFS' ongoing research objectives; the collection of updated life-history information used in the sandbar shark (and other species) stock assessment; the collection of data on habitat preferences that might help reduce fishery interactions through bycatch mitigation; evaluation of the utility of the mid-Atlantic closed area on the recovery of dusky sharks and collection of hook-timer and pop-up satellite archival tag (PSAT) information to determine at-vessel and post-release mortality of dusky sharks; and collection of sharks to determine the weight conversion factor from dressed weight to whole weight.

The shark research fishery allows selected commercial fishermen the opportunity to earn revenue from selling additional sharks, including sandbar sharks. Only the commercial shark fishermen selected to participate in the shark research fishery are authorized to land sandbar sharks subject to the sandbar quota available each year. The base quota is 90.7 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) per year, although this number may be reduced in the event of overharvests, if any. The selected shark research fishery permittees will also be allowed to land other LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks consistent with any restrictions established on their shark research fishery permit. Generally, the shark research fishery permits are valid only for the calendar year for which they are issued.

The specific 2018 trip limits and number of trips per month will depend on the availability of funding, number of selected vessels, the availability of observers, the available quota, and the objectives of the research fishery, and will be included in the permit terms at time of issuance. The number of participants in the research fishery changes each year. In 2017, five fishermen were chosen to participate. From 2008 through 2017, there has been an average of seven participants each year with the range from five to eleven. The trip limits and the number of trips taken per month have changed each year the research fishery has been active. Participants may also be limited on the amount of gear they can deploy on a given set (e.g., number of hooks and sets, soak times, length of longline).

In the 2017 fishing season, NMFS split 90 percent of the sandbar and LCS research fishery quotas equally among selected participants, with each vessel allocated 16.3 mt dw (35,900 lb dw) of sandbar shark research fishery quota and 9.0 mt dw (19,841 lb dw) of other LCS research fishery quota. The remaining quota was held in reserve to ensure the overall sandbar and LCS research fishery quotas were not exceeded. NMFS also established a regional dusky bycatch limit specific to this small research fishery, where once three or more dusky sharks were brought to the vessel dead in any of four regions across the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic through the entire year, any shark research fishery permit holder in that region was not able to soak their gear for longer than 3 hours. If, after the change in soak time, there were three or more additional dusky shark interactions (alive or dead) observed, shark research fishery permit holders were not able to make a trip in that region for the remainder of the year, unless otherwise permitted by NMFS. There were slightly different measures established for shark research fishery participants in the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in order to allow NMFS observers to place satellite archival tags on dusky sharks and collect other scientific information on dusky sharks while also minimizing any dusky shark mortality.

Participants were also required to keep any dead sharks, unless they were a prohibited species, in which case they were required to discard them. If the regional non-blacknose SCS, blacknose,and/or pelagic shark management group quotas were closed, then the shark research fishery permit holder fishing in the closed region had to release or discard all of the species from the closed management groups regardless of condition. Any sharks, except prohibited species or closed management groups (i.e., SCS or pelagic sharks), caught and brought to the vessel alive could have been released alive or landed. In addition, participants were restricted by the number of longline sets as well as the number of hooks they could deploy and have on board the vessel. The vessels participating in the shark research fishery fished an average of one trip per month.

In order to participate in the shark research fishery, commercial shark fishermen need to submit a completed Shark Research Fishery Application by the deadline noted above (see DATES) showing that the vessel and owner(s) meet the specific criteria outlined below.

Each year, the research objectives are developed by a shark board, which is comprised of representatives within NMFS, including representatives from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Panama City Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Narragansett Laboratory, the Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division, and the HMS Management Division. The research objectives for 2018 are based on various documents, including the 2012 Biological Opinion for the Continued Authorization of the Atlantic Shark Fisheries and the Federal Authorization of a Smoothhound Fishery, as well as recent stock assessments for the U.S. South Atlantic blacknose, U.S Gulf of Mexico blacknose, U.S. Gulf of Mexico blacktip, sandbar, and dusky sharks (all these stock assessments can be found at http://sedarweb.org/). The 2018 research objectives are:

• Collect reproductive, length, sex, and age data from sandbar and other sharks throughout the calendar year for species-specific stock assessments;

• Monitor the size distribution of sandbar sharks and other species captured in the fishery;

• Continue on-going tagging shark programs for identification of migration corridors and stock structure using dart and/or spaghetti tags;

• Maintain time-series of abundance from previously derived indices for the shark bottom longline observer program;

• Sample fin sets (e.g., dorsal, pectoral) from prioritized species to further develop fin identification guides;

• Acquire fin-clip samples of all shark and other species for genetic analysis;

• Attach satellite archival tags to endangered smalltooth sawfish to provide information on critical habitat and preferred depth, consistent with the requirements listed in the take permit issued under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to the SEFSC observer program;

• Attach satellite archival tags to prohibited dusky and other sharks, as needed, to provide information on daily and seasonal movement patterns, and preferred depth;

• Evaluate hooking mortality and post-release survivorship of dusky, hammerhead, blacktip, and other sharks using hook-timers and temperature-depth recorders;

• Evaluate the effects of controlled gear experiments in order to determine the effects of potential hook changes to prohibited species interactions and fishery yields;

• Examine the size distribution of sandbar and other sharks captured throughout the fishery including in the Mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure off the coast of North Carolina from January 1 through July 31; and

• Develop allometric and weight relationships of selected species of sharks (e.g., hammerhead, sandbar, blacktip shark).

Shark Research Fishery Permit Applications will be accepted only from commercial shark fishermen who hold a current directed or incidental shark limited access permit. While incidental permit holders are welcome to submit an application, to ensure that an appropriate number of sharks are landed to meet the research objectives for this year, NMFS will give priority to directed permit holders as recommended by the shark board. As such, qualified incidental permit holders will be selected only if there are not enough qualified directed permit holders to meet research objectives.

The Shark Research Fishery Permit Application includes, but is not limited to, a request for the following information: Type of commercial shark permit possessed; past participation and availability in the commercial shark fishery (not including sharks caught for display); past involvement and compliance with HMS observer programs per 50 CFR 635.7; past compliance with HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635; past and present availability to participate in the shark research fishery year-round; ability to fish in the regions and season requested; ability to attend necessary meetings regarding the objectives and research protocols of the shark research fishery; and ability to carry out the research objectives of the Agency. Preference will be given to those applicants who are willing and available to fish year-round and who affirmatively state that they intend to do so, in order to ensure the timely and accurate data collection NMFS needs to meet this year's research objectives. An applicant who has been charged criminally or civilly (e.g., issued a Notice of Violation and Assessment (NOVA) or Notice of Permit Sanction) for any HMS-related violation will not be considered for participation in the shark research fishery. In addition, applicants who were selected to carry an observer in the previous 2 years for any HMS fishery, but failed to contact NMFS to arrange the placement of an observer as required per 50 CFR 635.7, will not be considered for participation in the 2017 shark research fishery. Applicants who were selected to carry an observer in the previous 2 years for any HMS fishery and failed to comply with all the observer regulations per 50 CFR 635.7 will also not be considered. Exceptions will be made for vessels that were selected for HMS observer coverage but did not fish in the quarter when selected and thus did not require an observer. Applicants who do not possess a valid USCG safety inspection decal when the application is submitted will not be considered. Applicants who have been non-compliant with any of the HMS observer program regulations in the previous 2 years, as described above, may be eligible for future participation in shark research fishery activities by demonstrating 2 subsequent years of compliance with observer regulations at 50 CFR 635.7.

The HMS Management Division will review all submitted applications and develop a list of qualified applicants from those applications that are deemed complete. A qualified applicant is an applicant that has submitted a complete application by the deadline (see DATES) and has met the selection criteria listed above. Qualified applicants are eligible to be selected to participate in the shark research fishery for 2018. The HMS Management Division will provide the list of qualified applicants without identifying information to the SEFSC. The SEFSC will then evaluate the list of qualified applicants and, based on the temporal and spatial needs of the research objectives, the availability of observers, the availability of qualified applicants, and the available quota for a given year, will randomly select qualified applicants to conduct the prescribed research. Where there are multiple qualified applicants that meet the criteria, permittees will be randomly selected through a lottery system. If a public meeting is deemed necessary, NMFS will announce details of a public selection meeting in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

Once the selection process is complete, NMFS will notify the selected applicants and issue the shark research fishery permits. The shark research fishery permits will be valid only in calendar year 2018. If needed, NMFS will communicate with the shark research fishery permit holders to arrange a captain's meeting to discuss the research objectives and protocols. NMFS usually holds mandatory captain's meetings before observers are placed on vessels and may hold one for the 2018 shark research fishery in late 2017 or early 2018. Once the fishery starts, the shark research fishery permit holders must contact the NMFS observer coordinator to arrange the placement of a NMFS-approved observer for each shark research trip. Additionally, selected applicants are expected to allow observers the opportunity to perform their duties as required and assist observers as necessary.

A shark research fishery permit will only be valid for the vessel and owner(s) and terms and conditions listed on the permit, and, thus, cannot be transferred to another vessel or owner(s). Shark research fishery permit holders must carry a NMFS-approved observer in order to land sandbar sharks. Issuance of a shark research permit does not guarantee that the permit holder will be assigned a NMFS-approved observer on any particular trip. Rather, issuance indicates that a vessel may be issued a NMFS-approved observer for a particular trip, and on such trips, may be allowed to harvest Atlantic sharks, including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits described in 50 CFR 635.24(a). These retention limits will be based on available quota, number of vessels participating in the 2018 shark research fishery, the research objectives set forth by the shark board, the extent of other restrictions placed on the vessel, and may vary by vessel and/or location. When not operating under the auspices of the shark research fishery, the vessel would still be able to land LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks subject to existing retention limits on trips without a NMFS-approved observer.

NMFS annually invites commercial shark permit holders (directed and incidental) to submit an application to participate in the shark research fishery. Permit applications can be found on the HMS Management Division's Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/compliance/efp/index.html or by calling (301) 427-8503. Final decisions on the issuance of a shark research fishery permit will depend on the submission of all required information by the deadline (see DATES), and NMFS' review of applicant information as outlined above. The 2018 shark research fishery will start after the opening of the shark fishery and under available quotas as published in a separate Federal Register final rule.

Additions

On 9/8/2017 (Vol. 82, No. 173), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

Title of Collection: Performance Measurement in AmeriCorps.

OMB Control Number: 3045-0094.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals-AmeriCorps members.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 80,000.

Total Estimated Annual Frequency: Annually.

Total Estimated Average Response Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,000 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

All members in the three AmeriCorps programs—AmeriCorps State & National, VISTA, and the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC)—are invited to complete a questionnaire upon completing their service term. The questionnaire asks members about their motivations for joining AmeriCorps, experiences while serving, and future plans and aspirations. Completion of the questionnaire is not required to successfully exit AmeriCorps, receive any stipends, educational awards, or other benefits of service. The purpose of the information collection is to learn more about the member experience and member perceptions of their AmeriCorps experience in order to improve the program. Members complete the questionnaire electronically through the AmeriCorps Member Portal. Members are invited to respond as their exit date nears and are allowed to respond for an indefinite period following the original invitation. CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. The questionnaire submitted for clearance is unchanged from the previously cleared questionnaire. CNCS also seeks to continue using the currently approved information collection until the revised information collection is approved by OMB. The currently approved information collection is due to expire on 2/28/2018.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. All written comments will be available for public inspection on regulations.gov.

As part of the public involvement process, notice is hereby given by the USACE, Norfolk District, of a public review meeting that will be held on November 16, 2017, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m., at the Attucks Theater located at 1010 Church Street, Norfolk, VA 23510. The public meeting will allow participants the opportunity to comment and ask questions on the Draft IFR/EIS. Attendance at the public meeting is not necessary to provide comments. Written comments may also be given to the contact listed under ADDRESSES.

The document is available for review at the following locations:

(1) The Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management Study Web site: http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/NCSRM.

(2) Copies at all City of Norfolk, Virginia Public Libraries.

Proposed Action. The Study Area is the City of Norfolk. The Proposed Action will include construction of the following measures within the City: Storm surge barriers with gate openings near the mouths of four waterways: The Lafayette River, Pretty Lake, The Hague, and Broad Creek; floodwalls flanking the barriers and near waterways at locations from Lamberts Point to Broad Creek; berms; tide gates at various points to prevent storm surge; generator buildings and pumps; nonstructural measures and ringwall components to protect existing structures; and Natural and Nature-Based features. Implementation of the Proposed Action would impact floodplains, wetlands, mudflats, federally listed threatened or endangered species, and marine mammals, and other resources. The Proposed Action must be located in a floodplain in order to reduce flood risk behind the flood protection system. The Proposed Action will adhere to the 8-step process as outlined under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, including consideration of sea level rise.

Alternatives. The Draft IFR/EIS considers a full range of nonstructural and structural flood risk management alternatives that meet the Proposed Action's purpose and need and incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives included: (1) The No Build/Future Without Project Alternative, (2) a Structural Only Project Alternative, (3) a Nonstructural Only Project Alternative, and (4) a dual Structural and Nonstructural Project Alternative, which is the Preferred Alternative/Proposed Action.

Public Involvement. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published on April 29, 2016, in the Federal Register (81 FR 25656). A public scoping meeting was held on May 25, 2016, and a follow-up public meeting was held on June 8, 2017, both in the City of Norfolk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency serves as a cooperating agency for this project.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The Department of the Army Performance Review Board will be composed of a subset of the following individuals:

The subcommittee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Subcommittee with briefings and information focusing on the Institute's accreditation effort through the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. The Subcommittee will also address administrative matters.

Agenda: December 7—The Subcommittee will receive briefings on the Institute's ongoing self-study to reaffirm its academic accreditation. The Subcommittee will complete administrative procedures and appointment requirements. December 8—The Subcommittee will have time to discuss and compile observations pertaining to agenda items. General deliberations leading to provisional findings will be referred to the Army Education Advisory Committee for deliberation by the Committee under the open-meeting rules.

Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first to arrive basis. Attendees are requested to submit their name, affiliation, and daytime phone number seven business days prior to the meeting to Mr. Kesten, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Because the meeting of the Subcommittee will be held in a Federal Government facility, security screening is required. A photo ID is required to enter the facility. Please note that security and gate guards have the right to inspect vehicles and persons seeking to enter and exit the installation. The facility is fully handicap accessible. Wheelchair access is available at the main entrance of the building. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Mr. Kesten, the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the subcommittee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the subcommittee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Kesten, the subcommittee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will review all submitted written comments or statements and provide them to members of the subcommittee for their consideration. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the subcommittee. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the subcommittee until its next meeting.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least seven business days in advance to the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Subcommittee Chair, determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Subcommittee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three minutes during the period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Appendix F, Material Inspection and Receiving Report; OMB Control Number 0704-0248.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Number of Respondents: 153,000.

Responses per Respondent: 18, approximately.

Annual Responses: 2,800,000.

Average Burden per Response: .05 hours (3 minutes).

Annual Burden Hours: 140,000 hours.

Needs and Uses: The collection of this information is necessary to process shipping and receipt documentation for goods and services provided by contractors and permit payment under DoD contracts.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected]. Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

1. Background/Project Authorization. USACE is preparing this Draft EIS in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 1500 et seq.), and USACE provisions for implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA (33 CFR 230, USACE Engineering Regulation [ER] 200-2-2). A primary purpose of a USACE Regulatory Program EIS is to provide disclosure of the significant impacts of a proposal seeking a DA permit on the human environment. The Draft EIS and Final EIS are used to inform the public and agency decision-makers of alternatives to an applicant's project that may avoid or minimize impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.

The EIS will address all the requirements of NEPA including applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and executive orders. A partial list of statutes to be addressed in the EIS includes: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403); Coastal Zone Management Act; Clean Air Act; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Endangered Species Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; National Historic Preservation Act; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Additional authority is provided in 33 CFR 222.5, Water Control Management (ER 1110-2-240).

2. Need or Purpose of Project. The purpose of the proposed activity is aquatic habitat improvement in ELT. Major contributors to deteriorating aquatic habitat in the ELT are water level stabilization and pollution from watershed development. Negative environmental changes include an increase in aquatic plant density and biomass, organic sediments, and a shift to invasive species. Dense bands of organic material have formed along the lakeshore and, combined with aquatic plants such as pickerelweed, cattail, and tussucks, form a barrier that keeps fish from shallow spawning areas. Decline in coverage of desirable aquatic vegetation negatively impact the diversity and abundance of forage organisms that depend on these plant communities. In turn, this directly contributes to reduced sport fish production and wading bird utilization.

3. Project Description. East Lake Tohopekaliga is an approximately 11,968-acre lake located in the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes. FWC is pursuing authorization from USACE, Jacksonville District Regulatory Division, to conduct a temporary drawdown of ELT to accomplish demucking and vegetation removal activities for purposes of littoral zone habitat enhancement. FWC proposes to draw down ELT in Osceola County from 57.0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) feet to 53.0 NGVD feet. Four pumps (combined capacity of 400 cfs) are proposed to be used to drain ELT; pumps are required because gravity-fed conveyance becomes inefficient as the lower ELT stage approaches that of Lake Tohopekaliga. The proposed drawdown would begin in October-November 2018, work conducted in February-May 2019, with the refill initiated in June 2019. Other proposed activities include:

a. Modification of the Lake Tohopekaliga and ELT regulation schedules as established by the USACE Water Control Plan, to allow a temporary deviation in water levels in both lakes.

b. Installation of sheet piling and a flood control pump in the canal between ELT and Fells Cove, and in the canal between ELT and Lake Runnymede. These constructed elements may be necessary to maintain normal lake stages upstream of the canals.

c. Approximately 115 acres of littoral zone will be mechanically scraped along the east shore and consolidated into two 1-2 acre in-lake spoil islands. Woody vegetation within the scrape zone would be piled and burned.

d. Vegetation on the west shore would be sprayed with herbicide and subsequently burned.

4. Issues. Preliminary environmental and public interest factors have been identified and would be addressed in the EIS. Additional issues may be identified during the scoping process through commenting cooperating agencies and the public. USACE has preliminarily identified potential issues to include:

a. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species, particularly the Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus).

b. Required alteration of the Water Control Plan. The Master Water Control Manual for Kissimmee River-Lake Istokpoga Basin (USACE, 1994), which contains the relevant Water Control Plan, specifies coordination with USACE South Atlantic Division for review and approval of planned deviation requests.

c. Potential impacts to navigation, both commercial and recreational.

d. Potential aesthetic impacts to landowners with a viewshed of proposed disposal islands.

e. Potential impacts on public health and safety.

f. Potential impacts on waterborne recreation activities.

g. Potential impacts to cultural resources.

h. Potential economic impact on local businesses.

i. Potential air quality during burning of woody debris.

j. Potential water quality impacts during ELT drawdown, muck removal and creation of islands.

k. Potential concern regarding downstream discharges resulting from the ELT Drawdown.

l. Cumulative impacts of past, present and foreseeable future projects affecting ELT.

5. Alternatives. The Draft EIS will analyze reasonable alternatives to meet the project purpose and need. These alternatives will be further developed during the scoping process and an appropriate range of alternatives, including the no federal action alternative, will be considered in the EIS. Other preliminary alternatives to be considered include: Effectuating ELT drawdown with pumps; ELT drawdown without pumps; disposing of spoil material by truck-hauling off-site; and disposing of spoil material using in-lake disposal islands.

6. Scoping Process. USACE is furnishing this notice to advise other Federal and State agencies, affected federally recognized Tribes, and the public of the proposed project. This notice announces the initiation of a 30-day scoping period which requests the public's involvement in the scoping and evaluation process of the Draft EIS. A public scoping meeting (see DATES) will be held to receive public comment and address public concerns concerning the scope of issues and level of analysis to be considered in preparation of the Draft EIS. Participation in the public meeting by federal, state and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons is encouraged. A detailed description of the study area will be developed following the scoping meeting, at which time USACE will determine the final study area for the EIS.

7. Public Involvement. The USACE invites Federal agencies, American Indian Tribal Nations, state and local governments, and other interested private organizations and parties to attend the public scooping meeting and to provide comments in order to ensure that all significant issues are identified and the full range of issues related to the permit request are addressed.

8. Coordination. The proposed action is being coordinated with a number of Federal, state, regional, and local agencies including but not limited to the following: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, federally recognized Native American Indian Tribes, Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, Osceola County, the City of St. Cloud, and other agencies as identified in scoping, public involvement, and agency coordination.

9. Agency Role. The USACE will be the lead agency for the EIS. The USACE expects to receive input and critical information from federal, state and local agencies (see Coordination), either as commenting or cooperating agencies.

10. Draft EIS Preparation. The Draft EIS is expected to be published and circulated in late spring 2018. A Notice of Availability will be issued, which will open the public comment period. Comments will be accepted during the Draft EIS public comment period, which will last approximately 30 days.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records. Public comments are encouraged on all changes proposed in the Part I and Part II Consolidated State Performance Report; the Department is also interested in obtaining input from data submitters and stakeholders on these specific questions:

What part of the CSPR process is the most burdensome on your SEA?

a. Reporting the data into the system.

b. Data quality reviews.

c. EMAPS reporting.

d. Other, please specify.

What are ways ED should improve the CSPR process to reduce burden on your SEA?

Currently CSPR is collected in two parts, with separate open and close schedules. Would it be less, more, or the same burden if ED moved to collecting CSPR as one part in the future? Which part of the process would increase or decrease your burden by moving to one part:

a. Reporting the data into the system.

b. Data quality reviews.

c. EMAPS reporting.

d. Other, please specify.

Title of Collection: Consolidated State Performance Report Part I and Part II.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0724.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 14,653.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 16,447.

Abstract: The Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) is the required annual reporting tool for each State, the Bureau of Indian Education, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as authorized under Section 8303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The CSPR collects data on programs authorized by: Title I, Part A; Title I, Part C; Title I, Part D; Title II, Part A; Title III, Part A; Title V, Part A; Title V, Part B, Subparts 1 and 2; and The McKinney-Vento Act. The information in this collection relate to the performance and monitoring activities of the aforementioned programs under ESSA and the McKinney-Vento Act. These data are needed for reporting on GPRA as well as other reporting requirements under ESSA.

There are significant changes between this collection and the SY2016-17 collection. The SY2016-17 collection represented the reporting requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act while the SY2017-18 aligns with the reporting requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the U.S. EPA.

The information in this Supplementary Information section of this preamble is organized as follows:

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/2008-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-section-176a-petitions.

In December 2013, the petitioning states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont (petitioners) submitted a petition under section 176A of the CAA that requests the EPA to expand the OTR by adding nine states to the region.1 In January 2017, the EPA issued a proposal to deny the CAA section 176A(a) petition. The agency solicited comments on this proposal. The EPA received oral testimony from 17 speakers at a public hearing on the proposal on April 13, 2017. The EPA also received over 100 comments on the proposed denial. This final action addresses the major comments the agency received. The remaining comments are addressed in the Response to Comment (RTC) document available in the docket for this action.

In this final action, the EPA is denying the petition to expand the OTR. In making this decision, the EPA reviewed the incoming petition, the public comments received, the relevant statutory authorities and other relevant materials. Section 176A of the CAA provides the Administrator with discretion to determine whether to expand an existing transport region. In light of existing control requirements both within and outside the OTR, the agency's ongoing implementation of the “good neighbor” provision (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) through updates to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and the emission reductions achieved pursuant to federal and state programs promulgated pursuant to these and other CAA authorities, which have improved, and will continue to improve, air quality in the OTR and throughout the United States (U.S.), the EPA denies the section 176A petition to add states to the OTR for the purpose of addressing interstate transport of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes that other CAA provisions (e.g., section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) provide a better pathway for states and the EPA to develop a tailored remedy that is most effective for addressing any remaining air quality problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS identified by the petitioners. The states and the EPA have historically and effectively reduced ozone and the interstate transport of ozone pollution using these other CAA authorities. For purposes of addressing interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA believes that continuing its longstanding and effective utilization of the existing and expected control programs under the CAA's mandatory good neighbor provision embodied in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is a more effective means of addressing regional ozone pollution transport for the areas within the OTR that must attain the NAAQS than expanding the OTR as requested. Furthermore, the EPA believes that reliance on these other CAA authorities is a more appropriate use of the agency's limited resources. In addition, in light of comments asking the agency to look more closely at the technical merits of the petition, the EPA has reassessed the technical information submitted in support of the petition, both by petitioners and commenters on the proposed denial, and finds there to be sufficient analytical gaps to justify this denial action. Accordingly, the EPA denies the CAA section 176A petition filed by the nine petitioning states.

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is a secondary air pollutant created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. For a discussion of ozone-formation chemistry, interstate transport issues, and health effects, see 82 FR 6511.

On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a revision to the NAAQS, lowering both the primary and secondary standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb).2 On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the ground-level ozone NAAQS, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone's effects on public health and welfare.3 As stated at proposal, this action does not address any CAA requirements with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Subpart 1 of title I of the CAA includes provisions governing general plan requirements for designated nonattainment areas. This subpart includes provisions providing for the development of transport regions to address the interstate transport of pollutants that contribute to NAAQS violations. In particular, section 176A(a) of the CAA provides that, on the Administrator's own motion or by a petition from the governor of any state, whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that the interstate transport of air pollutants from one or more states contributes significantly to a violation of the NAAQS in one or more other states, the Administrator may establish, by rule, a transport region for such pollutant that includes such states. The provision further provides that the Administrator may add any state, or portion of a state, to any transport region whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that the interstate transport of air pollutants from such state significantly contributes to a violation of the standard in the transport region.

Section 176A(b) of the CAA provides that when the Administrator establishes a transport region, the Administrator shall establish an associated transport commission, comprised of (at a minimum) the following: Governor or designee of each state, the EPA Administrator or designee, the Regional EPA Administrator and an air pollution control official appointed by the governor of each state. The purpose of the transport commission is to assess the degree of interstate pollution transport throughout the transport region and assess control strategies to mitigate the interstate pollution transport.

Subpart 2 of title I of the CAA includes provisions governing additional plan requirements for designated ozone nonattainment areas, including specific provisions focused on the interstate transport of ozone. In particular, subpart 2 includes section 184(a), which established a single transport region for ozone—the OTR—comprised of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia and certain parts of northern Virginia.

Section 184(b) of the CAA established certain control requirements that each state in the OTR is required to implement within the state and which require certain controls on sources of NOX and VOC statewide. Section 184(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires OTR states to include in their state implementation plans (SIPs) enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs.4 Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA requires OTR-state SIPs to subject major sources of VOC in ozone transport regions to the same requirements that apply to major sources in designated ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate, regardless of whether the source is located in a nonattainment area. Thus, the state must adopt rules to apply the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) (pursuant to CAA section 173) and reasonably available control technology (RACT) (pursuant to section 182(b)(2)) provisions for major VOC sources statewide. Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA further provides that, for purposes of implementing these requirements, a major stationary source shall be defined as one that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year of VOCs. Under CAA section 184(b)(2), states must also implement Stage II vapor recovery programs, incremental to Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery achievements, or measures that achieve comparable emissions reductions, for both attainment and nonattainment areas.5

Section 182(f) requires states to apply the same requirements to major stationary sources of NOX as are applied to major stationary sources of VOC under subpart 2. Thus, the same NNSR and RACT requirements that apply to major stationary sources of VOC in the OTR also apply to major stationary sources of NOX.6 While NOX emissions are necessary for the formation of ozone in the lower atmosphere, a local decrease in NOX emissions can, in some cases, increase local ozone concentrations, creating potential “NOX disbenefits.” Accordingly, CAA section 182(f) may be exempt from certain requirements of the EPA's motor vehicle I/M regulations and from certain federal requirements of general and transportation conformity.7

Additionally, under section 184(c) of the CAA, the OTC may, based on a majority vote of the governors on the Commission, recommend additional control measures not specified in the statute to be applied within all or part of the OTR if necessary to bring any areas in the OTR into attainment by the applicable attainment dates. If the EPA approves such a recommendation, under CAA section 184(c)(5), then the Administrator must declare each state's implementation plan inadequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) and must order the states to include the approved control measures in their revised plans pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). If a CAA section 110(k)(5) finding is issued, then states have 1 year to revise their SIPs to include the approved measures.

States included in the OTR by virtue of CAA section 184(b)(1) were required to submit SIPs to the EPA addressing these requirements within 2 years of the 1990 CAA amendments, or by November 15, 1992. Section 184(b)(1) of the CAA further provides that if states are later added to the OTR pursuant to CAA section 176A(a)(1), such states must submit SIPs addressing these requirements within 9 months after inclusion in the OTR. When the ozone NAAQS are updated, as occurred in 2008 and 2015, the OTR states must submit RACT SIPs on the same timeframe as areas designated as nonattainment—classified as Moderate or above. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, OTR RACT SIPs were due no later than 2 years following the effective date of area designations (i.e., the SIPs were due on July 20, 2014). 8

Section 176A(a)(1) of the CAA states that the Administrator may add a state to a transport region if the Administrator has reason to believe that emissions from the state significantly contribute to a violation of the NAAQS within the transport region. For the reasons discussed in this section, the use of the discretionary term “may” in CAA section 176A(a) means that the Administrator should exercise reasonable discretion in implementing the requirements of the CAA with respect to interstate pollution transport when determining whether or not to approve or deny a CAA section 176A petition.

The Administrator's discretion pursuant to CAA section 176A(a) has been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). In Michigan v. EPA, plaintiffs challenged whether the EPA may exercise its authority pursuant to CAA sections 110(k)(5) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the statute to address interstate transport without first forming a transport commission pursuant to CAA section 176A(b). 213 F.3d 663, 672 (2000). The D.C. Circuit held that the agency is only required to establish a transport commission “if the agency exercises its discretion to create a transport region pursuant to section 176A(a).” Id. The court explained that “EPA can address interstate transport apart from convening a 176A/184 transport commission as subsection (a) provides that EPA `may' establish a transport region . . . .” Id. Thus, the court held that the discretion to create a transport region rests with the Administrator. So, too, does the discretion to add states to or remove states from a transport commission.

Consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the D.C. Circuit has held that agencies have the discretion to determine how to best allocate resources in order to prioritize regulatory actions in a way that best achieves the objectives of the authorizing statute. In Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, the court rejected a challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) denial of a petition for emergency rulemaking to impose speed restrictions to protect the right whale from boating traffic pursuant to section 553(e) of the Endangered Species Act, which requires agencies to “give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” 532 F.3d 913 (DC Cir 2008). The NMFS denied the petition on the grounds that imposing such restrictions would divert resources from, and delay development of, a more comprehensive strategy for protecting the whale population. Id.at 916. The court determined that NMFS's explanation for the denial was a reasonable decision to focus its resources on a comprehensive strategy, which in light of the information before the NMFS at the time, was reasoned and adequately supported by the record. Id. Similarly, in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, the court reviewed the EPA's denial of a petition to list coal mines for regulation under CAA section 111(b)(1)(A). 751 F.3d 651 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA provides that, as a means of developing standards of performance for new stationary sources, the EPA shall, by a date certain publish “(and from time to time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories of stationary sources.” (emphasis added) The provision provides that the Administrator “shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” The EPA denied the petition, explaining that it must prioritize its actions in light of limited resources and ongoing budget uncertainties, and that denial of the petition was not a determination as to whether coal mines should be regulated as a source of air pollutants. 751 F.3d at 650. The EPA also noted as part of its denial that it might in the future initiate a rulemaking to do so. The D.C. Circuit held that the language in CAA section 111(b)(1)(A)—“from time to time” and “in his judgment”—means that the Administrator may exercise reasonable discretion in determining when to add new sources to the list of source categories, and that such language afforded agency officials discretion to prioritize sources that are the most significant threats to public health to ensure effective administration of the agency's regulatory agenda. Id. at 651. In each of these cases previously discussed, the acting agency has been entitled to broad discretion to act on a pending petition so long as the agency provided a reasoned explanation. Notably, as each of these decisions focused on the case-specific circumstances relied upon by the acting agency to deny the pending petition, the courts did not speak to whether the agency might reach a different conclusion under different circumstances. Like the statutory provisions evaluated by the courts in these cases, the term “may” in CAA section 176A(a) means that the Administrator is permitted to exercise reasonable discretion in determining when and whether to add new states to a transport region. While the Administrator must adequately explain the facts and policy concerns he relied on in acting on the petition and conform such reasons with the authorizing statute, review of such a decision is highly deferential. Thus, the agency is entitled to broad discretion when determining whether to grant or deny such a petition.

On December 9, 2013, the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont submitted a petition under CAA section 176A requesting that the EPA add to the OTR the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and the portion of Virginia currently not within the OTR. On December 17, 2013, the petition was amended to add the state of Pennsylvania as a state petitioner.

The petitioners submitted a technical analysis with their petition, which the petitioners contended demonstrates that the nine named upwind states significantly contribute to violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the OTR. The petitioners acknowledged and included data used to support rulemakings promulgated by the EPA that addressed interstate transport with respect to both the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and prior ozone NAAQS, in order to further support their request to expand the OTR. Moreover, the petitioners identified those areas that are designated nonattainment with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS within and outside the OTR and conducted a linear extrapolation with preliminary 2012 design values to the year 2015 to predict that certain areas outside the OTR will continue to be in nonattainment or will have difficulty maintaining attainment of the NAAQS after the EPA's 2008 ozone NAAQS final area designations in 2012. In addition, the petitioners included supplemental modeling, which was used to project ozone design values to the years 2018 and 2020. The petitioners' 2018 modeling purported to show that, with “on-the-way” OTR measures, areas within the OTR and within non-OTR states would continue to have problems attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Lastly, their 2020 modeling purported to show that even with a 58 percent NOX and 3 percent VOC anthropogenic emissions reduction over the eastern U.S., there would be one area in New Jersey that would continue to have trouble maintaining the NAAQS.

The petitioners further noted that the OTR states have adopted and implemented numerous and increasingly stringent controls on sources of VOCs and NOX that may not currently be required for similar sources in the upwind states. Petitioners contended that expansion of the OTR to include these upwind states will help the petitioning states attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The petitioners included two case studies that identify the types of measures adopted throughout the current OTR, including mobile source and stationary source control measures that have been enacted to reduce emissions of NOX and VOCs. The petitioners contended that the expansion of the OTR is warranted so that the downwind states and the upwind states can work together to address interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Also, the petitioners asserted that without immediate expansion of the OTR, attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in many areas in the U.S. will remain “elusive.”

At the time the petition was submitted, the EPA's then most recent effort to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution (i.e., CSAPR) was subject to litigation in the D.C. Circuit. As discussed in more detail later in this notice, the EPA issued CSAPR pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA in order to address interstate transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacating CSAPR based on several holdings that would have limited the EPA's authority pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The petitioners submitted the section 176A petition in December 2013. Thereafter, on April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the D.C. Circuit's decision and upholding the EPA's interpretation of its authority pursuant to CAA section 110. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).

Subsequent to the petition being filed, states and other stakeholders submitted additional information to the agency in support of, or, in opposition to, the petition. In the January 19, 2017, the proposed denial, the EPA summarized the correspondence it had received. These documents can be found in the docket for this action.

At proposal, the EPA explained its proposed basis for the denial of the CAA section 176A petition. The EPA described other authorities provided by the CAA for addressing the interstate transport of ozone pollution and the flexibilities those provisions provide. The EPA noted its historical use of these authorities to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution and the advantages of those rulemakings for addressing current ozone nonattainment problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA explained that it preferred to use these authorities to address the remaining interstate transport problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS because it believes these authorities allow the agency to develop a tailored remedy that is most effective for addressing any remaining air quality problems. Additionally, the EPA described other measures that have achieved, and will continue to achieve, significant reductions in emissions of NOX and VOCs resulting in lower levels of transported ozone pollution that impact attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This section summarizes the major points setting forth the EPA's reasons for denial of the petition. The EPA's basis for denying the petition has not fundamentally changed from the proposal; we continue to believe that other CAA mechanisms are more flexible and effective than expanding the OTR (pursuant to section 176A) for addressing current interstate ozone transport issues with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In Section V of this notice, and in the RTC document included in the docket for this action, the agency provides additional supporting rationale for its conclusion in light of the public comments.

The CAA provision that states and the EPA have primarily relied on to address interstate pollution transport is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as the “good neighbor” provision, which requires states to prohibit certain emissions from in-state sources impacting the air quality in other states. Specifically, in keeping with the CAA's structure of shared state and federal regulatory responsibility, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires all states, within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, to submit SIPs that contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any NAAQS. Thus, each state is required to submit a SIP that demonstrates the state is adequately controlling sources of emissions that would impact downwind states' air quality relative to the NAAQS in violation of the good neighbor provision.

Once a state submits a good neighbor SIP, the EPA must evaluate the SIP to determine whether it meets the statutory criteria of the good neighbor provision, and then approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, the state's submission in accordance with CAA section 110(k). In the event that a state does not submit a required SIP addressing the good neighbor provision, the EPA is required under the CAA to issue a “finding of failure to submit” that a state has failed to make the required SIP submission. If the EPA disapproves a state's SIP submission or if the EPA finds that a state has failed to submit a required SIP, then the action triggers the EPA's obligations under section 110(c) of the CAA, to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) within 2 years, unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the EPA approves the plan or plan revision before the EPA promulgates a FIP. Thus, in the event that a state does not address the good neighbor provision requirements in a SIP submission, the statute provides that the EPA must address the requirements in the state's stead.

Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA also provides a means for the EPA to require states to revise previously approved SIPs, including good neighbor SIPs, if the EPA determines that an approved SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to adequately mitigate interstate pollutant transport, or to otherwise comply with requirements of the CAA. The EPA can use its authority under CAA section 110(k)(5) to call for revision of the SIP by the state to correct the inadequacies under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and if the state fails to make the required submission, the EPA can promulgate a FIP under CAA section 110(c) to address the inadequacies.

Finally, section 126 of the CAA provides states with an additional opportunity to bring to the EPA's attention specific instances where a source or a group of sources in a specific state may be emitting in excess of what the good neighbor provision would allow. Section 126(b) of the CAA provides that any state or political subdivision may petition the Administrator of the EPA to find that any major source or group of stationary sources in upwind states emits or would emit any air pollutant in violation of the prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).9 Petitions submitted pursuant to this section are referred to as CAA section 126 petitions. Section 126(c) of the CAA explains the impact of such a finding and establishes the conditions under which continued operation of a source subject to such a finding may be permitted. Specifically, CAA section 126(c) provides that it would be a violation of section 126 of the Act and of the applicable SIP: (1) For any major proposed new or modified source subject to a CAA section 126 finding to be constructed or operate in violation of the good neighbor prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); or (2) for any major existing source for which such a finding has been made to operate more than 3 months after the date of the finding. The statute, however, also gives the Administrator discretion to permit the continued operation of a source beyond 3 months if the source complies with emission limitations and compliance schedules provided by the EPA to bring about compliance with the requirements contained in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 126 as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 3 years from the date of the finding. Where the EPA provides such limitations and compliance schedules, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) further requires that good neighbor SIPs ensure compliance with these limitations and compliance schedules.10

The flexibility provided by these statutory provisions is different from that provided by the requirements imposed upon states in the OTR. Generally, states in the OTR must impose a uniform set of requirements on sources within each state that meet the minimum requirements imposed by the statute. The good neighbor provision, by contrast, provides both the states and the EPA with the flexibility to develop a remedy that is tailored to a particular air quality problem, including the flexibility to tailor the remedy to address the particular precursor pollutants and sources that would most effectively address the particular downwind air quality problem. As described in the next section (Section IV.B. of this notice) and in the proposal, the EPA has previously promulgated four interstate transport rulemakings pursuant to these authorities in order to quantify the specific emission reductions required in certain eastern states to comply with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for downwind nonattainment and maintenance concerns with respect to the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5.

To address the regional transport of ozone pursuant to the CAA's good neighbor provision under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the EPA has promulgated four regional interstate transport rules focusing on the reduction of NOX emissions, as the primary meaningful precursor to address regional ozone transport across state boundaries, from certain sources located in states in the eastern half of the U.S. 11 12 The four interstate transport rulemakings are the: NOX SIP Call,13 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),14 CSAPR 15 and the CSAPR Update.16

The EPA summarized the history and key provisions of each of these rulemakings in the January 19, 2017, proposed denial. See 82 FR 6516, 6517, 6518 and 6519. The CSAPR Update, which directly relates to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, is discussed in the next section. In each of these rulemakings, the EPA identified those sources and pollutants that, based on the available information at that time, were most effective in addressing the particular air quality problem identified by the EPA's analysis. This allowed the EPA to craft tailored remedies that provided efficient and effective means of addressing the particular air quality problem at issue. In each of the regional transport rules, the EPA's analyses demonstrated that NOX is the ozone precursor that is most effective to reduce when addressing regional transport of ozone in the eastern U.S. The EPA has also focused each rule on those sources that can most cost-effectively reduce emissions of NOX, such as electric generating units (EGUs) and, in one rule, certain large non-EGUs. These rulemakings demonstrate that the EPA has used and is continuing to use its authority under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to focus on those sources and precursors that most effectively address the particular interstate ozone transport problems in the eastern U.S.

On October 26, 2016, the EPA published an update to CSAPR that addresses the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 (CSAPR Update). The CSAPR Update requires sources in 22 states to reduce ozone season NOX emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA found that for each state included in the CSAPR Update, the state had failed to submit or the EPA had disapproved a complete SIP revision addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA promulgated FIPs for each of the 22 states covered by the CSAPR Update. To accomplish implementation aligned with the applicable attainment deadline for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the FIPs require affected EGUs to participate in the regional allowance trading program to achieve emission reductions beginning with the 2017 ozone season (i.e., May-September 2017).

The CSAPR Update analysis found that emissions from eight of the nine states named in the CAA section 176A petition to be added to the OTR, in addition to a number of other states, were linked to downwind projected air quality problems, referred to as nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors, in the eastern U.S. in 2017 with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74506, 74538 and 74539. For one state named in the CAA section 176A petition, North Carolina, the EPA determined in the CSAPR Update that the state was not linked to any downwind air quality problems and, therefore, will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state pursuant to the good neighbor provision. 81 FR 74506, 74537 and 74538.

For those states linked to downwind air quality problems, the EPA next evaluated timely and cost-effective emissions reductions achievable by sources in each state in order to quantify the amount of emissions constituting each state's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the standard pursuant to the good neighbor provision. The EPA focused its analysis on: (1) Emissions reductions achievable by 2017 in order to assist downwind states with meeting the applicable attainment deadline for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 74521); (2) reductions in only NOX emissions, consistent with past ozone transport rules (81 FR 74514); and (3) cost-effective NOX emissions reductions from EGUs. The EPA, therefore, calculated emissions budgets for each affected state based on the cost-effective NOX emissions reductions achievable from EGUs for the 2017 ozone season.

The EPA concluded that the emissions reductions achieved by implementation of the budgets constitute a portion of most affected states' significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at these downwind receptors. 81 FR 74508, 74522.17 For most states, the EPA could not determine that it had fully addressed emissions reduction obligations pursuant to the good neighbor provision because certain states were projected to remain linked to downwind air quality problems in 2017 even after implementation of the quantified emissions reductions and because the EPA did not quantify further NOX reduction potential from EGUs beyond 2017 or any NOX reduction potential from non-EGUs. In order to determine the level of NOX control stringency necessary to quantify those emissions reductions that fully constitute each state's significant contribution to downwind nonattainment or interference with maintenance, the EPA explained in promulgating the final CSAPR Update that it would likely need to evaluate further emission reductions from EGU and non-EGU control strategies that could be implemented on longer timeframes. The CSAPR Update represented a significant first step by the EPA to quantify states' emission reduction obligations under the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Even though the CSAPR Update did not fully address most upwind states' emission reduction obligation pursuant to the good neighbor provision, the implementation of the emissions budgets quantified in that rule are helping to address or resolve projected air quality problems in the eastern U.S., including the designated nonattainment areas within the OTR.

The EPA is actively continuing the work with states necessary to address any remaining obligations under the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is performing updated ozone transport air quality modeling and analysis to characterize interstate transport beyond 2017.18 The results of this analysis will provide updated information on any remaining ozone problems and linkages between states.

In addition to the significant efforts to implement the good neighbor provision for the 2008 and prior ozone NAAQS, there are also numerous federal and state emission reduction rules that have already been adopted, which have resulted or will result in the further reduction of ozone precursor emissions, including emissions from states named in the CAA section 176A petition and petitioning states. Many of these rules directly require sources to achieve reductions of NOX, VOC, or both, and others require actions that will indirectly result in such reductions. As a result of these emissions reductions, the interstate transport of ozone has been and will continue to be reduced over time.

The majority of man-made NOX and VOC emissions that contribute to ozone formation in the U.S. comes from the following sectors: On-road and nonroad mobile sources, industrial processes (including solvents), consumer and commercial products, and the electric power industry. In 2014, the most recent year for which the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) is available, the largest contributors of annual NOX emissions nationally are on-road and nonroad mobile sources (accounted for about 56 percent) and the electric power industry (EGUs; accounted for about 13 percent). With respect to VOCs, the largest contributors of annual man-made emissions nationally are industrial processes (including solvents; accounted for about 48 percent) and mobile sources (accounted for about 27 percent).19 20

The EPA establishes emissions standards under various CAA authorities for numerous classes of automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle, earth mover, aircraft, and locomotive engines, and for the fuels used to power these engines. The pollutant reduction benefits from new engine standards increase each year as older and more-polluting vehicles and engines are replaced with newer, cleaner models. The benefits from fuel programs generally begin as soon as a new fuel is available. Further, the ongoing emission reductions from mobile source federal programs, such as those listed previously, will provide for substantial emissions reductions well into the future, and will complement state and local efforts to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

There are several existing national rules that continue to achieve emission reductions through 2025 and beyond with more protective emission standards for on-road vehicles that include: Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards; 21 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements; 22 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements; 23 Model Year 2017 and Later Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; 24 Model Year 2012-2016 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; 25 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2; 26 Phase 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles 27 and Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources.28

Similarly, already adopted regulations for non-road engines and equipment that will achieve further reductions include: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; 29 Republication for Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder; 30 Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder; 31 the International Maritime Organization's Emission Control Area to Reduce Emissions from Ships in the U.S. Caribbean; Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; 32 Emission Standards and Test Procedures; Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-Based); 33 and Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment.34

As a result of the rules and programs listed in this section, various other state programs and efforts, and wider economic trends, ozone levels across the nation and the OTR have been declining—e.g., down by more than 30 percent since 1980 nationwide. Ozone levels across the nation are expected to further decline over the next several years due to emissions controls already in place. The EPA's emissions projections in support of the 2015 ozone NAAQS modeling show declining emissions of NOX and VOCs between 2017 and 2025. In the states comprising the OTR plus the nine upwind states named in the CAA section 176A petition, total NOX emissions over the upcoming 7-year period (2017-2025) are expected to decline by almost 20 percent on average and VOC emissions are expected to decline by more than 10 percent on average over the same period.35

As proposed, the EPA is finalizing its denial of the CAA section 176A petition because we believe that the statute provides other, more effective means of addressing the impact of interstate ozone transport on any remaining air quality problems within the OTR with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Continuing those existing efforts is a better use of the agency's limited resources. As described at proposal, the statute provides several provisions that allow states and the EPA to address interstate ozone transport with a remedy better tailored to the nature of the particular air quality problem, focusing on those precursor emissions and sources that most directly impact downwind ozone nonattainment and maintenance problems and which can be controlled most cost effectively. The EPA and states are actively using these provisions, and numerous federal and state measures have reduced, and will continue to reduce, the VOC and NOX emissions that contribute to ozone formation and the interstate transport of ozone pollution. The EPA does not believe that it is necessary to add more states to the OTR at this time in order to effectively address transported pollution in the OTR relative to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

While the CAA contains several provisions, both mandatory and discretionary, to address interstate pollution transport, the EPA's decision whether to grant or deny a CAA section 176A petition to expand an existing transport region is discretionary. Section 176A of the CAA states that the Administrator may add any state or portion of a state to an existing transport region whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that the interstate transport of air pollutants from such state significantly contributes to a violation of the standard in the transport region. The EPA does not dispute that certain named upwind states in the petition might impact air quality in one or more downwind states that are measuring violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, the EPA believes that states and the EPA can effectively address the upwind states' impacts on downwind ozone air quality through the good neighbor provision. The EPA has already taken steps to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS through the promulgation of the CSAPR Update, which reduces emissions starting with the 2017 ozone season. The EPA used the authority of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(c) to tailor a remedy focused on the precursor pollutant most likely to improve ozone levels (currently NOX) in downwind states and those sources that can most cost-effectively reduce emissions within a limited timeframe (i.e., EGUs). The EPA further implemented the remedy through an allowance trading program that achieves emission reductions while providing sources with the flexibility to implement the control strategies of their choice.

We believe that the continued use of the authority provided by the good neighbor provision to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution plus other regulations that are already in place will permit the states and the EPA to achieve any additional mandatory reductions to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS without the need to implement the additional requirements that inclusion in the OTR would entail. As described in the proposal, this approach to address the interstate transport of ozone is a proven, efficient, and cost-effective means of addressing downwind air quality concerns that the agency has employed and refined over nearly two decades. However, the EPA notes that the addition of states to the OTR pursuant to the CAA section 176A authority—and the additional planning requirements that would entail—could be given consideration as an appropriate means to address the interstate transport requirements of the CAA should the agency's approach or other circumstances change in the future.

As described in this action, the CAA provides the agency and states with the authority to mitigate the specific sources that contribute to interstate pollution through implementation plans to satisfy the requirements of the good neighbor provision, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and through the related petition process under CAA section 126. This authority gives the EPA and states numerous potential policy approaches to address interstate pollution transport of ozone, and the EPA has consistently and repeatedly used its authority under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to approve state plans for reducing ozone transport or to promulgate FIPs to specifically focus on the sources of ozone transport both within and outside the OTR. The NOX SIP Call, CAIR, CSAPR, CSAPR Update and numerous individual SIP approvals demonstrate that the EPA has a long history of using its CAA section 110 authority to specifically address interstate pollution transport in a tailored way that is specific to a NAAQS and set of pollution sources that are the primary contributors to interstate pollution transport. As described in Section IV.B of this notice, using the authority of the good neighbor provision has allowed the EPA to focus its efforts on pollution sources that are responsible for the largest contributions to ozone transport and that can cost-effectively reduce emissions, and also enables the agency to focus on NOX as the primary driver of long range ozone transport—an approach the courts have found to be a reasonable means of addressing interstate ozone transport. Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d at 688 (“EPA reasonably concluded that long-range ozone transport can only be addressed adequately through NOX reductions”); see also EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. at 1607 (affirming as “efficient and equitable” the EPA's use of cost to apportion emission reduction responsibility pursuant to the good neighbor provision).

As explained previously, adding states to an OTR under CAA section 176A will not afford the states and EPA with the flexibility to focus on specific sources and ozone precursor emissions tailored to address the downwind state's current air quality problems and needed remedy to achieve attainment of the 2008 NAAQS. The statute prescribes a specific set of controls for a variety of sources to control emissions of both VOCs and NOX. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), on the other hand, permits the EPA and the regulated community the flexibility to focus controls on specific sources and pollutants that most efficiently address the air quality problem being addressed. The EPA determined in the CSAPR Update that regional NOX emissions reductions are the most effective means for providing ozone benefits for areas in the eastern United States, including the OTR, currently violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and that NOX reductions can be most efficiently achieved by focusing on those sources that can cost-effectively reduce emissions within a limited timeframe. Accordingly, the EPA does not believe that the requirements which would be imposed upon states added to the OTR would be the most effective means of addressing any remaining interstate transport concerns with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

The implementation of controls within the OTR, when combined with the numerous federal and state emission reduction programs that have already been adopted that have resulted in the reduction of ozone precursor emissions either directly or as a co-benefit of those regulations, have helped to significantly reduce ozone levels. These programs will continue to reduce ozone precursor emissions and ozone concentrations both within and outside of the OTR over many years to come. The EPA believes the most efficient way to address any remaining 2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport problems is to continue to address any required reductions through a combination of tailored programs, including the implementation of the CSAPR Update, further development of implementation plans pursuant to section 110, development of local attainment plans, and, if appropriate, consideration of additional emissions limitations resulting from action on CAA section 126 petitions.

The Administrator may exercise reasonable discretion in determining whether or not to approve or deny a CAA section 176A petition. The EPA has reviewed the request of the petitioners to add additional states to the OTR in light of required control strategies for ozone transport regions and the other statutory tools available to the agency and states to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution. The agency believes that continuing its longstanding and effective use of the existing and expected control programs under the CAA's mandatory good neighbor provision embodied in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), including implementation of the CSAPR Update beginning in 2017 and technical work now underway to fully address the good neighbor provision for the 2008 NAAQS, is a more effective approach for addressing regional interstate ozone transport problems relative to the 2008 ozone standard.

The EPA, therefore, denies the petitioners' request to add at this time additional states to the OTR for the purpose of addressing interstate transport of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The agency will instead continue to use other authorities available within the CAA in order to address the long-range, interstate transport of ozone pollution. This response only considers the effectiveness of the OTR expansion to achieve appropriate emission reductions to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA notes that, under different circumstances, the OTR provisions have been an effective tool for air quality management, and could be similarly effective in the future for addressing interstate transport of ozone pollution. Accordingly, nothing in this document should be read to limit states' ability to file a petition under CAA section 176A in the future or to prejudge the outcome of such a petition, if filed.

The EPA solicited comment on the proposed denial of the petition based on the EPA's preference for addressing interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS pursuant to other CAA authorities. This section addresses significant comments received on the January 19, 2017, proposed denial. Remaining comments are addressed in a separate RTC document found in the docket for this action.

Commenters believed that the EPA's explanation for denial in the proposal was inadequate. Commenters stated that the EPA's explanation for the proposed denial of the petition failed to provide a technical review of the data submitted by the petitioners and instead focused on the availability of other CAA programs. Commenters asserted the EPA “must adequately explain the facts and policy concerns relied on in acting on the petition and conform such reasons with the authorizing statute.” For example, they claimed, the EPA offered no analysis of relative costs of other tools and the efficiency of those approaches nor did the EPA propose to find the petition technically inadequate with respect to the air quality data presented in the technical support document (TSD) for the petition.36 Commenters stated that the agency failed to provide empirical evidence to support the basis for the proposed denial. Some commenters believed empirical data are required in order for the agency to respond to a CAA section 176A petition. Some commenters believed that the EPA's supporting technical data for the CAIR and CSAPR rules technically justify expansion of the OTR, pointing in particular to the Petition TSD. Commenters in support of the proposed denial claimed there are errors with the petitioners' supporting data. In addition, some commenters acknowledged that recent air quality measurements and emission reductions of ozone precursor pollutants show that air quality has improved. In contrast, some commenters opposed to the proposed denial encouraged the EPA to grant the petition in part based on data provided by petitioners that showed that some of the states outside the OTR were violating the NAAQS and believed the OTR requirements would also help those areas meet the NAAQS.

Response: The EPA disagrees that it bears the burden of conducting extensive air quality or other empirical analysis in response to a CAA section 176A petition. Petitioners for administrative action generally should establish the merits of their petition in the first instance. See, e.g., Radio-Television News Dirs. Ass'n v. FCC, 184 F.3d 872, 881 (D.C. Cir. 1999). While the agency has reviewed the technical information supplied in support of the petition, there have been significant changes to emissions levels, regulatory requirements, and ambient air quality that have occurred in the interim since the petition was submitted in December 2013. The EPA has taken into account this additional supporting air quality information, including current air quality conditions, some recent on-the-books control strategies, and significant changes in emissions inventories that have occurred over the past several years. In general, commenters did not call into question the EPA's view at proposal that ozone levels across the nation and the OTR have been declining and are expected to further decline over the next several years (82 FR 6520). As a separate matter, neither petitioners nor commenters provided information supporting the reasonableness of imposing the suite of section 184 of the CAA control strategies as a whole to address any remaining interstate air quality impact that states named in the petition would have with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In its proposed denial, the agency emphasized its preference for continuing the more tailored, flexible, and cost-effective approach of addressing interstate transport of ozone under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In response to comments asserting that the agency failed to more fully address the technical information underlying the petition, the agency will respond briefly regarding why it believes the information presented in support of the petition is insufficient given the totality of information the agency considered, including more recent air quality information.

The air quality information relied upon, in part, by petitioners included the EPA's CAIR modeling from 2005, which is now over 10 years old, and the CSAPR base case modeling from 2011.37 These two sets of modeling do not capture the reductions in ozone precursors that have occurred as a result of the implementation of either the CSAPR, which went into effect in 2015, or the CSAPR Update, which went into effect for the 2017 ozone season and was specifically designed to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS at issue in this petition. Petitioners' data also do not capture other changes in the emissions inventory and pollution control requirements that have occurred since that time. As the EPA noted in the proposal, 82 FR 6519, the modeling for the final CSAPR Update in 2016, the modeling currently underway to address states' remaining interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and recent air quality monitor design values provide a more current picture of air quality issues and projections.

The EPA acknowledges that the petitioners originally may have submitted information reflective of air quality prior to December 2013, but the EPA believes it is appropriate to consider all relevant information available at the time it takes action on the petition, not only the information provided in the petition, but more current information reflecting additional developments in federal regulations and changes in air quality. The EPA believes it would be unreasonable for the agency to consider OTR expansion and subject states to OTR requirements without considering the most recent information that is directly relevant to the 2008 ozone NAAQS air quality problems intended to be addressed by the petitioners. The EPA notes that at the time the petitioners submitted the petition in December 2013, the CSAPR implementation requirements had been vacated by the D.C. Circuit, and there was uncertainty regarding if and when the rule's emissions reductions would take effect. However, subsequent to the petitioners filing the petition, on April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the D.C. Circuit's decision on the CSAPR and on October 23, 2014, the lower court granted the EPA's request to lift the stay on the CSAPR. In addition to the emissions reductions as a result of CSAPR, the EPA has issued the CSAPR Update which further reduces NOX emission during the ozone season for a number of eastern states. Because the data used by the petitioners are now dated, they do not reflect the sustained trend of declining emissions and improved air quality. As noted in the proposal, since 2013 when the petition was submitted, there has been a long-term trend of improving air quality in the eastern U.S. For instance, petitioners identified 2012 preliminary design values showing that the designated nonattainment areas of Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC; Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Cincinnati, IN-KY-OH; Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH; Columbus, OH; Knoxville, TN; Memphis, AR-MS-TN; and St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, IL-MO would be in violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Further the petitioners extrapolated the 2012 design values to 2015 to project that the designated nonattainment areas of Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Cincinnati, IN-KY-OH; Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH; and Columbus, OH would continue to violate the NAAQS. However, most of these areas are now measuring attainment of the NAAQS.38 Thus, the nature of the remaining 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment issues in the non-OTR states is not as severe in terms of the number of nonattainment areas as it appeared to be in the past.39 These improvements have been driven in part by CSAPR and other air pollution control programs and rules, see Section IV.C of this notice, as well as a well-documented, long-term trend of transition toward sources of electricity generation in the power sector that have lowered NOX emissions.40

The EPA also observes an analytical gap in the information submitted in support of this petition as to the reasonableness of the remedy that would be imposed by application of the suite of requirements under CAA section 184 to address the air quality problems at issue. The EPA need not dispute now (nor did it at proposal) that the states named in the petition may impact air quality at downwind areas in states within the OTR, at least as of the time of the CSAPR Update modeling. See 82 FR 6518. In the agency's view, however, the air quality information submitted here, standing alone, does not automatically warrant expanding the OTR to this group of states at this time. Under the approach the EPA has historically taken to identify control measures to address regional interstate transport (in the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, CSAPR, and CSAPR Update), a linkage to a downwind air quality problem would not automatically result in imposition of mandatory controls, such as those that would be required under CAA section 184 if this petition were granted. Rather, the EPA has also historically considered the reasonableness of application of control strategies available within a linked state, usually by examining which precursors to ozone formation it would be most effective to control, as well as the costeffectiveness of those controls. Neither petitioners nor commenters in support of the petition supply an analysis regarding the reasonableness of applying the controls that would be required under CAA section 184 if the petition were granted, such as providing an analysis of their effectiveness in addressing the interstate transport problem at issue or the costs associated with those mandatory controls. As the EPA emphasized at proposal, 82 FR 6520 and 6521, application of appropriate controls through an examination of which precursors and sources to address and the cost effectiveness of available control strategies has been an integral principle of its efforts to address interstate transport of air pollution in federal regional transport rules.41 As discussed in Section V.B. of this notice, there are good grounds to question the reasonableness of application of at least some CAA section 184 requirements in the non-OTR states in this petition. The agency is, therefore, well-justified in continuing to rely primarily on its CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) authority in transport rules to focus on the pollutants and the sources in a manner that most effectively and efficiently addresses long range ozone transport.

Some commenters highlighted the benefits of the OTC, as well as the benefits of RACT, I/M, and NSR. Commenters believed the EPA's reliance on other CAA tools to justify denial is inadequate because the EPA has not analyzed the costs of those tools or acknowledged that the cost per ton of emission reduced is lower in the non-OTR states than in the OTR states. They asserted that the EPA is overestimating control cost and underselling the ability of sources to meet more stringent limits.

Other commenters that support denial of the petition questioned the effectiveness of VOC emission reductions on air quality in areas within the OTR. The commenters claimed that VOC emissions from the states outside of the current OTR states are not effective and would not improve air quality or reduce the ozone concentrations in the Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Connecticut areas.

Response: While the EPA acknowledges that the OTR has been an effective tool for addressing widespread and persistent ozone transport problems in the East, petitioners have not demonstrated that the suite of mandatory controls that would apply to new states added to the OTR would be a more effective means than its current approach under the good neighbor provision for addressing any remaining ozone transport problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These existing efforts represent a better use of limited EPA and state resources. The EPA appreciates that the process provided by the OTR regulations, via the OTC, has fostered a collaborative process for current OTR states to address ozone transport issues. However, at this time, we do not believe that the benefits of this process outweigh the concerns that the mandatory requirements imposed in the OTR are not the measures best suited to addressing any remaining downwind air quality problems in the most reasonable manner, i.e., by focusing on those sources and precursor emissions most likely to lead to cost-effective downwind air quality benefits.

For instance, the EPA has previously explained that “authoritative assessments of ozone control approaches” have concluded that VOC reductions are generally most effective for addressing ozone locally, including in dense urbanized areas and “immediately downwind.” See CSAPR Final Rule, 76 FR 48222; see also 82 FR 6517 (citing 63 FR 57381). Yet granting this petition would require mandatory VOC controls pursuant to section 184(b) over a vast region that would not be local to or nearby the remaining ozone problems in the OTR that the petition aims to address. Petitioners have not connected these types of VOC reductions over such a wide region with specific air quality benefits within the existing OTR. The EPA continues to believe that NOX emission reductions strategies are more effective than VOC reductions in lowering ozone concentrations over longer distances. The EPA believes that regional ozone formation is primarily due to NOX, but VOCs are also important because VOCs influence how efficiently ozone is produced by NOX, particularly in dense urban areas. Reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions will typically have less of an impact on the long-range transport of ozone, although these emission reductions can be effective in reducing ozone in nearby urban areas where ozone production may be limited by the availability of VOCs. Therefore, a combination of localized VOC reductions in urban areas with additional NOX reductions across a larger region will help to reduce ozone and precursors in nonattainment areas, as well as downwind transport across the eastern U.S. Further, NOX reductions will reduce peak ozone concentrations in nonattainment areas. As noted in the proposal, model assessments have looked at impacts on peak ozone concentrations after potential emission reduction scenarios for NOX and VOCs for NOX-limited and VOC-limited areas. Specifically, one study 42 concluded that NOX emission reductions strategies would be effective in lowering ozone mixing ratios in urban areas and another study showed NOX reductions would reduce peak ozone concentrations in nonattainment areas in the Mid-Atlantic (i.e., a 10 percent reduction in EGU and non-EGU NOX emissions would result in approximately a 6 ppb reduction in peak ozone concentrations in Washington, DC).43

Commenters in support of granting the petition believed expansion of OTR is an efficient method to address interstate transport of pollution that could satisfy the intent of the good neighbor provision and give upwind states a successful coordination process for addressing ozone pollution. Some commenters believed the collaborative process inherent in the OTC's mission is efficient and uniquely suited to address transport and achieve timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS and clean air. They believed there are two important mechanisms in the OTR process that would reduce ozone levels: (1) The establishment of a minimum baseline for emissions control in the area, and (2) a framework for states to collaborate in the development and implementation of additional measures if necessary to solve the ozone problem. They also believed OTR expansion would obviate the need for future good neighbor FIPs and CAA section 126 petitions. They argue that the EPA has a history of “inaction, delay, and failure” to adequately address interstate transport under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 126. One commenter claimed that states have not taken the initiative to address interstate transport requirements until required by the EPA. In addition the commenter believes that they have to force EPA to fulfill its statutory obligations by litigation. They believed the CSAPR Update is inadequate because it addresses only a part of most states' interstate transport obligations. They further noted the EPA's delayed action on CAA section 126 petitions. The commenter asserted that these statutory tools are resource intensive and time-consuming. They believed the EPA should expand the OTR to include all the states that contribute materially to regional ozone levels because it will facilitate the development of a more efficient state-led response to address interstate ozone transport. Another commenter believed that the EPA cannot selectively choose not to use CAA section 176A as a tool because it prefers other provisions, and that this ignores the statutory goal that states attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable.

Response: The EPA appreciates the time and resources needed for the agency and states to take action to address interstate transport obligations. However, the agency disagrees that expansion of the OTR would necessarily be a faster or more efficient method to address interstate ozone transport than continuing to work within the well-established framework of the EPA's historical approach to addressing interstate transport pursuant to the good neighbor provision. Because addressing the good neighbor obligation is required of all states following NAAQS promulgation, and not just those areas that are eventually designated nonattainment, states are required to submit their plans for addressing their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) obligations 3 years after the promulgation of a NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a). Thus, the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) process on its face provides a faster timeframe for implementation of interstate transport requirements for a new NAAQS than application of OTR requirements, which run from the effective date of designations and are set under CAA section 182 through a separate rulemaking process.

In any case, both the OTR SIP process and the good neighbor process are state-driven in the first instance. States are expected to submit approvable implementation plans by the deadlines required in the statute and states can choose to submit plans—under either the good neighbor or OTR process—that achieve greater emission reductions faster than required by the CAA. Even though the EPA has sometimes been required to apply FIPs to address good neighbor obligations, which have in turn been litigated, the good neighbor provision process has proven to be successful historically. Moreover, given increasing experience applying the EPA's prior interstate transport rules and the fact that many interstate transport issues have already been addressed through litigation, the states and the EPA are increasingly positioned to implement this provision in a timelier fashion. Lastly, it is important to note that, notwithstanding the fact that OTR states do have OTR control requirements, the EPA has generally (most recently via the CSAPR Update) had to seek additional emission reductions from OTR states through the good neighbor process to address interstate transport and help areas within and outside the OTR reduce ozone concentrations.

Some commenters alleged that the EPA has delayed or failed to act on CAA section 126 petitions from states. All of the CAA section 126 petitions submitted by the states in the OTR (i.e., Connecticut, Delaware and Maryland) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were submitted in 2016, and the agency is continuing to review these petitions. Action on these petitions is beyond the scope of this action. However, the EPA observes that four of the six petitions the EPA has received from OTR states since 2016 concern sources within another OTR state, which tends to demonstrate limitations in some respects to the efficacy of the OTR process.

Commenters stated that the “disparity” between environmental performance of sources within the OTR and those outside the OTR has grown. One commenter estimated that the difference in cost of controls for further reductions from OTR sources could be in the range of $10,000 to $40,000 per ton, while in the non-OTR states it could be as low as $500 to $1,200 per ton. Commenters further stated that denial of the petition will continue to leave OTR states at a competitive disadvantage, as the control requirements within the OTR increase the costs to business and industry, while the non-OTR states are allowed to emit at far higher levels.

Other commenters asserted in contrast that OTR control requirements are costly and burdensome. They claimed the mandatory requirements would impose a substantial cost burden upon both the permitting authorities and the regulated communities. One commenter asserted that the petitioners' notion of economic fairness as a basis for the petition is inappropriate and states that the EPA has no authority to require controls on that basis. This commenter suggested that OTR states should be required to address their requirements first before seeking an expansion. The commenter contended that OTR states are not fully implementing required OTR and other ozone controls, and, if they were, it may sufficiently control ozone to obviate the need for expansion of the OTR.

Response: As an initial matter, the statutory basis for granting a CAA section 176A petition is tied to the interstate transport of air pollutants. See 42 U.S.C. 7506a(a). The EPA recognizes, however, that equity, or fairness, can play a role in apportioning responsibility for addressing air quality problems to which multiple states are contributing. These concerns have played a role in the legal analysis of the EPA's past rulemakings under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In EPA v. EME Homer City, the Supreme Court upheld the agency's approach in the CSAPR of eliminating amounts of air pollution that can cost effectively be reduced as an efficient and equitable solution to the allocation problem of the good neighbor provision. 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1607 (2014). The Court noted that the EPA's approach was “[e]quitable because, by imposing uniform cost thresholds on regulated states, EPA's rule subjects to stricter regulation those States that have done relatively less in the past to control their pollution.” Id. Thus, the agency's approach to implementing the good neighbor provision explicitly considers the equity concerns raised by commenters when apportioning emission reduction responsibility among multiple upwind states. However, the agency does not believe Congress intended for it to exercise its discretion under CAA section 176A to resolve an alleged economic disparity or competitive disadvantage that is inherent in the creation of the OTR under CAA section 184 in a manner that is unrelated to the primary purpose of addressing interstate transport. Nor have petitioners provided meaningful information to substantiate that alleged disparity. Commenters' passing reference to the potential for obtaining reductions at costs-per-ton of $500 to $1,200 in the non-OTR states, rather than $10,000 to $40,000 per ton in the OTR states, was not submitted with supporting evidence. In any case, even if we assumed those numbers were true for some types of control measures, it is by no means clear (and is in fact highly doubtful) that all of the mandatory control requirements that would be required of a new OTR state under CAA section 184 would be at that level of cost effectiveness. By contrast, the EPA's approach under the good neighbor provision, as recognized by the Supreme Court, operates fairly by establishing control levels and apportioning responsibility among states based on a uniform level of control, represented by cost.

Some commenters believe that the current geography of the OTR no longer reflects the region most relevant to the nature of interstate ozone pollution in the East as it is now understood; they point out that New England states (e.g., New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts) no longer exceed the NAAQS, and their sources contribute less at downwind receptors than the states requested to be added to the OTR. They asserted that Congress created CAA section 176A to address changes in the geographical distribution of the ozone problem by providing a process for adding or removing states from the OTR. Therefore, they claimed that the EPA must set the boundaries of the transport region based on the scientific evidence presented and its own related analyses to provide the proper forum for states to address their obligations with respect to ozone transport. The commenters concluded that each iteration of the EPA's own transport rules have identified a larger area.

Response: As an initial matter, the agency does not have before it a petition to remove any states from the OTR. In addition, the EPA already adjusts good neighbor remedies in transport rules to capture the geographical distribution of states that are most effective in addressing each specific NAAQS ozone pollution issue. For example, states like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut were included in the NOX SIP Call to address the 1979 ozone NAAQS. In contrast, those three states were not included in the CSAPR, which addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, states like Texas and Oklahoma are included in the CSAPR Update that addresses the 2008 ozone NAAQS but were not included in the NOX SIP Call or CAIR to address prior ozone NAAQS issues.

A number of commenters raised concerns relating to the 2015 ozone NAAQS stating that: (1) The EPA should not limit the petition response to 2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport issues, (2) if the EPA were to grant the petition, the OTR requirements would help states attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and (3) the petition response should apply to any and all future ozone NAAQS. One commenter suggested that the EPA's response should be limited to the 2008 ozone NAAQS because the petitioners' data focuses on the 2008 NAAQS, interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are not due yet, and designations have not yet occurred for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Response: Comments regarding the 2015 ozone NAAQS are outside the scope of this action. The petition requested the EPA to expand the OTR on the basis of alleged air quality problems associated with attaining and maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The December 2013 petition was submitted prior to the EPA strengthening the ozone NAAQS in 2015. Consequently, the EPA's proposal focused on the appropriate mechanism to address interstate transport issues relative to the 2008 ozone NAAQS—not the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is, therefore, limiting this final action to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Comments on any determinations made in prior rulemaking actions to identify downwind air quality problems relative to the 2015 ozone NAAQS or to quantify upwind state emission reduction obligations relative to those air quality problems, including the EPA's decision to focus on certain precursor emissions or sources, are not within the scope of this action.

Based on the considerations outlined at proposal, after considering all comments, and for the reasons described in this action, the EPA is denying the CAA section 176A petition submitted by nine petitioning states in December 2013. The EPA continues to believe an expansion of the OTR is unnecessary at this time and would not be the most efficient or effective way to address the remaining interstate transport issues for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in states currently included in the OTR. Additional local and regional ozone precursor emissions reductions are expected in the coming years from already on-the-books rules. The EPA believes its authority and the states' authority under other CAA provisions (including CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) will allow the agency and states to develop a more effective remedy for addressing any remaining air quality problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS identified by the petitioners.

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

This final action is “nationally applicable.” Additionally, the EPA finds that this action is based on a determination of “nationwide scope and effect.” This action makes a determination on a petition from nine states in the Northeast, which would impact another nine states in the Mid-Atlantic, Southern, and Midwestern areas of the U.S. These 18 states span five regional federal judicial circuits as well as the District of Columbia. The determinations on which this action is based rest in part on the scope and effect of certain other nationally applicable rulemakings under the CAA, including the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update. For these reasons, this final action is “nationally applicable,” and the Administrator also finds that this action is based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1).

Pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(1), any petitions for review of this final action should be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this action is published in the Federal Register.

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-1166.

OMB Approval Date: October 23, 2017.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2020.

Title: Section 1.21001, Participation in Competitive Bidding for Support; Section 1.21002, Prohibition of Certain Communications During the Competitive Bidding Process.

Form Number: N/A.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 750 respondents and 750 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,125 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection 47 U.S.C. 154, 254 and 303(r).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality. Information collected in each application for universal service support will be made available for public inspection, and the Commission is not requesting that respondents submit confidential information to the Commission as part of the pre-auction application process. Respondents seeking to have information collected on an application for universal service support withheld from public inspection may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to section 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Section 0.459.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Commission will use the information collected under this collection to determine whether applicants are eligible to participate in auctions for Universal Service Fund support. On November 18, 2011, the Commission released an order comprehensively reforming and modernizing the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems, creating the Connect America Fund (CAF), the Connect America Mobility Fund (MF), including the Tribal Mobility Fund (TMF), and the Remote Areas Fund (RAF). To implement these reforms and conduct competitive bidding for CAF, MF, TMF, and RAF support, the Commission adopted new rules containing information collection requirements that would be used to determine whether an applicant is generally qualified to bid for universal service support. The Commission also adopted rules containing information collection requirements that would be used to determine whether an applicant is specifically qualified to bid for Phase I of the Mobility Fund and Tribal Mobility Fund.

The revised collection removes the information collection requirements that apply specifically to applicants seeking to participate in competitive bidding for Mobility Fund Phase I (MF-I) and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I (TMF-I) support, and the associated FCC Form 180 used by entities applying to participate in the MF-I and TMF-I auctions, because support under MF-I and TMF-I has been awarded. The revised collection retains the information collection requirements that apply generally to all applicants seeking to participate in competitive bidding for universal service support. The revised collection also amends the title of the information collection to “Section 1.21001, Participation in Competitive Bidding for Support; Section 1.21002, Prohibition of Certain Communications During the Competitive Bidding Process” to reflect the revised information collection.

The Commission will use the information collected under the revised information collection to determine whether applicants are legally, technically, and financially qualified to participate in a Commission auction for universal service support. The information collection requirements retained under this collection are designed to limit the competitive bidding to qualified applicants; to deter possible abuse of the bidding process; and to enhance the use of competitive bidding to distribute Universal Service Fund (USF) support in furtherance of the public interest. Commission staff reviews the information collected as part of the pre-auction process, prior to the auction being held, and determines whether each applicant satisfies the Commission's requirements to participate in the auction. Thus, the information is being collected to meet the objectives of the USF program.

The Commission received approval from OMB for the revised information collection requirements contained in OMB 3060-1166 on October 23, 2017.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0855.

Title: Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets and Related Collections, FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q.

Form Number(s): FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,700 respondents; 41,650 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours-25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annually, quarterly, recordkeeping and on occasion reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 159, 201, 205, 214, 225, 254, 303(r), 715 and 719 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 159, 201, 205, 214, 225, 254, 303(r), 616, and 620.

Total Annual Burden: 247,375 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission will allow respondents to certify that data contained in their submissions is privileged or confidential commercial or financial information and that disclosure of such information would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the entity filing the FCC worksheets. If the Commission receives a request for or proposes to disclose the information, the respondent would be required to make the full showing pursuant to the Commission's rules for withholding from public inspection information submitted to the Commission.

Needs and Uses: This information collection requires contributors to the federal universal service fund, telecommunications relay service fund, and numbering administration to file, pursuant to sections 151, 225, 251 and 254 of the Act, a Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet on an annual basis (FCC Form 499-A and/or on a quarterly basis (FCC Form 499-Q). The information is also used to calculate FCC regulatory fees for interstate telecommunications service providers.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0991.

Title: AM Measurement Data.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,800 respondents; 3,135 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.50-25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, Third party disclosure requirement, On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 20,200 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,131,500.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality treatment with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Commission is revising this information collection to reflect the September 22, 2017, adoption of the Third Report and Order in MB Docket No. 13-249, FCC 17-119, In the Matter of Revitalization of AM Radio Service (AMR Third R&O). Specifically, the AMR Third R&O removed certain requirements and associated burdens contained in 47 CFR 73.151, 73.154, and 73.155. To the extent the revisions affect reporting or record-keeping requirements, they reduce those burdens for AM broadcasters operating with directional antenna arrays. The Commission is seeking approval for the revised information collection requirements contained under this collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

In the 2015 AM revitalization proceeding, the FCC proposed streamlining certain technical requirements to assist AM broadcasters in providing radio service to consumers. For example, many AM stations must directionalize their signals during some or all of the broadcast day in order to avoid interference with other AM stations. Maintaining a directional signal pattern can be technically complex, time-consuming, and expensive. Such stations are subject to a variety of rules requiring signal strength measurements and other engineering analyses to ensure compliance with their authorizations.

In the AMR Third R&O, the FCC eliminated, clarified, or eased several of the rules governing AM stations using directional antenna arrays, which comprise almost 40 percent of all AM stations. First, the FCC revises 47 CFR 73.154(a) to relax the rule on submission of partial proofs of performance of directional AM antenna arrays by eliminating the requirement to take measurements on non-monitored radials adjacent to monitored radials. Next, the FCC modified several rules pertaining to AM stations that use Method of Moments (MoM) models of directional array performance. MoM modeling allows broadcasters to verify antenna system performance through computer modeling, as opposed to sending engineers in the field to take field strength measurements. Thus, a proof using a MoM model is less expensive than taking field strength measurements of an AM station's directional pattern. Specifically, the FCC: (1) Revised 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(ix) to eliminate the requirement of obtaining a registered surveyor's certification, provided that no new towers are being added to an existing AM array; (2) added 47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(x) to extend the exemption (of having to file a new proof with the FCC) to any AM tower modification that does not affect the modeled values used in the previously submitted license proof; (3) revised 47 CFR 73.151(c)(3) to retain the current requirement for submission of reference field strength measurements in the initial license application, but eliminated the requirement to submit additional reference field strength measurements in subsequent license applications; and (4) revised 47 CFR 73.155 to eliminate the requirement for biennial recertification of the performance of a directional pattern licensed pursuant to a MoM proof, except when system components have been repaired or replaced.

A. Purpose

When the Government awards a cost-reimbursement construction contract, the contractor must submit to the contracting officer—and keep current a chart showing the general executive and administrative organization—the personnel to be employed in connection with the work under the contract, and their respective duties. The chart is used in the administration of the contract and as an aid in determining cost. The chart is used by contract administration personnel to assure the work is being properly accomplished at reasonable prices. The burden hours under FAR 52.236-19 were reduced based on FY 2017 FPDS data that showed the actual number of respondents for this type of requirement.

Respondents: 19.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 19.

Hours per Response: .75.

Total Burden Hours: 14.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0064, Organization and Direction of Work, in all correspondence.

SF 1413, Statement and Acknowledgment, is used by all executive agencies, including the Department of Defense, to obtain a statement from contractors that the proper clauses have been included in subcontracts. The form is used by the prime contractor to identify and report all applicable subcontracts (all tiers) awarded under the prime contract, identify specific scopes of work the subcontractors will be performing, subcontract award date, and subcontract number, and provide formal notification to the applicable subcontractors of the labor laws and associated clauses they are responsible for complying with.

DoD, GSA and NASA analyzed the FY 2016 data from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) to develop the estimated burden hours for this information collection.

Respondents: 34,805.

Responses per Respondent: 2.

Total Responses: 69,610.

Hours per Response: .05.

Total Burden Hours: 3,481.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755.

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0014, Statement and Acknowledgment (SF 1413), in all correspondence.

A. Purpose

On February 19, 1998, a revised OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” was published in the Federal Register at 63 FR 8545, February 19, 1998. FAR Subparts 11.1 and 11.2 were revised and a solicitation provision was added at 52.211-7, Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards, to implement the requirements of the revised OMB circular. If an alternative standard is proposed, the offeror must furnish data and/or information regarding the alternative in sufficient detail for the Government to determine if it meets the Government's requirements.

We believe the burden for FAR 52.211-7 to be negative, as it is purely a permissive means for offerors to propose reducing regulatory burden on a given solicitation. There are other places A-119 has an effect, though we believe these to be positive. One is by enabling the single process initiative. Another is the general replacement of Mil standards with commercial standards, e.g., ISO 9000. Also, A-119 is the basis for the language in FAR 53.105, which reduces the chaos in data standards development. The whole purpose of A-119 was to reduce regulatory burden by promoting the use of industry standards in lieu of federal ones.

To the extent that the data on the annual frequency of the use of voluntary consensus standards under FAR 52.211-7 is not available, we believe 100 is reasonable. As an aside, FAR part 45 recognizes the use of voluntary consensus standards in the management of Government property. However, in these cases, there is no Government standard per se, with the voluntary consensus standard serving as the Government standard. Consequently, when under part 45 voluntary consensus standards are used, they are not an alternative to a Government standard under FAR 52.211-7.

This collection implements OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards. FAR solicitation provision 52.211-7, Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards, is the collection instrument. We have previously indicated that “to the extent that the data on the annual frequency of the use of voluntary consensus standards under FAR 52.211-7 is not available, we believe that 100 is reasonable.” This is the number that has been reported since the inception of this PRA collection, which indicates that revised data has been consistently unavailable since responses are provided to contracting personnel at the local level in response to a local solicitation. We checked the FPDS data dictionary and there are no codes to flag data fields or provide a count of when Mil standards are used in solicitations/contracts. Considering the lack of FPDS or other data, we recommend continuing the PRA coverage at the current level.

Respondents: 100.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 100.

Hours per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 100.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0153, OMB Circular A-119, in all correspondence.

The Secretary signed the initial charter for the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC) on November 24, 1998. A notice in the Federal Register (63 FR 68780) announcing establishment of the MCAC was published on December 14, 1998. The MCAC name was updated to more accurately reflect the purpose of the committee and on January 26, 2007, the Secretary published a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 3853), announcing that the Committee's name changed to the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC). The current Secretary's Charter for the MEDCAC is available on the CMS Web site at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/FACA/Downloads/medcaccharter.pdf, or you may obtain a copy of the charter by submitting a request to the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

The MEDCAC is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), which sets forth standards for the formulation and use of advisory committees, and is authorized by section 222 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 217A).

We are requesting nominations for candidates to serve on the MEDCAC. Nominees are selected based upon their individual qualifications and not solely as representatives of professional associations or societies. We wish to ensure adequate representation of the interests of both women and men, members of all ethnic groups, and physically challenged individuals. Therefore, we encourage nominations of qualified candidates who can represent these interests.

The MEDCAC consists of a pool of 100 appointed members including: 94 at-large standing members (6 of whom are patient advocates), and 6 representatives of industry interests. Members generally are recognized authorities in clinical medicine including subspecialties, administrative medicine, public health, biological and physical sciences, epidemiology and biostatistics, clinical trial design, health care data management and analysis, patient advocacy, health care economics, medical ethics or other relevant professions.

The MEDCAC works from an agenda provided by the Designated Federal Official. The MEDCAC reviews and evaluates medical literature and technology assessments, and hears public testimony on the evidence available to address the impact of medical items and services on health outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries. The MEDCAC may also advise the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as part of Medicare's “coverage with evidence development” initiative.

As of June 2018, there will be 54 membership terms expiring. Of the 54 memberships expiring, 3 are industry representatives, 6 are patient advocates, and the remaining 45 membership openings are for the at-large standing MEDCAC membership.

All nominations must be accompanied by curricula vitae. Nomination packages should be sent to Maria Ellis at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Nominees are selected based upon their individual qualifications. Nominees for membership must have expertise and experience in one or more of the following fields:

We are looking particularly for experts in a number of fields. These include cancer screening, genetic testing, clinical epidemiology, psychopharmacology, screening and diagnostic testing analysis, and vascular surgery. We also need experts in biostatistics in clinical settings, dementia treatment, minority health, observational research design, stroke epidemiology, and women's health.

The nomination letter must include a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the MEDCAC and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. We are requesting that all curricula vitae include the following:

In the nomination letter, we are requesting that nominees specify whether they are applying for a patient advocate position, for an at-large standing position, or as an industry representative. Potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts in order to permit evaluation of possible sources of financial conflict of interest. Department policy prohibits multiple committee memberships. A federal advisory committee member may not serve on more than one committee within an agency at the same time.

Members are invited to serve for overlapping 2-year terms. A member may continue to serve after the expiration of the member's term until a successor is named. Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified persons. Self-nominations are also accepted. Individuals interested in the representative positions must include a letter of support from the organization or interest group they would represent.

I. Background A. Fiscal Year DSH Allotments

A state's federal fiscal year (FY) disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotment represents the aggregate limit on the federal share amount of the state's DSH payments to DSH hospitals in the state for the FY. The amount of such allotment is determined in accordance with the provisions of section 1923(f)(3) of the Social Security Act (the Act). Under such provisions, in general a state's FY DSH allotment is calculated by increasing the amount of its DSH allotment for the preceding FY by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the previous FY.

The Affordable Care Act amended Medicaid DSH provisions, adding section 1923(f)(7) of the Act which would have required reductions to states' FY DSH allotments from FY 2014 through FY 2020, the calculation of which was described in the Disproportionate Share Hospital Payment Reduction final rule published in the September 18, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 57293). Subsequent legislation, most recently by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-10, enacted on April 16, 2015) (MACRA), delayed the start of these reductions until FY 2018. The proposed rule delineating the methodology for the calculation of DSH allotment reductions scheduled to begin in FY 2018 was published in the July 28, 2017 Federal Register (82 FR 35155).

Because there are no reductions to DSH allotments for FY 2015 and FY 2017 under section 1923(f)(7) of the Act, as amended, this notice contains only the state-specific final FY 2015 DSH allotments and preliminary FY 2017 DSH allotments, as calculated under the statute without application of the reductions that would have been imposed under the Affordable Care Act provisions beginning with FY 2014. This notice also provides information on the calculation of such FY DSH allotments, the calculation of the states' institutions for mental diseases (IMDs) DSH limits, and the amounts of states' final FY 2015 IMD DSH limits and preliminary FY 2017 IMD DSH limits.

Generally, in accordance with the methodology specified under section 1923(f)(3) of the Act, a state's FY DSH allotment is calculated by increasing the amount of its DSH allotment for the preceding FY by the percentage change in the CPI-U for the previous FY. Also in accordance with section 1923(f)(3) of the Act, a state's DSH allotment for a FY is subject to the limitation that an increase to a state's DSH allotment for a FY cannot result in the DSH allotment exceeding the greater of the state's DSH allotment for the previous FY or 12 percent of the state's total medical assistance expenditures for the allotment year (this is referred to as the 12 percent limit).

Furthermore, under section 1923(h) of the Act, federal financial participation (FFP) for DSH payments to IMDs and other mental health facilities is limited to state-specific aggregate amounts. Under this provision, the aggregate limit for DSH payments to IMDs and other mental health facilities is the lesser of a state's FY 1995 total computable (state and federal share) IMD and other mental health facility DSH expenditures applicable to the state's FY 1995 DSH allotment (as reported on the Form CMS-64 as of January 1, 1997), or the amount equal to the product of the state's current year total computable DSH allotment and the applicable percentage specified in section 1923(h) of the Act.

In general, we determine states' DSH allotments for a FY and the IMD DSH limits for the same FY using the most recent available estimates of or actual medical assistance expenditures, including DSH expenditures in their Medicaid programs and the most recent available change in the CPI-U used for the FY in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the statute. The indicated estimated or actual expenditures are obtained from states for each relevant FY from the most recent available quarterly Medicaid budget reports (Form CMS-37) or quarterly Medicaid expenditure reports (Form CMS-64), respectively, submitted by the states. For example, as part of the initial determination of a state's FY DSH allotment (referred to as the preliminary DSH allotments) that is determined before the beginning of the FY for which the DSH allotments and IMD DSH limits are being determined, we use estimated expenditures for the FY obtained from the August submission of the CMS-37 submitted by states prior to the beginning of the FY; such estimated expenditures are subject to update and revision during the FY before such actual expenditure data become available. We also use the most recent available estimated CPI-U percentage change that is available before the beginning of the FY for determining the states' preliminary FY DSH allotments; such estimated CPI-U percentage change is subject to update and revision during the FY before the actual CPI-U percentage change becomes available. In determining the final DSH allotments and IMD DSH limits for a FY we use the actual expenditures for the FY and actual CPI-U percentage change for the previous FY.

Addendum 1 to this notice provides the states' final FY 2015 DSH allotments determined in accordance with section 1923(f)(3) of the Act. As described in the background section, in general, the DSH allotment for a FY is calculated by increasing the FY DSH allotment for the preceding FY by the CPI-U increase for the previous fiscal year. For purposes of calculating the states' final FY 2015 DSH allotments, the preceding final fiscal year DSH allotments (for FY 2014) were published in the October 26, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 74432). For purposes of calculating the states' final FY 2015 DSH allotments we are using the actual Medicaid expenditures for FY 2015. Finally, for purposes of calculating the states' final FY 2015 DSH allotments, the applicable historical percentage change in the CPI-U for the previous FY (FY 2014) was 1.6 percent; we note that this is the same as the estimated 1.6 percentage change in the CPI-U for FY 2014 that was available and used in the calculation of the preliminary FY 2015 DSH allotments which were published in the February 2, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 5448).

Addendum 2 to this notice provides the preliminary FY 2017 DSH allotments determined in accordance with section 1923(f)(3) of the Act. The preliminary FY 2017 DSH allotments contained in this notice were determined based on the most recent available estimates from states of their FY 2017 total computable Medicaid expenditures. Also, the preliminary FY 2017 allotments contained in this notice were determined by increasing the preliminary FY 2016 DSH allotments. The actual percentage increase in the CPI-U for FY 2016 was 0.9 percent (CMS originally published the preliminary FY 2016 DSH allotments in the October 26, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR74432)).

We will publish states' final FY 2017 DSH allotments in a future notice based on the states' four quarterly Medicaid expenditure reports (Form CMS-64) for FY 2017 available following the end of FY 2017 utilizing the actual change in the CPI-U for FY 2016.

Section 1923(h) of the Act specifies the methodology to be used to establish the limits on the amount of DSH payments that a state can make to IMDs and other mental health facilities. FFP is not available for DSH payments to IMDs or other mental health facilities that exceed the IMD DSH limits. In this notice, we are publishing the final FY 2015 and the preliminary FY 2017 IMD DSH limits determined in accordance with the provisions discussed above.

Addendums 3 and 4 to this notice detail each state's final FY 2015 and preliminary FY 2017 IMD DSH limit, respectively, determined in accordance with section 1923(h) of the Act.

This notice does not impose any new or revised information collection or recordkeeping requirements or burden. While discussed in section I.B. of this notice and in Addendums 3 and 4, the requirements and burden associated with Form CMS-37 (OMB control number 0938-0101) and Form CMS-64 (OMB control number 0938-0067) are unaffected by this notice. Consequently, this notice, CMS-37, and CMS-64 are not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) associated with the publication of this notice.

We have examined the impact of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 1993), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, enacted on March 22, 1995) (UMRA `95), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017).

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This notice reaches the $100 million economic threshold and thus is considered a major rule under the Congressional Review Act.

The final FY 2015 DSH allotments being published in this notice are approximately $11 million more than the preliminary FY 2015 DSH allotments published in the February 2, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 5448). The increase in the final FY 2015 DSH allotments is a result of being calculated by multiplying the actual increase in the CPI-U for 2014 by the final FY 2014 DSH allotments, while the preliminary FY 2015 DSH allotments were calculated by multiplying the estimated CPI-U for 2014 by the preliminary FY 2014 DSH allotments. Although the estimated and actual increase in the CPI-U remained the same at 1.6 percent, the preliminary FY 2014 DSH allotments were lower than the final FY 2014 DSH allotments and therefore the final FY 2015 DSH allotments are higher than the preliminary FY 2015 DSH allotments. The final FY 2015 IMD DSH limits being published in this notice are approximately $695,000 more than the preliminary FY 2015 IMD DSH limits published in the February 2, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 5448). The increases in the IMD DSH limits are because the DSH allotment for a FY is a factor in the determination of the IMD DSH limit for the FY. Since the final FY 2015 DSH allotments were increased as compared to the preliminary FY 2015 DSH allotments, the associated FY 2015 IMD DSH limits for some states were also increased.

The preliminary FY 2017 DSH allotments being published in this notice have been increased by approximately $118 million more than the preliminary FY 2016 DSH allotments published in the October 26, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 74432). The increase in the DSH allotments is due to the application of the statutory formula for calculating DSH allotments under which the prior fiscal year allotments are increased by the percentage increase in the CPI-U for the prior fiscal year. The preliminary FY 2017 IMD DSH limits being published in this notice are approximately $5.5 million more than the preliminary FY 2016 IMD DSH limits published in the October 2, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 74432). The increases in the IMD DSH limits are because the DSH allotment for a FY is a factor in the determination of the IMD DSH limit for the FY. Since the preliminary FY 2017 DSH allotments are greater than the preliminary FY 2016 DSH allotments, the associated preliminary FY 2017 IMD DSH limits for some states also increased.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.0 million to $34.5 million in any one year. Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has determined that this notice will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, any impact on providers is due to the effect of the various controlling statutes; providers are not impacted as a result of the independent regulatory action in publishing this notice. The purpose of the notice is to announce the latest DSH allotments and IMD DSH limits, as required by the statute.

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Core-Based Statistical Area for Medicaid payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has determined that this notice will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

The Medicaid statute specifies the methodology for determining the amounts of states' DSH allotments and IMD DSH limits; and as described previously, the application of the methodology specified in statute results in the decreases or increases in states' DSH allotments and IMD DSH limits for the applicable FYs. The statute applicable to these allotments and limits does not apply to the determination of the amounts of DSH payments made to specific DSH hospitals; rather, these allotments and limits represent an overall limit on the total of such DSH payments. For this reason, we do not believe that this notice will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2017, that threshold is approximately $148 million. This notice will have no consequential effect on spending by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or on the private sector.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this notice does not impose any costs on state or local governments or otherwise have Federalism implications, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable.

Executive Order 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. It has been determined that this notice is a transfer rule and is not a regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 13771.

The methodologies for determining the states' fiscal year DSH allotments and IMD DSH limits, as reflected in this notice, were established in accordance with the methodologies and formula for determining states' allotments and limits as specified in statute. This notice does not put forward any further discretionary administrative policies for determining such allotments and limits, or otherwise.

As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in Table 1, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the estimated expenditures associated with the provisions of this notice. Table 1 provides our best estimate of the change (decrease) in the federal share of states' Medicaid DSH payments resulting from the application of the provisions of the Medicaid statute relating to the calculation of states' FY DSH allotments and the increase in the FY DSH allotments from FY 2016 to FY 2017.

This proposed regulation is subject to the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and has been transmitted to the Congress and the Comptroller General for review.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.