Federal Register Vol. 83, No.128,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 128 (July 3, 2018)

Page Range31037-31323
FR Document

83_FR_128
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 31323 - Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy ActPDF
83 FR 31321 - Delegation of Authority Under Section 709 of the Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017PDF
83 FR 31197 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 31254 - July 17, 2018 Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) MeetingPDF
83 FR 31205 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 31143 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit Administration BoardPDF
83 FR 31306 - Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children With DisabilitiesPDF
83 FR 31296 - Program Integrity and ImprovementPDF
83 FR 31042 - Government National Mortgage Association: Loan Seasoning for Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities-Interpretive RulePDF
83 FR 31125 - Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities-Stepping-up Technology ImplementationPDF
83 FR 31150 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 31256 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Federal Medical Care Recovery Act Bill RequestsPDF
83 FR 31098 - Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking ProcessPDF
83 FR 31098 - Public Hearing for Standards for 2019 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2020 Under the Renewable Fuel Standard ProgramPDF
83 FR 31135 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River SitePDF
83 FR 31134 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New MexicoPDF
83 FR 31059 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone-July FireworksPDF
83 FR 31048 - Safety Zone; Canalside 4th of July Celebration, Buffalo River, Buffalo, NYPDF
83 FR 31250 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the State of HawaiiPDF
83 FR 31141 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 31142 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 31140 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 31139 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 31255 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Accelerated Aging Among Vietnam-Era Veterans SurveyPDF
83 FR 31157 - Office of the Director Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
83 FR 31159 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 31161 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse And Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 31157 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 31161 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 31118 - WTO Agricultural Quantity-Based Safeguard Trigger LevelsPDF
83 FR 31159 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 31158 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 31159 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 31117 - Oral Rabies Vaccine Trial; Availability of a Supplemental Environmental AssessmentPDF
83 FR 31149 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
83 FR 31144 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
83 FR 31146 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 31246 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF Under BZX Rule 14.11(f)(4), Trust Issued ReceiptsPDF
83 FR 31201 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Firm Participation Guarantee for a Floor BrokerPDF
83 FR 31214 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Investments of the REX BKCM ETFPDF
83 FR 31244 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to the Clearance of an Additional Credit Default Swap ContractPDF
83 FR 31223 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Rules and Fee Schedule Relating to Participant and Pledgee ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 31198 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.9, Orders and ModifiersPDF
83 FR 31229 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.9, Orders and ModifiersPDF
83 FR 31213 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
83 FR 31233 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Exchange's Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
83 FR 31205 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Modify the NYSE American Options Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 31243 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
83 FR 31227 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq Phlx LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Exchange's Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
83 FR 31124 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 31232 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemptions From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in Connection With the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program Until December 31, 2018PDF
83 FR 31212 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemptions From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS in Connection With the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Until December 31, 2018PDF
83 FR 31234 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Period for the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Until December 31, 2018PDF
83 FR 31210 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Period for the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Until December 31, 2018PDF
83 FR 31203 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Period for the Retail Price Improvement Program Until December 31, 2018PDF
83 FR 31236 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting an Extension to Limited Exemptions From Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS In Connection With the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Programs Until December 31, 2018PDF
83 FR 31037 - OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)PDF
83 FR 31253 - Release of Waybill DataPDF
83 FR 31241 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Exchange's Rules Pertaining to Co-Location and Direct ConnectivityPDF
83 FR 31123 - Renewal of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee and Solicitation of Nominations for MembershipPDF
83 FR 31086 - Revising the Beryllium Standard for General IndustryPDF
83 FR 31045 - Revising the Beryllium Standard for General IndustryPDF
83 FR 31134 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Household Education Survey 2019 (NHES: 2019)PDF
83 FR 31078 - Financial Surveillance Examination Program Requirements for Self-Regulatory OrganizationsPDF
83 FR 31255 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; HessJet, LLCPDF
83 FR 31050 - Safety Zone: City of Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Carquinez Straight, Benicia, CAPDF
83 FR 31054 - Safety Zone: Red, White and Tahoe Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NVPDF
83 FR 31060 - Safety Zone: City of Vallejo Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Mare Island Strait, Vallejo, CAPDF
83 FR 31155 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Regulations Under the Federal Import Milk ActPDF
83 FR 31152 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 31120 - Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific InstrumentsPDF
83 FR 31121 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
83 FR 31124 - Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 31057 - Safety Zone: San Francisco Fourth of July Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CAPDF
83 FR 31125 - Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 31135 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, NevadaPDF
83 FR 31170 - Environmental Impact Statement for the American Electric Power American Burying-Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and TexasPDF
83 FR 31172 - Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council; Call for NominationsPDF
83 FR 31173 - Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council; Charter RenewalPDF
83 FR 31046 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
83 FR 31047 - Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lakes Annual Marine EventsPDF
83 FR 31167 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0013PDF
83 FR 31168 - Rental Assistance Demonstration: Implementation of Certain Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Appropriations Act ProvisionsPDF
83 FR 31251 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 31250 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 31055 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LAPDF
83 FR 31062 - Safety Zone; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Lafitte, LAPDF
83 FR 31052 - Safety Zone; Lower Tchefuncte River, Madisonville, LAPDF
83 FR 31163 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0034PDF
83 FR 31148 - Announcement of Financial Sector LiabilitiesPDF
83 FR 31154 - Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 31173 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Contractor Eligibility and the Abandoned Mine Land Contractor Information FormPDF
83 FR 31048 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Burlington, NJPDF
83 FR 31162 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0097PDF
83 FR 31164 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0101PDF
83 FR 31166 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0081PDF
83 FR 31165 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0032PDF
83 FR 31237 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice of and No Objection to The Options Clearing Corporation's Proposal To Enter Into a New Credit Facility AgreementPDF
83 FR 31174 - Steel Propane Cylinders From Taiwan; Termination of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 31119 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Florida Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 31254 - Determination Under the African Growth and Opportunity ActPDF
83 FR 31075 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
83 FR 31198 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 31150 - Final National Occupational Research Agenda for ServicesPDF
83 FR 31137 - Commission Information Collection Activity (FERC-566); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
83 FR 31136 - National Grid LNG, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fields Point Liquefaction ProjectPDF
83 FR 31136 - VA Solar 1, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
83 FR 31139 - ATX Southwest, LLC; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 31138 - Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the UGS-Crawford Meter Station ProjectPDF
83 FR 31252 - Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 31143 - Falcone Global Solutions, LLC v. Maurice Ward Networks, Ltd. d/b/a Maurice Ward Group; Maurice Ward & Co., BV.; and Maurice Ward & Co. S.R.O.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and AssignmentPDF
83 FR 31253 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Statement Regarding a Lost or Stolen U.S. Passport Book and/or CardPDF
83 FR 31161 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 31158 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 31157 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 31158 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 31161 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 31160 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 31038 - Streamlining Inspection Requirements for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Single-Family Mortgage Insurance: Removal of the FHA Inspector RosterPDF
83 FR 31169 - Rental Assistance Demonstration: Supplemental Guidance on Final NoticePDF
83 FR 31247 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 31246 - Interest RatesPDF
83 FR 31064 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Lebanon and Delaware County Nonattainment Areas for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
83 FR 31087 - Approval of Arizona Air Plan; Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2008 Lead StandardPDF
83 FR 31072 - Air Plan Approval; California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District; Negative DeclarationsPDF
83 FR 31258 - Non-Public InformationPDF
83 FR 31174 - State of Wyoming: NRC Staff Assessment of a Proposed Agreement Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of WyomingPDF
83 FR 31099 - 8YY Access Charge ReformPDF
83 FR 31180 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
83 FR 31068 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Colorado; Attainment Demonstration for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area, and Approval of Related RevisionsPDF
83 FR 31190 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards InformationPDF

Issue

83 128 Tuesday, July 3, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Foreign Agricultural Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Oral Rabies Vaccine Trial, 31117-31118 2018-14307 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Final National Occupational Research Agenda for Services, 31150 2018-14227 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31150-31152 2018-14336 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Florida Advisory Committee, 31119-31120 2018-14231 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Rancocas Creek, Burlington, NJ, 31048 2018-14238 Safety Zones: Annual Events in Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone—July Fireworks; Enforcement, 31059-31060 2018-14326 Canalside 4th of July Celebration, Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY, 31048-31050 2018-14325 City of Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Carquinez Straight, Benicia, CA, 31050-31052 2018-14269 City of Vallejo Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Mare Island Strait, Vallejo, CA, 31060-31062 2018-14267 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Lafitte, LA, 31062-31064 2018-14244 Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA, 31055-31057 2018-14245 Lower Tchefuncte River, Madisonville, LA, 31052-31054 2018-14243 Red, White and Tahoe Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV, 31054-31055 2018-14268 San Francisco Fourth of July Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA, 31057-31059 2018-14259 Special Local Regulations: Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events, 31047-31048 2018-14250 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31162-31167 2018-14234 2018-14235 2018-14236 2018-14237 2018-14242 2018-14249 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Financial Surveillance Examination Program Requirements for Self-Regulatory Organizations, 31078-31086 2018-14272 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Charter Amendments: Defense Innovation Board, 31124 2018-14262 Charter Renewals: Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 31124 2018-14290 Meetings: Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in Armed Forces, 31125 2018-14257
Education Department Education Department RULES Assistance to States for Education of Children With Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 31306-31318 2018-14374 Program Integrity and Improvement, 31296-31303 2018-14373 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Household Education Survey 2019, 31134 2018-14273 Applications for New Awards: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities—Stepping-Up Technology Implementation, 31125-31134 2018-14338 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada, 31135-31136 2018-14256 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico, 31134-31135 2018-14327 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site, 31135 2018-14328
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District; Negative Declarations, 31072-31075 2018-14197 Colorado; Attainment Demonstration for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area, and Approval of Related Revisions, 31068-31072 2018-13599 Pennsylvania; Base Year Emissions Inventories for Lebanon and Delaware County Nonattainment Areas for 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 31064-31067 2018-14199 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona Air Plan; Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area Plan for 2008 Lead Standard, 31087-31098 2018-14198 Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in Rulemaking Process, 31098-31099 2018-14330 Standards for 2019 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2020 Under Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Public Hearing, 31098 2018-14329 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements, 31141-31142 2018-14323 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, 31140-31141 2018-14321 NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors, 31142-31143 2018-14322 Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes, 31139-31140 2018-14320 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31143 2018-14389 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Exemption Petitions; Summaries: HessJet, LLC, 31255 2018-14271 Meetings: Drone Advisory Committee, 31254-31255 2018-14394 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES 8YY Access Charge Reform, 31099-31116 2018-14150 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 31075-31077 2018-14229 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31137-31138 2018-14226 Complaints: VA Solar 1, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 31136 2018-14224 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: National Grid LNG, LLC; Fields Point Liquefaction Project, 31136-31137 2018-14225 Environmental Reviews: Rover Pipeline, LLC; UGS-Crawford Meter Station Project, 31138-31139 2018-14222 Filings: ATX Southwest, LLC, 31139 2018-14223 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Complaints: Falcone Global Solutions, LLC v. Maurice Ward Networks, Ltd. d/b/a Maurice Ward Group; Maurice Ward and Co., BV.; and Maurice Ward and Co. S.R.O., 31143-31144 2018-14220 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 31144-31150 2018-14303 2018-14304 2018-14305 Announcement of Financial Sector Liabilities, 31148-31149 2018-14241 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: American Electric Power American Burying-Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, 31170-31172 2018-14254 Requests for Nominations: Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 31172-31173 2018-14253 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications, 31152-31154 2018-14265 Regulations Under Federal Import Milk Act, 31155-31156 2018-14266 Meetings: Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Establishment of Public Docket, 31154-31155 2018-14240 Foreign Agricultural Foreign Agricultural Service NOTICES WTO Agricultural Quantity-Based Safeguard Trigger Levels, 31118-31119 2018-14312 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Government National Mortgage Association: Loan Seasoning for Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities—Interpretive Rule, 31042-31045 2018-14354 Inspection Requirements for Federal Housing Administration Single-Family Mortgage Insurance: Removal of FHA Inspector Roster, 31038-31042 2018-14212 NOTICES Rental Assistance Demonstration: Implementation of Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Appropriations Act Provisions, 31168-31169 2018-14248 Supplemental Guidance on Final Notice, 31169-31170 2018-14210 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 31173 2018-14252
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 31121-31123 2018-14263 Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments, 31120 2018-14264 Charter Renewals: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee; Solicitation of Nominations for Membership, 31123-31124 2018-14276 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Steel Propane Cylinders From Taiwan, 31174 2018-14232 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Management Management and Budget Office RULES OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), 31037-31038 2018-14279 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Charter Renewals: Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council, 31157 2018-14318 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 31158-31161 2018-14213 2018-14214 2018-14215 2018-14309 2018-14310 National Eye Institute, 31157 2018-14216 National Human Genome Research Institute, 31159 2018-14311 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 31161 2018-14218 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 31159-31160 2018-14317 National Institute on Aging, 31157, 31161 2018-14313 2018-14314 2018-14315 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 31158, 31161-31162 2018-14217 2018-14316 Navy Navy Department RULES Certifications and Exemptions Under International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, 31046-31047 2018-14251 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 31190-31197 2018-12919 Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc.; Biweekly Notice, 31180-31190 2018-13758 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31197-31198 2018-14471 State Agreements: Wyoming; NRC Staff Assessment, 31174-31180 2018-14174 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Beryllium Standard for General Industry, 31045-31046 2018-14274 PROPOSED RULES Beryllium Standard for General Industry, 31086-31087 2018-14275 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission RULES Non-Public Information, 31258-31294 2018-14183 NOTICES New Postal Products, 31198 2018-14228 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017; Delegation of Authority (Memorandum of June 4, 2018), 31319-31321 2018-14485 Jerusalem Embassy Act; Suspension of Limitations (Presidential Determination No. 2018-09 of June 4, 2018), 31323 2018-14487 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31205 2018-14392 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., 31229-31232 2018-14296 Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 31198-31201, 31246 2018-14297 2018-14302 Depository Trust Co., 31223-31227 2018-14298 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 31244-31246 2018-14299 Nasdaq BX, Inc., 31203-31205, 31232-31233, 31241-31243 2018-14277 2018-14284 2018-14288 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 31233-31234 2018-14294 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 31243-31244 2018-14292 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 31213-31214 2018-14295 Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, 31201-31203, 31227-31229 2018-14291 2018-14301 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 31212-31213, 31234-31236 2018-14286 2018-14287 NYSE American, LLC, 31205-31210 2018-14293 NYSE Arca, Inc., 31210-31212, 31214-31223, 31236-31237 2018-14283 2018-14285 2018-14300 Options Clearing Corp., 31237-31241 2018-14233 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Hawaii, 31250 2018-14324 Interest Rates, 31246-31247 2018-14208 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 31247-31250 2018-14209 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 31250-31252 2018-14246 2018-14247 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Statement Regarding Lost or Stolen U.S. Passport Book and/or Card, 31253 2018-14219 Meetings: Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, 31252-31253 2018-14221 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contractor Eligibility and Abandoned Mine Land Contractor Information Form, 31173-31174 2018-14239 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Releases of Waybill Data, 31253-31254 2018-14278 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Determinations Under African Growth and Opportunity Act, 31254 2018-14230 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Federal Medical Care Recovery Act Bill Requests, 31256 2018-14335 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Accelerated Aging Among Vietnam-Era Veterans Survey, 31255-31256 2018-14319 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Postal Regulatory Commission, 31258-31294 2018-14183 Part III Education Department, 31296-31303 2018-14373 Part IV Education Department, 31306-31318 2018-14374 Part V Presidential Documents, 31319-31321, 31323 2018-14485 2018-14487 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

83 128 Tuesday, July 3, 2018 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 2 CFR Part 180 OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) AGENCY:

Office of Management and Budget.

ACTION:

Interim final action.

SUMMARY:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is amending the OMB guidance to agencies on governmentwide nonprocurement debarment and suspension (nonprocurement) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA) that prohibits awards to persons or entities involved in activities that violate arms control treaties or agreements with the United States. The NDAA requires revision of these OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. To fully implement the NDAA requirement necessitates revision of OMB Guidelines to agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement).

DATES:

Effective date: July 3, 2018.

Comments due date: Interested parties should submit comments electronically to www.regulations.gov on or before September 4, 2018 to be considered in the formation of the final guidance.

ADDRESSES:

Comments on this interim action must be submitted electronically before the comment closing date to www.regulations.gov. In submitting comments, please search for recent submissions by OMB to find docket OMB-2018-0001. The public comments received by OMB will be a matter of public record and will be posted at www.regulations.gov. Accordingly, please do not include in your comments any confidential business information or information of a personal-privacy nature. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gil Tran, OMB, Office of Federal Financial Management at 202-395-3052 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions is a list of persons and entities ineligible for Federal awards. Currently, Federal awarding agencies are required to check the list before making Federal awards to determine whether the person or entity is excluded, debarred, suspended, or otherwise prohibited from receiving Federal awards. If the person or entity is identified as prohibited from receiving Federal awards, Federal awarding agencies cannot make the award unless the Federal agency head or designee allows an exception consistent with existing law. This requirement flows down to Federal award recipients, who are required to check SAM Exclusions for all subawards and contracts equal to or exceeding $25,000. However, these requirements do not currently apply to a limited number of Federal awards given to certain types of foreign entities. The purpose of this interim action is to amend OMB Guidelines to agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) to extend these requirements of potential Federal awards to persons, entities, or organizations that have engaged in any activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in a country's non-compliance with its obligations under arms control, nonproliferation, or disarmament agreements or commitments with the United States.

Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2593e(a)(1), the Secretary of the Treasury is required to submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report, consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, identifying every person with respect to whom there is credible information indicating that the person is an individual who is a citizen, national, or permanent resident of, or an entity organized under the laws of, a noncompliant country as described in 22 U.S.C. 2593e(a)(2); and has engaged in any activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in the President's or the Secretary of State's determination that such country is noncompliant.

The Secretary of the Treasury also identifies any person or entity that has provided material support for such noncompliance to a person or entity engaged in the noncompliant activities. The Secretary of Treasury posts this information, as appropriate and consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, as an exclusion record in the SAM database. If the person or entity is on the SAM Exclusions list, the person or entity may not receive Federal awards and awards may not be renewed or extended.

With respect to each person or entity identified by the Secretary of the Treasury as having provided material support, the NDAA calls for the imposition of certain measures. Specifically, section 1290(c)(1) requires that the head of any executive agency may not enter into, renew, or extend a contract for the procurement of goods or services with such person or entity. Furthermore, section 1290(c)(3) directs that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards be revised accordingly to implement the NDAA requirement. The revisions to the FAR were published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2018 (83 FR 28145, FAR Case 2017-018). This action amends 2 CFR 180.215 to implement section 1290 of the NDAA.

Discussion and Analysis

This action amends 2 CFR part 180 to ensure that entities who have engaged in activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in a country's non-compliance with its obligations under arms control, nonproliferation or disarmament agreements or commitments with the United States are restricted from receiving non-procurement and procurement transactions. Currently, 2 CFR part 180 restricts Federal awards that are considered covered transactions to persons or entities that are listed in SAM Exclusions and these requirements flow down to all covered transactions, including: (1) All nonprocurement subawards; and (2) contracts that equal or exceed $25,000. However, 2 CFR 180.215 provides specific exceptions from what are considered covered transactions, including awards to certain types of foreign entities. This action revises 2 CFR 180.215 to define “covered transactions” to include direct awards, regardless of tier or amount for non-procurement and procurement transaction, to exempt foreign persons, entities and organizations if such persons, entities, or organizations have engaged in any activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in a country's non-compliance with its obligations under arms control, nonproliferation or disarmament agreements or commitments with the United States.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866. In addition, this action is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

Executive Order 13771

This action is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it is not significant under E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires that an agency provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis or certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OMB does not expect this interim action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This interim action implements the provisions of section 1290 of the NDAA and will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will affect only a small number of Federal awards that are currently excluded from the definition of covered transactions. Currently, the vast majority of Federal awards are subject to the 2 CFR part 180 provisions that apply to covered transactions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to 2 CFR part 180 do not impose incremental recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Determination To Issue Interim Action

As this regulatory action involves a matter relating to Federal awards, it is not subject to the public procedure requirements of the informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Nevertheless, OMB is voluntarily seeking comment to be considered in the formation of the final action.

List of Subjects in 2 CFR Part 180

Administrative practice and procedure, Debarment and suspension, Grant programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Timothy F. Soltis, Deputy Controller.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Management and Budget amends 2 CFR part 180, as set forth below:

PART 180—OMB GUIDELINES TO AGENCIES ON GOVERNMENTWIDE DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (NONPROCUREMENT) 1. The authority citation for part 180 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

Pub. L. 109-282; 31 U.S.C. 6102, Sec. 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327; E.O. 12549, 3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189; E.O. 12689, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 235.

2. In § 180. 215, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 180. 215 Which nonprocurement transactions are not covered transactions?

(h) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, covered transactions must include non-procurement and procurement transactions involving entities engaged in activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in a country's non-compliance with its obligations under arms control, nonproliferation or disarmament agreements or commitments with the United States. Federal awarding agencies and primary tier non-procurement recipients must not award, renew, or extend a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction, regardless of amount or tier, with any entity listed in the System for Award Management Exclusions List on the basis of involvement in activities that violate arms control, nonproliferation or disarmament agreements or commitments with the United States, pursuant to section 1290 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, unless the head of a Federal agency grants an exception pursuant to 2 CFR 180.135 with the concurrence of the OMB Director.

[FR Doc. 2018-14279 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 200 [Docket No. FR-5457-F-02] RIN 2502-AJ03 Streamlining Inspection Requirements for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Single-Family Mortgage Insurance: Removal of the FHA Inspector Roster AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule streamlines the inspection requirements for FHA single-family mortgage insurance by removing the regulations for the FHA Inspector Roster (Roster). The Roster is a list of inspectors approved by FHA as eligible to determine if the construction quality of a one- to four-unit property is acceptable as security for an FHA-insured loan. The removal of the Roster regulations is based on the recognition of the sufficiency and quality of inspections carried out by certified inspectors and other qualified individuals. This final rule follows publication of a February 6, 2013, proposed rule, and takes into consideration the public comments received on the proposed rule.

DATES:

Effective date: August 2, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elissa Saunders, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 9184, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-2121 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background—HUD's February 6, 2013, Proposed Rule

On February 6, 2013, at 78 FR 8448, HUD published a proposed rule to streamline the inspection and home warranty requirements for FHA single-family home insurance. As part of this rule, HUD proposed to eliminate the Roster,1 which lists inspectors, approved by HUD, to perform inspections in the limited circumstances when either: (1) A local jurisdiction did not already perform its own inspections for new construction, and issue building permits and certificates of occupancy; or (2) when the inspection of a structural repair or renovation was not performed by a licensed professional as specified by regulation. (See 24 CFR 200.170(b)). HUD originally established the Roster to standardize the inspection process for properties with FHA-insured mortgages. Before the Roster, cities and states developed their own building codes, which had little uniformity or consistency with each other. Now, however, the International Residential Code (IRC) is in use or adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.2 The International Code Council (ICC), which developed the IRC, also certifies Combination Inspectors (CIs) and Residential Combination Inspectors (RCIs). To be certified by the ICC, CIs and RCIs must pass a rigorous set of examinations, which includes testing their knowledge of the IRC. As a result, there is no longer a need for HUD to maintain and administer its own standardization process for inspectors.

1 Codified at 24 CFR 200.170-200.172.

2http://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/stateadoptions.pdf.

For local jurisdictions that do not provide building code enforcement and requisite documentation, the rule proposed to accept inspections by an RCI, who is also licensed or certified as a home inspector in accordance with the applicable state and local requirements governing the licensing or certification of such inspectors in the respective jurisdiction. For jurisdictions who have an absence of RCIs, the rule proposed to require lenders to obtain an inspection performed by a third party who is a registered architect, a professional engineer, or a trades person or contractor and has met the licensing and bonding requirements of the state in which the property is located.

As part of the same publication, HUD also proposed to eliminate its requirement that borrowers purchase a 10-year protection plan for all high loan-to-value mortgages in order to qualify for FHA mortgage insurance. HUD had combined the two proposals as they both involved streamlining requirements for FHA single-family mortgage insurance. However, the two proposals are distinct and the regulations unrelated. In addition to covering separate subjects, the regulations applied to different parties. The procedures and requirements related to the Roster applied to inspectors and lenders, while the regulations regarding 10-year protection plans applied to homebuilders, lenders, and borrowers. The public comments reflect this distinction, in that they treated these proposals separately, with the exception of expressions of general support for both proposals. In order to properly address the separate comments received on each proposal and to be more transparent about the how the regulatory changes will affect different parties, this final rule only deals with elimination of the Roster. HUD is addressing elimination of the 10-year protection plan requirement in a separate rule.

Interested readers are referred to the preamble of the February 6, 2013, proposed rule for additional historical background and explanation of the proposed regulatory changes.

II. This Final Rule; Change to February 6, 2013, Proposed Rule

After considering public comment, HUD is making one change to the February 6, 2013, proposed rule. As discussed above, HUD proposed to accept inspections from RCIs for local jurisdictions that do not provide building code enforcement and requisite documentation. This final rule provides that HUD will also accept inspections performed by CIs, who are subject to the same rigorous ICC requirements required for RCI certification, and have also passed tests in the same disciplines for commercial buildings. HUD determined that the change is warranted due to similarity in the certification requirements between RCIs and CIs. Moreover, as more fully discussed in the following section of this preamble, expanding the number of inspectors certified by the ICC that are eligible to perform inspections will help to address the concern expressed by a commenter that some jurisdictions lack a sufficient number of RCIs.

III. Discussion of the Public Comments Related to the Elimination of HUD's Inspector Roster

The public comment period for the February 6, 2013, proposed rule closed on April 8, 2013. HUD received 7 public comments, 5 of which provided comments on the elimination of the Roster requirement. These comments were submitted by the ICC, a housing trade association, a mortgage company, a homebuilder, and an individual.3 Below is a summary of the significant issues pertaining to the Roster raised by these comments, and HUD's responses to these comments.

3 The public comments on the proposed rule are available for download from the Regulations.gov website at the following link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=HUD-2013-0011.

In response to the general solicitation of public comments, HUD received the following comments and provides the following responses:

Comment: Include CIs as allowed inspectors. One commenter suggested that HUD accept inspections from ICC-certified CIs who have passed the required tests for RCI certification, as well as passed tests in the same disciplines for commercial buildings. The commenter wrote that this change would increase the pool of inspectors from 3,666 (RCIs) to 5,892 (RCIs and CIs), and help avoid confusion as to whether only RCIs meet the requirements of the rule, or whether those certified for both Residential and Commercial Inspection who are certified as Combination Inspectors also meet the requirements of the rule.

HUD Response. HUD has adopted the change suggested by the commenter. The final rule provides that in jurisdictions that do not provide building code enforcement and requisite documentation, the lender must, in order to ensure compliance with FHA requirements, select an RCI or CI certified by the ICC who is licensed or certified as a home inspector in accordance with the applicable state and local requirements. CIs are subject to the same rigorous ICC certification requirements as RCIs and, therefore, their inclusion is consistent with HUD's stated policy goals in accepting inspection performed by RCIs. Further, HUD agrees with the commenter that the change will expand the pool of qualified inspectors and avoid confusion.

Comment: With Limited Number of RCIs, Allow Original Loan Appraiser to Complete Final Inspection. One commenter wrote that due to the limited number of current RCI inspectors, the proposed process will be less efficient and more subjective than HUD anticipated. The commenter wrote that while the use of a building permit/certificate of occupancy may be feasible with existing residences, the timing of these related to new home construction would be problematic. The commenter wrote that with reduced options and precarious timelines, the opportunity for additional costs and closing delays will increase for homeowners. The commenter suggested that HUD allow the original appraiser to complete the final inspection. According to the commenter this is acceptable under Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), United States Department of Agriculture, and United States Department of Veterans Affairs guidelines. The commenter wrote that because mortgage lenders maintain an FHA approved appraiser list, or work with an appraisal management company which does so, the process would be an extension of an efficient and accepted process, which would continue to provide protections for both homebuyers and HUD.

HUD Response. HUD has not revised the rule in response to this comment. As an initial matter, HUD notes that inspections are only required where the local jurisdiction does not provide building code enforcement and documentation. HUD specifically solicited comment on the number of qualified RCIs. Based on the data provided by the ICC, HUD continues to believe there are sufficient number of ICC-certified inspectors to allow for inspections in the limited circumstances contemplated by the rule.4 As discussed in the preamble to the February 6, 2013, proposed rule, HUD believes that the overall effect of removing the Roster will be to increase the number of competent inspectors, since inspectors currently on the Roster will no longer have an advantage of the exclusive market power of inspecting FHA-insured homes. Moreover, HUD is amending the proposed rule to further expand the pool of eligible inspectors to include CIs. In the absence of such ICC-certified inspectors, the lender may obtain an inspection performed by a third party, who is a registered architect, a professional engineer, or a trades person or contractor, and who has met the licensing and bonding requirements of the State in which the property is located.

4 Please refer to the end of this section of the preamble for the information on the number of ICC-certified inspectors.

With respect to the suggestion that HUD allow appraisers to conduct the required inspections, HUD agrees that appraisers have always played a vital role in FHA's mission to provide affordable homeownership by accurately assessing the value of a home. While other Federal agencies may allow appraisers to conduct inspections to determine construction quality, HUD continues to believe that limiting the conduct of required inspections to ICC-certified inspectors and other qualified, licensed and bonded professionals is the best means to safeguard FHA and the Federal taxpayer.

In addition to the general solicitation of public comments on the February 6, 2013, proposed rule, HUD specifically requested comments on two issues.

First, HUD advised that it had been unable to determine the number of jurisdictions for which there may be an absence of RCIs and specifically requested information on this issue. In response, the ICC advised that there are 3,666 RCIs and 2,226 CIs around the country, with nearly every state having at least 4 inspectors certified as RCIs or CIs. Massachusetts, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Vermont each have only one certified inspector. However, the ICC said that in each of these states, there are additional individuals possessing three, and sometime four, of the required four underlying certifications to achieve the RCI, or seven or eight of the underlying certifications for the CI. The ICC said it believes that if this proposed requirement is implemented, many eligible inspectors will apply for appropriate certification. The ICC said it believes that there are sufficient numbers in every state to allow for inspectors in all of the 50 states, but that in some cases, nearby out of state travel may be required by the inspector.

In addition to the foregoing issue, HUD specifically sought comment on whether, for jurisdictions for which RCIs are not available, HUD should require the lender, in selecting a non-RCI, albeit an individual licensed and bonded under State law, to select a registered architect, engineer, trades person, or contractor with a minimum of 5 years' experience. HUD did not receive any comments in response to this issue.

IV. Findings and Certifications Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.

This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order). The removal of these regulations is consistent with goals of Executive Order 13563.

The rule does not rise to the level of an economically “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. HUD expects the elimination of the national Inspector Roster to have economic benefits and costs. However, neither the economic costs nor the benefits of the elimination are greater than the $100 million threshold that determines economic significance under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The preamble to the February 6, 2013, proposed rule at 78 FR 8453-8454, provided a discussion of the anticipated costs and benefits of the regulatory amendments. Please see the below section on the summary of benefits and costs, which summarizes and updates the costs and benefits of the regulatory changes.

Executive Order 13771

Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

Summary of Benefits and Costs of Final Rule

There are two effects of eliminating the FHA Inspector Roster requirement: A reduction in paperwork burden to the Federal Government and potential, but not probable, gains in consumer surplus from enhanced competition.

First, no longer requiring that an inspector be on the Roster creates savings by reducing the administrative costs necessary to maintain the Roster. HUD anticipates cost savings of approximately $62,870. This estimate is based on the following: Savings of $46,350 for elimination of Applications for Fee or Roster Inspector designation forms and copy of state certification (based on 3,090 inspector applications or respondents times a response per respondent times 0.5 burden hours per response times at cost of $30 per hour); savings of $11,520 for elimination of the fielding with inspectors and data input into FHA Connection; and savings of $5,000 for the elimination of maintenance of the Roster database.

Second, relaxing restrictions to entry of inspectors would expand the set of inspectors from which lenders may choose for the inspection of a home where the mortgage is to be insured by FHA. Inspectors currently on the Roster would lose the ability to exploit any market power conveyed by the current Roster requirements.

The market outcome (effect on price, quantity, and quality of service) of eliminating supply restrictions depends upon whether there is excess demand for inspector services. It appears that the Inspector Roster is not a binding restriction. Only a very limited number of FHA loans would be affected by eliminating the Roster. FHA data reveals that the number of FHA-insured properties requiring an inspection by an RCI or other qualified individual where an RCI is unavailable represents a small percentage of total loans. During 2017, only 877 (0.07 percent) out of the 1,233,428 endorsed loans required the use of a Roster inspector. The average cost for Roster inspector services was estimated at $200 in 2016. This fee is not significantly different (and not greater than) the average fee charged by inspectors. Given the small number of loans initially reserved to inspectors from the Roster and the lack of divergence in cost, the cost for inspector service would not be affected. However, an elimination of the Roster could result in a small transfer of business activity away from inspectors on the Roster.

The quality of inspection is not likely to suffer because of the elimination of the Roster. Current industry standards and local regulations are sufficiently rigorous to render HUD's standards redundant. To become an RCI, applicants must undergo a rigorous examination and certification process that is even more robust than the Inspector Roster qualification process. On the rare occasion that an RCI is unavailable in a particular jurisdiction, the professional qualifications and length of experience for other qualified individuals are sufficiently high thresholds to mitigate the concern of inadequate inspections.

The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulation Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Numbers 2502-0538 (Application for Fee or Roster Personnel Designation (form HUD-92563)), and 2502-0189 (pertaining to the Compliance Inspection Report (form HUD-92051) and the Mortgagee's Assurance of Completion (form HUD-92300)). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is a deregulatory action taken by HUD that will lower barriers to entry to FHA business by removing redundant professional certifications. As previously noted, an elimination of the Roster could result in a small transfer of business activity away from inspectors on the Roster, but there is no reason to believe this transfer will be significant. There is no detectable wage premium for inspectors on the FHA Roster, and the Roster has been used for less than 0.1 percent of FHA's loans in recent years. Therefore, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Environmental Impact

A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.

Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the principal FHA single-family mortgage insurance program is 14.117.

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 200

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Housing standards, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 200 as follows:

PART 200—INTRODUCTION TO FHA PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

2. In § 200.145, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 200.145 Property and mortgage assessment.

(c) For all new construction as well as structural repairs and/or renovations of existing properties, to the extent that an inspection is required to determine if construction quality of a one- to four-unit property is acceptable as security for an FHA-insured loan, the following requirements apply:

(1)(i) In areas where local jurisdictions provide building code enforcement and the requisite documentation, the lender shall provide a copy of:

(A) The building permit, or its equivalent, and a copy of the certificate of occupancy, or its equivalent; or

(B) A satisfactory inspection notice for work completed, or its equivalent.

(ii) The documentation provided under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section shall be considered satisfactory evidence of completion of the work.

(2) In jurisdictions that do not provide building code enforcement and requisite documentation, three inspections are required for new construction. For existing construction, only one inspection and certification of work completed for structural repairs and renovations is required. For both new and existing construction, the lender shall, in order to ensure compliance with FHA requirements:

(i) Select a Residential Combination Inspector (or its successor designation) or a Combination Inspector (or its successor designation) certified by the International Code Council (or its successor organization) who is licensed or certified as a home inspector in accordance with the applicable State and local requirements governing the licensing or certification of those jurisdictions that license or certify such inspectors in the respective jurisdiction. The lender shall provide a certification from such inspector that the new construction and/or structural repair or renovation work is completed satisfactorily and in compliance with any applicable building code.

(ii) In the absence of such Residential Combination Inspector and Combination Inspector, the lender shall obtain an inspection performed by a third party, who is a registered architect, a professional engineer, or a trades person or contractor, and who has met the licensing and bonding requirements of the State in which the property is located. The lender shall provide a certification from such inspector that the inspector is licensed and bonded under applicable State law, and that the new construction and/or structural repair or renovation work is completed satisfactorily and in compliance with any applicable building code.

§§ 200.170 through 200.172 [Removed]
3. Remove the undesignated center heading “FHA Inspector Roster” and §§ 200.170 through 200.172. Dated: June 26, 2018. Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2018-14212 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 330 [Docket No. FR-6112-IA-01] Government National Mortgage Association: Loan Seasoning for Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities—Interpretive Rule AGENCY:

Office of General Counsel, HUD.

ACTION:

Interpretive rule.

SUMMARY:

HUD is issuing this interpretive rule to clarify the scope of the provision of the recently enacted Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (Act) that prohibits the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) from guaranteeing the timely payment of principal and interest on a security that is “backed by a mortgage” that fails to meet certain “seasoning” requirements. With this new amendment, questions have arisen as to the effect of this provision on Ginnie Mae's ability to guarantee Multiclass Securities where the trust assets consist of direct or indirect interests in certificates, previously lawfully guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, but with underlying mortgage loans that may not be in compliance with the seasoning requirements. This rule provides HUD's interpretation that the statutory provision does not prohibit Ginnie Mae from making guarantees in this context. Although interpretive rules are exempt from public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, HUD nevertheless invites public comment on the interpretation provided in this rule.

DATES:

Effective date: This interpretive rule is effective June 29, 2018, and is applicable beginning June 25, 2018.

Comment due date: August 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this interpretive rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at all Federal agencies, however, submission of comments by mail often results in delayed delivery. To ensure timely receipt of comments, HUD recommends that comments submitted by mail be submitted at least two weeks in advance of the public comment deadline.

2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.

Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled in advance by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin M. Simpson, Associate General Counsel for Finance and Administrative Law, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8150, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-2036. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

Established by the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (Ginnie Mae Charter),1 Ginnie Mae guarantees investors the timely payment of principal and interest on single class mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by private lenders and others that are backed by pools of mortgage loans insured or guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration (FHA), U.S Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (RD), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH). The Ginnie Mae guaranty, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government, which Ginnie Mae places on MBS lowers the cost of, and maintains the supply of, mortgage financing for such government-backed loans. The authority for these guaranties is found in section 306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter.2 As stated in Ginnie Mae's All Participants Memorandum 18-04, any Ginnie Mae MBS with an issuance date of May 2018 or earlier is not affected by the Act. Further, any refinanced VA mortgage loan that does not meet the seasoning requirement contained in the Act, that was not backing a Ginnie Mae MBS prior to May 24, 2018, is ineligible to serve as MBS collateral.

1 12 U.S.C. 1716 et seq.

2 12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1).

The “Multiclass Securities Program” is a vehicle that further increases the liquidity of Ginnie Mae MBS and attracts new sources of capital for federally insured or guaranteed loans. Ginnie Mae Multiclass Securities are collateralized by trust assets that consist of direct or indirect interest in certificates with underlying FHA, VA, RD, and PIH mortgage loans (i.e., MBS or previously issued Multiclass Securities). Ginnie Mae Multiclass Securities direct principal and interest payments from the underlying MBS or previously-issued Multiclass Securities to classes (known as tranches) with different principal balances, interest rates, average lives, prepayment characteristics, and final maturities. This enables investors with different investment horizons, risk-reward preferences, and asset-liability management requirements to purchase mortgage securities that are tailored to their needs. The authority for this program is also found in section 306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter.

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Act.3 Title III of the Act contains several legislative protections for veterans, consumers and homeowners, including section 309, which largely incorporated the “Protecting Veterans from Predatory Lending Act of 2018.” Section 309(b) of the Act amended section 306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter 4 to add the following sentence: “The Association may not guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on a security that is backed by a mortgage insured or guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code,5 and that was refinanced until the later of the date that is 210 days after the date on which the first monthly payment is made on the mortgage being refinanced and the date on which 6 full monthly payments have been made on the mortgage being refinanced.”

3 Public Law 115-174.

4 12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1).

5 38 U.S.C. chapter 37 governs VA loans.

This seasoning requirement was designed to deter lenders from encouraging veterans to refinance their VA mortgage loans often and repeatedly. This practice of “churning” led to faster prepayment speeds on the mortgages underlying Ginnie Mae MBS and Multiclass Securities, making these securities less valuable to investors. Increased prepayment speeds means that the underlying loans, and therefore a portion of the related securities, do not stay outstanding, at the agreed upon interest rates, as long as expected. This uncertainty adversely affects the investor expectations, resulting in low prices on the securities and therefore higher coupon rates for MBS and Multiclass Securities. The value to investors of the predictability of Ginnie Mae MBS and Multiclass Securities as opposed to alternatives is one reason, however, that interest rates on mortgage loans insured or guaranteed by VA, FHA, RD and PIH are kept at relatively low interest rates. Accordingly, “churning” was seen as detrimental to veterans not only because those who refinanced often did not realize that the overall refinance costs could outweigh the short-term benefits, but also because overall mortgage rates were higher than they would otherwise be in part because of the adverse impact, in the view of the investors, of higher prepayment speeds on the VA mortgage loans backing the Ginnie Mae MBS and Multiclass Securities.

II. This Interpretive Rule

It is HUD's interpretation that as of the enactment of the Act, any VA refinanced mortgage loan that does not meet the seasoning requirements contained in section 309(b) of the Act is ineligible to serve as collateral for Ginnie Mae MBS. Ginnie Mae MBS guaranteed before the enactment of the Act, that contain VA refinanced mortgage loans that do not meet the seasoning requirements contained in the Act, are unaffected by the Act. For Multiclass Securities, the Act does not prohibit Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing Multiclass Securities where the trust assets consist of direct or indirect interests in Ginnie Mae guaranteed certificates with underlying VA mortgage loans that may not comply with the statutory seasoning requirement. As discussed more fully below, this reading of section 309(b) is supported by a close reading of the relevant statutory language. Further, and as discussed below, a contrary interpretation of section 309(b) of the Act would defeat the provision's purposes of restricting VA loan churning and protecting veterans.

A. Statutory Text

HUD's interpretation is supported by a close reading of the statutory text of the Ginnie Mae Charter, section 309(b) of the Act, and section 309 more broadly.

The language of section 309(b) of the Act differs in significant respect from the long-standing language in the Ginnie Mae Charter. Section 306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter refers to the securities that Ginnie Mae is authorized to guarantee as those “backed by a trust or pool composed of mortgages,” language that has long been understood by Congress and HUD to encompass both MBS and Multiclass Securities. See Letter from Nelson Diaz to Dwight P. Robinson (June 27, 1994). However, the language added by section 309(b) of the Act does not use similarly broad language—it refers only to those securities that are “backed by a mortgage.” It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that “the use of different words within the same statutory context strongly suggests that different meanings were intended.” 6 In addition, “a statute should be constructed so that effect is given to all of its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.” 7 Under these principles, Congress's decision to use only the words “backed by a mortgage,” as compared to “backed by a trust or pool composed of mortgages,” should be given meaning.

6United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65, 71 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Crockett Telephone Co. v. F.C.C., 963 F.2d 1564, 1570 (D.C. Cir. 1992) and other cases); see also A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) (“[W]here the document has used one term in one place, and a materially different term in another, the presumption is that the different term denotes a different idea.”).

7Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 392-93 (2013).

To give meaning to the narrower language in section 309(b) of the Act, that provision should be read to reference a narrower class of securities (MBS) than all of the securities long understood to be covered by the broader language of section 306(g) the of Ginnie Mae Charter (both MBS and Multiclass Securities). Had Congress intended section 309(b) of the Act to encompass Multiclass Securities as well as MBS, it would have employed the broader language known to encompass both types of securities—i.e., “backed by a trust or pool composed of mortgages.” Instead, Congress used only the words “backed by a mortgage.” HUD believes that the best way to give that distinction meaning, as required under the case law, is to read the narrower phrase to encompass only those securities that are backed directly by mortgages (i.e., MBS) as opposed to securities that are backed directly by a trust of securities that are ultimately backed by mortgages (i.e., Multiclass Securities).

This reading is supported by nearby statutory language in section 306(g)(3) of the Ginnie Mae Charter. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” 8 The language of section 306(g)(3) of the Ginnie Mae Charter refers differently to MBS and to Multiclass Securities in a way that supports reading section 309(b) of the Act to apply only to MBS. In sections 306(g)(3)(A) and (B) of the Ginnie Mae Charter, Congress describes MBS as “securities or notes based on or backed by mortgages.” In contrast, in section 306(g)(3)(E) of the Ginnie Mae Charter, Congress refers distinctly to Multiclass Securities as being “backed by a trust or pool of securities or notes guaranteed by [Ginnie Mae].” Put more simply, section 306(g)(3) of the Ginnie Mae Charter describes MBS as securities backed by mortgages and describes Multiclass Securities differently as securities backed by a trust or pool of securities or notes, even though Multiclass Securities ultimately also are backed by mortgages. The narrow language of section 309(b) of the Act —“a security backed by a mortgage”—appears intended to track the description of MBS in section 306(g)(3)(A) and (B) of the Ginnie Mae Charter and not to include Multiclass Securities as described in section 306(g)(3)(E) of the Ginnie Mae Charter.

8Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S. Ct. 843, 846 (1997).

In addition, this interpretation of section 309(b) of the Act is supported by a holistic reading of section 309. Other provisions in this section refer explicitly to MBS, but none refers to Multiclass Securities. In section 309(c) of the Act, for example, the statute imposes reporting requirements on Ginnie Mae to allow it to monitor the effectiveness of the Act in regards to MBS, but the provision does not reference Multiclass Securities. This strongly implies that MBS were the only securities targeted by Congress in section 309 of the Act, and that section 309(b) of the Act therefore does not apply to Multiclass Securities.

Lastly, this reading is supported by the heading of section 309(b) of the Act—“Loan Seasoning for Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities.” The heading refers only to MBS and makes no reference to Multiclass Securities. The Supreme Court has said that “the title of a statute or section can aid in resolving ambiguity in the legislation's text.” 9 Thus, to the extent section 309(b) of the Act is ambiguous, its heading clarifies its limited application to MBS only.

9INS v. National Center for Immigrants Rights Inc, 502 U.S. 183 (1991).

B. Inconsistency With Purpose of Statute

HUD's interpretation of section 309(b) of the Act is also consistent with the purposes of both section 309 of the Act and the Ginnie Mae Charter. A contrary reading would prohibit Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing all new Multiclass Securities ultimately backed by any prohibited mortgage, including Multiclass Securities composed solely of securities lawfully guaranteed prior to enactment of the Act. Prohibiting Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing such securities would harm, not help, veterans and would therefore contravene the purposes of section 309 of the Act and the Ginnie Mae Charter.

1. Anti-Churning. As noted, section 309 of the Act was intended to protect both veterans and investors by discouraging the unfair lending practice of “churning.” By prohibiting Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing MBS containing any loans refinanced in violation of the seasoning requirements, the Act decreases the marketability of these loans and thereby motivates lenders to avoid such practices in the future. By contrast, prohibiting Ginnie Mae's ability to guarantee Multiclass Securities containing MBS that were guaranteed by Ginnie Mae prior to the Act becoming law can have no impact on lender behavior. The lender cannot change the circumstances surrounding the production of a loan securitized and sold prior to the enactment of the Act. Further, it may be unknowable whether the previously guaranteed MBS or previously issued Multiclass Security would comply with section 309(b) of the Act because assuring and tracking compliance with the seasoning requirements in the Act were not requirements for Ginnie Mae securities prior to the Act's enactment. To interpret the prohibition of section 309(b) of the Act to include Multiclass Securities, therefore, is to sanction a measure that does not advance the legislative aim of decreasing the financial motives of lenders to engage in the predatory practices at issue.

2. Protection of Veterans. Interpreting section 309(b) of the Act to prohibit the guarantee of Multiclass Securities composed of trust assets that consist of direct or indirect interests in certificates with underlying VA mortgage loans that were guaranteed prior to the enactment of the statute would also have a negative impact on the liquidity of the Multiclass Securities market, driving up VA mortgage rates and restricting the availability of the VA mortgage loans to the very veterans that the statute was intended to protect.

The Act enacted several legislative changes, including section 309, that were aimed at protecting veterans from predatory lending practices in connection with refinancing activity and preserving the relatively low rates created by Ginnie Mae guarantees without the adverse impact of high prepayment speeds.10 The broader purpose of these provisions is to benefit veterans by providing them with affordable housing. Indeed, section 309(b) of the Act is titled “Protecting Veterans from Predatory Lending.” This is also one of the purposes of the Ginnie Mae Charter, which was amended by section 309(b) of the Act.

10See e.g., section 302 (limits, and establishes a dispute process and verification procedures with respect to, the inclusion of a veteran's medical debt in a consumer credit report); section 313 (makes permanent the one-year grace period during which a servicemember is protected from foreclosure after leaving military service)).

Under settled precedent, Section 309(b) of the Act cannot be construed in a way that would frustrate the purposes of either Section 309 of the Act or the Ginnie Mae Charter. The Supreme Court has instructed that courts “cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.” 11 Moreover, a statutory provision that may seem “ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” 12

11New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 419-420 (1973).

12United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988).

But to conclude that section 309(b) of the Act precludes the guarantee of Multiclass Securities collateralized by MBS and Multiclass Securities previously and lawfully issued by Ginnie Mae also would frustrate the purpose of these statutes. Precluding existing MBS and Multiclass Securities—where it is now difficult, if not practically impossible, to assess compliance with Section 309(b) of the Act would potentially “orphan” billions of dollars worth of outstanding Ginnie Mae securities that were validly guaranteed under prior law. This is because they never could be incorporated into Multiclass Securities after the enactment of the Act. This would frustrate the reasonable expectations of Ginnie Mae investors who purchased Ginnie Mae MBS at prices that explicitly contemplated their ultimate inclusion in Multiclass Securities. Because these securities would then decrease in value, the end result would be increased interest rates for veterans. Given that this would harm, rather than help, veterans, it is difficult to imagine that Congress intended to cause significant disruption to the Multiclass Securities program beyond what was needed to stop the undesirable lending practices on a prospective basis. Further, restricting the inclusion of existing MBS and previously issued Multiclass Securities as eligible collateral would not decrease the amount of risk to Ginnie Mae and the investors since the certificates are already guaranteed.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons described above, it is HUD's interpretation that as of the enactment of the Act, any VA refinanced mortgage loan that does not meet the seasoning requirements contained in section 309(b) the Act is ineligible to serve as collateral for Ginnie Mae MBS. Ginnie Mae MBS guaranteed before the enactment of the Act, that contain VA refinanced mortgage loans that do not meet the seasoning requirements contained in the Act, are unaffected by the Act. For Multiclass Securities, the Act permits Ginnie Mae to guarantee Multiclass Securities even where the trust assets consist of direct or indirect interest in certificates guaranteed by Ginnie Mae without regard to whether the underlying VA mortgage loans are in compliance with the seasoning requirements in section 309(b) of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comment

This interpretive rule represents HUD's interpretation of section 309(b) of the Act and, as such, is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.13 Nevertheless, HUD is interested in receiving feedback from the public on this interpretation, specifically with respect to clarity and scope.

13See, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).

Dated: June 25, 2018. J. Paul Compton, Jr., General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-14354 Filed 6-29-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003] RIN 1218-AB76 Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry AGENCY:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION:

Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

SUMMARY:

OSHA is confirming the effective date of its direct final rule (DFR) adopting a number of clarifying amendments to the beryllium standard for general industry to address the application of the standard to materials containing trace amounts of beryllium. In the May 7, 2018, DFR, OSHA stated that the DFR would become effective on July 6, 2018, unless one or more significant adverse comments were submitted by June 6, 2018. OSHA did not receive significant adverse comments on the DFR, so by this document the agency is confirming that the DFR will become effective on July 6, 2018.

DATES:

The DFR published on May 7, 2018 (83 FR 19936), becomes effective on July 6, 2018. For purposes of judicial review, OSHA considers the date of publication of this document as the date of promulgation of the DFR.

ADDRESSES:

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), OSHA designates the Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health as the recipient of petitions for review of the direct final rule. Contact the Associate Solicitor at the Office of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-5445.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

General information and technical inquiries: Mr. William Perry or Ms. Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1950; fax: (202) 693-1678.

Copies of this Federal Register document and news releases: Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's web page at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Confirmation of Effective Date

On May 7, 2018, OSHA published a DFR in the Federal Register (83 FR 19936) amending the text of the beryllium standard for general industry to clarify OSHA's intent with respect to certain terms in the standard, including the definition of Beryllium Work Area (BWA), the definition of emergency, and the meaning of the terms dermal contact and beryllium contamination. It also clarifies OSHA's intent with respect to provisions for disposal and recycling and with respect to provisions that the agency intends to apply only where skin can be exposed to materials containing at least 0.1% beryllium by weight. Interested parties had until June 6, 2018, to submit comments on the DFR.

The agency stated that it would publish another document confirming the effective date of the DFR if it received no significant adverse comments. OSHA received seven comments in the record from Materion Brush, Inc., Mead Metals Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, Airborn, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, and two private citizens (Document IDs OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0010). The seven submissions contained comments that were either supportive of the DFR or were considered not to be significant adverse comments. (Document IDs OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0010). Three of these submissions also contained comments that were outside the scope of the DFR and OSHA is not considering the portions of those submissions that are outside the scope (OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0006).

OSHA has determined this DFR will maintain safety and health protections for workers while reducing employers' compliance burdens. As the agency did not receive any significant adverse comments, OSHA is hereby confirming that the DFR published on May 7, 2018, will become effective on July 6, 2018.

II. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This action does not add or change any information collection requirements subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The PRA defines a collection of information as the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). While not affected by this rulemaking, the Department has cleared information collections related to occupational exposure to beryllium standards—general industry, 29 CFR 1910.1024; construction, 29 CFR 1926.1124; and shipyards, 29 CFR 1915.1024—under control number 1218-0267. The existing approved information collections are unchanged by this rulemaking.

In the DFR published on May 7, 2018, OSHA provided 30 days for the public to comment on whether approved information collections would be affected by this rulemaking. The agency did not receive any comments on paperwork in response to that notice.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

Beryllium, General industry, Health, Occupational safety and health.

Authority and Signature

Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this direct final rule. The agency is issuing this rule under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC, on June 27, 2018. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-14274 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS PAUL IGNATIUS (DDG 117) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

DATES:

This rule is effective July 3, 2018 and is applicable beginning May 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS PAUL IGNATIUS (DDG 117) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Rule 23(a), the requirement to display a forward and aft masthead light underway, and Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1605.

2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table Four, paragraph 15, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS PAUL IGNATIUS (DDG 117); and b. In Table Five, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS PAUL IGNATIUS (DDG 117).

The additions read as follows:

§ 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Four

15. * * *

Vessel Number Horizontal distance from
  • the fore and aft centerline of the vessel in the
  • athwartship direction
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS PAUL IGNATIUS DDG 117 1.85 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Five Vessel Number Masthead
  • lights not over all other
  • lights and obstructions.
  • annex I, sec. 2(f)
  • Forward masthead light
  • not in forward quarter of
  • ship. annex I, sec. 3(a)
  • After mast-
  • head light less than 1/2
  • ship's length aft of
  • forward masthead light. annex I, sec. 3(a)
  • Percentage horizontal
  • separation
  • attained
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS PAUL IGNATIUS DDG 117 X X X 14.6
    Approved: May 30, 2018. C.J. Spain, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Acting. Dated: June 13, 2018. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14251 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0605] Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce various special local regulations for annual regattas and marine parades in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone. Enforcement of these regulations is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and after these regattas or marine parades. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior to, during, and after regattas or marine parades.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.914 and 100.915 will be enforced at specified dates and times between July 20, 2018 and July 29, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, telephone (313)568-9564, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the following special local regulations listed in 33 CFR part 100, Safety of Life on Navigable Waters, on the following dates and times:

    (1) § 100.914 Trenton Rotary Roar on the River, Trenton, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. each day from July 20 through July 22, 2018.

    (2) § 100.915 St. Clair River Classic Offshore Race, St. Clair, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day from July 23 through July 29, 2018.

    Special Local Regulations

    In accordance with § 100.901, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may restrict vessel operation within the regulated area to vessels having particular operating characteristics.

    Vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must operate at a no-wake speed and in a manner that will not endanger race participants or any other craft.

    The PATCOM may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any vessel within this regulated area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the PATCOM shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, a Notice of Violation for failure to comply, or both.

    If it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property, the PATCOM may terminate the marine event or the operation of any vessel within the regulated area.

    In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.35 of this part, the Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.928, vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake speed and remain vigilant for event participants and safety craft. Additionally, vessels shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and shall follow directions given by the Coast Guard's on-scene representative or by event representatives during the event.

    The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    The rules in this section shall not apply to vessels participating in the event or to government vessels patrolling the regulated area in the performance of their assigned duties.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.35 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these special local regulations need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 26, 2018. J.W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14250 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0628] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Burlington, NJ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the S.R. 543 (Riverside-Delanco) Bridge across the Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3, at Burlington, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate routine maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from July 3, 2018 until 3:30 p.m. on August 2, 2018. For enforcement purposes actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on June 28, 2018 until July 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0628] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6587, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Burlington County Bridge Commission, owner and operator of the S.R. 543 (Riverside-Delanco) Bridge across the Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3, at Burlington, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate routine maintenance.

    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will require a 30 minutes advanced notice to open Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., on June 28, 2018, to August 2, 2018. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.745.

    The Rancocas Creek is mostly used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: June 26, 2018. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14238 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0613] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Canalside 4th of July Celebration, Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters on the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Buffalo River during the Canalside 4th of July Celebration fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. July 4, 2018 until 10:45 p.m. on July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0613 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of enhancing safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. with a rain date of July 5, 2018 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′34.0″ N, 078°52′54.7″ W then East to 42°52′36.3″ N, 078°52′48.6″ W then South to 42°52′32.8″ N, 078°52′45.4″ W then West to 42°52′30.0″ N, 078°52′51.9″ W then returning to the point of origin.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T09-0613 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0613 Safety Zone; Canalside 4th of July Celebration, Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′34.0″ N, 078°52′54.7″ W then East to 42°52′36.3″ N, 078°52′48.6″ W then South to 42°52′32.8″ N, 078°52′45.4″ W then West to 42°52′30.0″ N, 078°52′51.9″ W then returning to the point of origin.

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018 with a rain date of July 5, 2018 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14325 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0641] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: City of Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Carquinez Straight, Benicia, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay near Carquinez Strait in support of the City of Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2018. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 4, 2018, from 9 a.m. through 10:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0641. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Acronyms APA Administrative Procedure Act COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received final details of this event on June 25, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.

    For similar reasons as those stated above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on July 4, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks barge and anyone within a 1,000-foot radius of the fireworks firing site. This rule is needed to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during the loading and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge, scheduled to take place from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet.

    The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the transit to the display location. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place from 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks displays.

    At 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 20-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet in approximate position 38°02′49″ N, 122°10′02″ W (NAD 83) for the City of Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    The effect of the temporary safety zone are to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. This regulation is needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T11-938 to read as follows:
    § 165.T11-938 Safety Zone; City of Benicia 4th of July Fireworks Display, Carquinez Strait, Benicia, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable waters of San Francisco Bay within 100 feet of the fireworks barge during loading at Pier 50, as well as transit and arrival to launching location in Carquinez Strait, Benicia, CA. From 9:00 a.m. until approximately 2:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50, San Francisco, CA. The safety zone will expand to all navigable waters around and under the firework barge within a radius of 1,000 feet in approximate positions 38°02′49″ N, 122°10′02″ W (NAD 83), 30 minutes prior to the start of the 20-minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    (b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods during which this zone will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with § 165.7.

    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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

    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Anthony J. Ceraolo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14269 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0332] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Tchefuncte River, Madisonville, LA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Tchefuncte River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment near Madisonville, LA, during a fireworks display on July 4, 2018. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0332 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On April 4, 2018, Geaux Pyro, notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 8 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018, for a July 4th celebration. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge on the Tchefuncte River, at approximate position 30°24′11.63″ N, 090°09′17.39″ W, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall. In response, on April 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; Lower Tchefuncte River, Madisonville, LA” (83 FR 16815). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 17, 2018, we received no comments.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this July 4, 2018 display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the fireworks barge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 17, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Tchefuncte River within 100-yards of a barge at approximate position 30°24′11.63″ N, 090°09′17.39″ W, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall in Madisonville, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

    Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone is for only one hour and will only encompass a 100-yard section on the Tchefuncte River. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry within a 100-yard radius of a barge at approximate position of 30°24′11.63″ N, 090°09′17.39″ W, on the Tchefuncte River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T08-0332 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0332 Safety Zone; Tchefuncte River, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Tchefuncte River, 100-yards around a barge at approximate position 30°24′11.63″ N, 090°09′17.39″ W, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall in Madisonville, LA.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200.

    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. K.M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14243 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0621] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: Red, White and Tahoe Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for Red, White and Tahoe Blue Fireworks display in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators and participants from hazards associated with fireworks. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 19, will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. on July 3, 2018 through 10:30 p.m. on July, 4, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone during the loading and transit of the fireworks support pontoon vessel and fireworks barge, until completion of the fireworks display. From 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on July 3, 2018, the fireworks support pontoon vessel will be loaded at Ivgid Boat Launch in the vicinity of Incline Beach, near Incline Village, NV and will transit from Ivgid Boat Launch to the display location at approximate position 39°14′13″ N, 119°57′01″ W (NAD 83), the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks support pontoon vessel within a radius of 100 feet. From 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018 the fireworks barge will be loaded at approximate position 39°14′13″ N, 119°57′ 01″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 18-minute fireworks display, scheduled to start at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 1,000 feet at approximate position 39°14′13″ N, 119°57′01″ W (NAD 83) for the Red, White, and Tahoe Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 19. This safety zone will be in effect from 7:30 a.m. on July 3, 2018 until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Anthony J. Ceraolo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14268 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0606] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between mile markers (MM) 95.7 and MM 96.7 above Head of Passes in New Orleans, LA. The safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 12, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0606 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by July 12, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to potential hazards associated with the fireworks display.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display on July 12, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi River. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waterway before, during, and after the fireworks display.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 12, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 95.7 and MM 96.7, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the fireworks display is being set up and launched. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

    Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will restrict traffic on a one-mile portion of the Lower Mississippi River for one hour on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only one hour that will prohibit entry between mile marker (MM) 95.7 and MM 96.7 on the Lower Mississippi River, above Head of Passes, before, during and after a fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L(60)a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T08-0606 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0606 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Lower Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 95.7 and MM 96.7, near New Orleans, LA.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 12, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200.

    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

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

    Dated: June 25, 2018. Kristi M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14245 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0508] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: San Francisco Fourth of July Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing temporary moving safety zones in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near Aquatic Park in support of the Fourth of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2018. These safety zones are established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from July 3, 2018 through July 4, 2018. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m. on July 3, 2018 through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0508. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Acronyms APA Administrative Procedure Act COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received notice of this event on May 24, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.

    For similar reasons as those stated above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on July 4, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks barges and anyone within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks firing sites. This rule is needed to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes temporary safety zones during the loading and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges, scheduled to take place from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 3, 2018 and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018 at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA, the safety zones will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet.

    The fireworks barges will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the transit to the display locations. Towing of the barges from Pier 50 to the display locations is scheduled to take place from 7:30 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. on July 4, 2018, where they will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display.

    At 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 30-minute fireworks displays, the safety zones will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 700 feet in approximate positions 37°48′49″ N, 122°24′46″ W and 37°48′45″ N, 122°25′39″ W (NAD 83) for the San Francisco Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The safety zones shall terminate at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    The effect of the temporary safety zones are to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing sites. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted areas. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing sites to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zones. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zones, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zones will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of these safety zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T11-930 to read as follows:
    § 165.T11-930 Safety Zone; San Francisco Fourth of July Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area are safety zones: All navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay within 100 feet of the fireworks barges during loading at Pier 50, as well as transit and arrival near Aquatic Park in San Francisco, CA. From 9:00 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. on July 3, 2018, and from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 6:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, the fireworks barges will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The safety zones will expand to all navigable waters around and under the firework barges within a radius of 700 feet in approximate positions 37°48′49″ N, 122°24′46″ W and 37°48′45″ N, 122°25′39″ W (NAD 83), 30 minutes prior to the start of the 30 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    (b) Enforcement period. The zones described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. on July 3, 2018 until approximately 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods during which these zones will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with § 165.7.

    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zones.

    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (2) The safety zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.

    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zones must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zones must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zones on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Anthony J. Ceraolo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14259 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0624] Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone—July Fireworks AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce certain safety zones located in federal regulations for recurring marine events. This action is necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during these events. During each enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(1) will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(2) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018. The regulation in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(13) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a Safety Zone; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:

    (1) Boldt Castle 4th of July Fireworks, Heart Island, NY; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(1) will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    (2) Clayton Chamber of Commerce Fireworks, Calumet Island, NY; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(2) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

    (3) Tom Graves Memorial Fireworks; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(13) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within a safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter a safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter a safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14326 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0544] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: City of Vallejo Fourth of July Fireworks Display, Mare Island Strait, Vallejo, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay near Mare Island Strait in support of the City of Vallejo Fourth of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2018. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 4, 2018, from 8 a.m. through 10:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0544. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Acronyms APA Administrative Procedure Act COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received final details of this event on June 25, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.

    For similar reasons as those stated above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on July 4, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks barge and anyone within a 420-foot radius of the fireworks firing site. This rule is needed to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during the loading and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge, scheduled to take place from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, at Mare Island Waterfront in Vallejo, CA, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet.

    The fireworks barge will remain at Mare Island Waterfront until the start of the transit to the display location. Towing of the barge from Mare Island Waterfront to the display location is scheduled to take place from 8:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks displays.

    At 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 18-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 420 feet in approximate position 38°06′03″ N, 122°16′00″ W (NAD 83) for the City of Vallejo Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    The effect of the temporary safety zone are to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. This regulation is needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T11-931 to read as follows:
    § 165.T11-931 Safety Zone; City of Vallejo 4th of July Fireworks Display, Mare Island Strait, Vallejo, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Mare Island Strait within 100 feet of the fireworks barge during loading at Mare Island Waterfront, as well as transit and arrival to launching location in Mare Island Strait, Vallejo, CA. From 8:00 a.m. until approximately 4:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, the fireworks barge will be loading at Mare Island Waterfront, Vallejo, CA. The safety zone will expand to all navigable waters around and under the firework barge within a radius of 420 feet in approximate positions 38°06′03″ N, 122°16′00″ W (NAD 83), 30 minutes prior to the start of the 18-minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    (b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 8:00 a.m. until approximately 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods during which this zone will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with § 165.7.

    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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

    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Anthony J. Ceraolo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14267 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0514] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Lafitte, LA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Lafitte, LA. The safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the Jean Lafitte Pirogue Race. Entry of persons or vessels into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 11:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0514 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by July 21, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule is contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this boat race.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a boat race on July 21, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participant vessels and mariners traversing through the safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the race.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 11:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 21, 2018. This zone will encompass all navigable waters of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between mile markers (MMs) 12 and 13 west of the Harvey Locks in Lafitte, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the race and will include breaks and opportunity for vessels to transit through the regulated area.

    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200.

    A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the zone. All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators.

    Spectator vessels desiring to transit the zone may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer must be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner that will not endanger any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of official patrol vessels in the zone during the effective date and times, unless cleared for entry by or through the COTP or a designated representative. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the zone, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the zone in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the zone and remain moored through the duration of the event.

    The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the zone, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the event.

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

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone covers a one-mile section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway for only four and a half hours on one day. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, breaks may provide an opportunity for vessels to transit through the safety zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only four and a half hours on one day that will prohibit entry within a one-mile stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T08-0514 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0514 Safety Zone; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Lafitte, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, from mile markers (MMs) 12 to 13 west of the Harvey Locks, Lafitte, LA.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 11:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 21, 2018.

    (c) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced during the effective period. However, breaks in the racing may occur during the enforcement periods, which will allow for vessels to pass through the safety zone. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative will provide notice of breaks as appropriate under (e) Informational broadcasts.

    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”.

    (2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the regulated area.

    (3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels.

    (4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel.

    (5) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.

    (6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    (7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.

    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. K.M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14244 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0423; FRL-9980-30—Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Lebanon and Delaware County Nonattainment Areas for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions pertain to base year emission inventories for the Lebanon County and Delaware County nonattainment areas for the 2012 annual fine particulate national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of direct and secondary ambient fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) for all PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements under Title I of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0423. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Rehn, (215) 814-2176, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Ambient air contains a variety of pollutants, including particulate matter (PM). Airborne PM can be comprised of either solid or liquid particles, or a complex mixture of particles in both solid and liquid form. The most common airborne PM constituents include sulfate (SO4); nitrate (NO3); ammonium; elemental carbon; organic mass; and inorganic material, referred to as “crustal” material, which can include metals, dust, soil and other trace elements. PM2.5 includes “primary” particles, which are directly emitted into the air by a variety of sources, and “secondary” particles, that are formed in the atmosphere as a result of reactions between precursor pollutants.

    Human health effects associated with long- or short-term exposure to PM2.5 include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits) and development of chronic respiratory disease.

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased protection of public health from fine particle pollution (the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS). 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). In that action, EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 standard, lowering the level from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12.0 mg/m3. The 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean monitored values does not exceed 12.0 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.18.

    On January 15, 2015 (80 FR 2206), EPA published area designations, as required by CAA section 107(d)(1), for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Therein, EPA identified as “nonattainment” areas that were then violating the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data from 2011 to 2013 or that contributed to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. EPA designated the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas as moderate nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, effective April 15, 2015. See 40 CFR 81.339.

    Under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, Pennsylvania is required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint, nonroad, and onroad) of the relevant pollutants, in each nonattainment area. EPA's “Provisions for Implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS” (or PM implementation rule), at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, sets criteria for which pollutants are to be included by states in the required base year emission inventory. This PM inventory must include direct PM2.5 emissions, separately reported PM2.5 filterable and condensable emissions, and emissions of the PM2.5 precursors. 40 CFR 51.1008.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On May 5, 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a formal SIP revision consisting of the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Delaware County nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On September 25, 2017, PADEP submitted to EPA a formal revision consisting of the 2011 base year emission inventory for the Lebanon County nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    The base year emissions inventories prepared by PADEP use 2011 as the base year for planning purposes. They include direct PM2.5 emissions, as well as PM2.5 filterable and condensable emissions, and emissions of the scientific PM2.5 precursors. PADEP reported actual annual emissions of directly-emitted PM2.5 emissions (PM2.5 PRI), as well as separately reported PM2.5 filterable and condensable particulate matter (PM CON) emissions. PM CON is matter that exists as a vapor at stack conditions, but becomes a solid or liquid upon exit of the stack. PADEP's base year inventories for these areas also include directly-emitted, primary particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10 PRI), emissions precursors that contribute to secondary formation of PM2.5, including sulfur dioxides (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3) emissions.

    Table 1 summarizes the 2011 emission inventory by source sector for each pollutant or pollutant precursor for the Delaware County 2012 annual PM2.5 nonattainment area, expressed as annual emissions in tons per year (tpy).

    Table 1—Summary of 2011 Emissions of PM2.5, PM10, and PM2.5 Precursors for the Delaware County 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Area Source sector Annual emissions (tpy) PM10
  • Primary 1
  • PM2.5
  • Primary 2
  • SO2 NOX VOC NH3
    Stationary Point Sources 3 1,671.81 1,496.70 4,975.94 7,641.98 1,393.18 217.50 Area Sources 4 2,502.73 998.82 2,055.13 2,875.85 6,779.07 206.47 Onroad Mobile Sources 5 328.61 179.01 31.05 5,643.30 2,999.73 130.41 Nonroad Mobile Sources 128.87 121.78 3.498 1,123.96 1,787.97 1.759 Total Emissions 4,632.02 2,796.30 7,065.62 17,285.08 12,959.95 556.14 1 Primary PM particles are emitted directly to the air from a source and include both filterable particulate and condensable components. Condensable PM (PM CON) exists as a vapor at stack conditions but exists as a solid or liquid once it exits the stack and is cooled by ambient air. All PM CON is smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter and, therefore, represents condensable matter for both PM10 and PM2.5. PM10 Primary is the sum of filterable PM10 (PM10 FIL) and PM CON. 2 PM2.5 Primary is the sum of filterable PM2.5 and PM CON. 3 The PM10 Primary value for stationary point sources includes a condensable component of 656.39 tpy. Because PM10 includes PM2.5 by definition, the PM2.5 Primary value for stationary point sources includes the same condensable component of 656.39 tpy. 4 PM10 Primary includes PM10 FIL and PM CON. PM2.5 Primary includes PM2.5 FIL and PM CON. Condensable emissions for the area source sector are a subset of PM Primary emissions, or 164.93 tpy. 5 Condensable emissions for the onroad and nonroad sectors are not separately calculated by the MOVES model, and are therefore included within the PM10 Primary and PM2.5 Primary values of this table.

    Table 2 summarizes the 2011 emission inventory by source sector for each pollutant or pollutant precursor for the Lebanon County 2012 annual PM2.5 nonattainment area, expressed as annual emissions in tons per year.

    Table 2—Summary of 2011 Emissions of PM2.5, PM10, and PM2.5 Precursors for the Lebanon County 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Area Source sector Annual emissions (tpy) PM10
  • Primary 1
  • PM2.5
  • Primary 2
  • SO2 NOX VOC NH3
    Stationary Point Sources 3 136.64 80.68 278.53 690.30 182.37 17.44 Area Sources 4 4,462.63 1,287.21 373.62 869.09 5,924.16 3,843.03 Onroad Mobile Sources 5 140.23 92.50 11.21 2,937.04 1,331.72 49.15 Nonroad Mobile Sources 64.48 61.55 1.684 615.91 668.43 0.751 Total Emissions 4,803.98 1,521.94 665.05 5,112.33 8,106.69 3,910.37 1 Primary PM particles are emitted directly to the air from a source and include both filterable particulate and condensable components. PM10 Primary is the sum of filterable PM10 FIL and PM CON. 2 PM2.5 Primary is the sum of filterable PM2.5 and PM CON. 3 The PM10 Primary value for stationary point sources includes a condensable component of 48.04 tpy. Because PM10 includes PM2.5 by definition, the PM2.5 Primary value for stationary point sources includes the same condensable component of 48.04 tpy. 4 PM10 Primary includes PM10 FIL and PM CON. PM2.5 Primary includes PM2.5 FIL and PM CON. Condensable emissions for the area source sector are a subset of PM Primary emissions, or 38.88 tpy. 5 Condensable emissions for the onroad and nonroad sectors are not separately calculated by the MOVES model, and are therefore included within the PM10 Primary and PM2.5 Primary values of this table.

    Stationary point sources are large, stationary, and identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. PADEP extracted data for PM2.5 source emissions from the 2011 NEI v2, which receives input from each state's annual inventory estimates.

    Area sources are stationary, nonpoint sources that are too small and numerous to be inventoried individually. Area sources are inventoried at the county level and aggregated with like categories. They are typically estimated through use of emission factors combined with activity factor estimates for each source category, adjusted to reflect emission control efficiency, emission control rule effectiveness, and rule penetration.

    Onroad sources of emissions include motor vehicles operated on public roadways. PADEP estimates onroad emissions using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, version MOVES2014, coupled with vehicle miles of travel activity levels generated by PADEP or local transportation authorities.

    Nonroad sources are mobile, internal combustion powered emission sources other than highway motor vehicles. Examples include lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles, construction and agricultural equipment, and industrial equipment. Nonroad mobile source emissions from different source categories are calculated using various methodologies, primarily by use of EPA's MOVES NONROAD emissions model or from EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM).

    EPA reviewed Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emission inventory submissions including results, procedures, and methodologies for the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas and found them to be acceptable and approvable under sections 110 and 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) for each of the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas in support of this rulemaking. The TSDs are available in the docket for this action, online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0423.

    On May 3, 2018 (83 FR 19476), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, proposing approval of both the Delaware and Lebanon County 2011 base year emission inventory SIP revisions for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received three comments on our May 3, 2018 NPR proposing to approve Pennsylvania's May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017 SIP submittals. All comments received were not specific to this action, and thus are not addressed here.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Pennsylvania's May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017 SIP revisions, which are base year emission inventories for the Delaware County and Lebanon County 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP as the revisions are in accordance with requirements in CAA section 110 generally and section 172(c)(3) specifically.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve base year emission inventories for the Delaware and Lebanon County nonattainment areas for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding two entries entitled “2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard” “Delaware County 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area” and “2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard” “Lebanon County 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    (1) EPA-Approved Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Material Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional
  • explanation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard Delaware County 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area 5/5/2017 7/3/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard Lebanon County 2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area 9/25/2017 7/3/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2018-14199 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0567; FRL-9979-64—Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Colorado; Attainment Demonstration for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area, and Approval of Related Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 31, 2017, the State of Colorado submitted State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the Denver Metro/North Front Range (DMNFR) Moderate nonattainment area by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2018. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the majority of the submittal, as well as revisions made to Colorado's Reg. No. 7 in a May 5, 2013 SIP submission. The EPA is deferring action on portions of the submitted reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Effective August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0567. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section for additional available information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abby Fulton, (303) 312-6563, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The DMNFR nonattainment area includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, and portions of Larimer and Weld Counties. See 40 CFR 81.306. The area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012) and reclassified as a Moderate ozone nonattainment area on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697; see 40 CFR 81.306). Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later than 6 years after the effective date of designation, which for the DMNFR nonattainment area is July 20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903.

    On April 6, 2018, 83 FR 14807, the EPA proposed approval of certain revisions to Colorado's SIP submitted to the EPA on May 5, 2013, and May 31, 2017. Specifically, we proposed approval of Colorado's 2017 attainment demonstration for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, we proposed approval of the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) contained in the State's 2017 submittal. We also proposed approval of all other aspects of the 2017 submittal, except for certain area source categories and major source RACT, which we will be acting on at a later date. We proposed approval of the revisions to Colorado's Reg. 7 and 11, except for Sections X.E and XIX of Reg. 7, which we will be acting on at a later date. We proposed approval of the revisions to Colorado Reg. 7 Section XII from the State's May 5, 2013 submittal.

    The factual and legal background for this action is discussed in detail in our April 6, 2018 proposed approval. 83 FR 14807. The proposal provides a detailed description of the revisions and the rationale for the EPA's proposed actions.

    II. Response to Comments

    We received nineteen comments during the public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that sixteen of the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. We received two comments supporting our proposal to approve the DMNFR moderate nonattainment area attainment demonstration and related revisions, and one adverse comment. Below is a summary of the material comments and the EPA's responses.

    Comments From Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

    The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) stated that “Colorado supports EPA's proposal to approve the DMNFR moderate nonattainment area attainment demonstration and many of the related revisions.” The State further requested that the EPA delay taking action on the combustion adjustment and tuning work practice requirements in Reg. 7, Section XVI.D, due to “Colorado's ongoing efforts to further establish RACT for combustion sources on a categorical basis.” Colorado stated that it anticipates submitting to the EPA additional RACT standards for combustion equipment in Summer 2019, and requested that the EPA delay action on Reg. 7, Section XVI.D revisions from the May 31, 2017 submittal so that the Agency “can incorporate and approve Colorado's RACT standards for combustion equipment all at once.”

    Response: The Agency acknowledges the State's support for this action. We agree with the request that we refrain from acting on Reg. 7, Section XVI.D of Colorado's May 31, 2017 submittal, which established RACT as a work practice for combustion equipment at major sources of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. In our notice of proposed rulemaking, we proposed to approve all of Reg. 7, Section XVI, but explained that we would be acting on Colorado's RACT demonstration for major sources in a future rulemaking and identified provisions for which we were taking no action on at the time (see sections H and N of the proposed rulemaking). The State's desire to incorporate Section XVI.D into its anticipated combustion equipment RACT submission is reasonable, and because Colorado did not rely on any emission reductions from control requirements in Section XVI.D in its 2017 modeling analysis, we are able to act on this revision in a separate action. We, therefore, agree with the State's comment and will act on revisions to Reg. 7, XVI.D from the May 31, 2017 submittal at a later time.

    Comment From Anonymous

    The comment described the approval of the State's revised SIP as “a necessary step” that “will hold owners and operators more accountable for their actions,” and cited several specific provisions as beneficial. The commenter urged future action on the changes made to Reg. 7, Sections X and section XIX, and also urged “every revision and action” to meet the ozone standard.

    Response: The EPA agrees that the SIP provisions we are approving, which will be enforceable as a matter of federal law, are necessary steps to comply with the CAA and protect air quality. We are taking no action in this final rule on the State submissions concerning Reg. No. 7, Sections X.E. and XIX, but do intend to act on them in a later rulemaking. Further, we will continue our ongoing work to assist the State in its development of measures to improve air quality.

    Comments From the Center for Biological Diversity Comment 1

    The comment stated that the “EPA must disapprove the attainment designation [sic; rightly “demonstration”] because the N. Front Range nonattainment area did not attain by the attainment deadline” and that the “EPA must disapprove the attainment demonstration because it was demonstrable [sic] wrong.” The comment said that “EPA has used the excuse of ignoring ozone values if the comment period or decision is before the May 1 deadline for certifying data” and that the time the comment was submitted was after May 1. The comment also explained that “EPA uses the exceptional event provision as another excuse. However, in Table 1 [from the commenter], which is generated from data from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), we have excluded exceptional events even though Colorado's claims of exceptional events are not valid.”

    Response: We do not agree with the commenter's argument that the EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration because the area did not attain by the attainment deadline, or with the commenter's assertions concerning exceptional events and the timing of the submission.

    Colorado has satisfied the legal and regulatory criteria for approving attainment demonstration SIPs. An attainment demonstration uses photochemical grid modeling to show that SIP controls are sufficient to reduce predicted ambient ozone levels to a level at or below the standard, assuming identical meteorology in the baseline and future (modeled) years. As explained in section IV.D and E of the proposed rulemaking, to predict future ozone levels the modeled attainment demonstration uses a baseline design value derived from historical data (in this case 2009-2013), historical meteorological data from the baseline period, emission inventories representing the baseline design value period, and modeled reductions in emissions based on SIP control measures. The attainment demonstration is not required to identically match actual monitored ozone levels for the future years described in the model.1 Rather, it is intended to assess whether SIP controls are adequate to reduce ambient ozone to a level at or below the NAAQS by the attainment date, and such an assessment is based on modeling. The modeled attainment demonstration can be an approvable SIP element, even if actual monitored data do not show attainment.

    1 As noted above, attainment demonstration modeling assumes that the future meteorology will be identical to that in the baseline period, but year-to-year variability in meteorology means that actual measurements of ozone in future modeled years cannot match that predicted by models. In addition, monitoring data may not always accurately reflect conditions in the area, such as during times of exceptional events.

    Applying this standard, Colorado's attainment demonstration qualifies for EPA approval. As described in the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule (80 FR 12292), “[t]o demonstrate attainment, the modeling results for the nonattainment area must predict that emissions reductions implemented by the beginning of the last full ozone season preceding the attainment date will result in ozone concentrations that meet the level of the standard” (80 FR 12270, March 6, 2015). We find the attainment demonstration submitted on May 31, 2017, adequate to meet this requirement.

    The EPA acknowledges that 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 monitored design values in the Denver nonattainment area violate the 2008 ozone NAAQS, regardless of whether all data are used, or whether instead, potential exceptional event data (which have not been acted on by the EPA) are removed. But under the CAA, a determination of whether an area has failed to attain is a separate action entirely from the review of an attainment demonstration SIP. The EPA's SIP review occurs under CAA section 110(k), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), while a determination of whether an area has failed to attain is governed by CAA section 181(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2). Under section 181(b)(2), the EPA must determine whether an ozone nonattainment area has attained the applicable NAAQS “[w]ithin 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including any extension thereof).” (Emphasis added.) Here, the applicable attainment date is still in the future: July 20, 2018. After that date, the EPA will analyze the pertinent information and determine whether the DMNFR nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in accordance with section 181(b)(2). In the event that the EPA determines that the area failed to attain based on certified air quality data, the DMNFR nonattainment area may be reclassified to Serious by operation of law, and would then be subject to a number of Serious area attainment planning and control requirements, including developing and submitting a new attainment demonstration.

    In addition, it is possible that Colorado will request and receive an extension of the attainment date if that is required, as is envisioned in section 181(b)(2). The CAA allows for up to two attainment date extensions, if the fourth maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration in the attainment year (2017 in this case) is below the level of the standard.2 Thus, a nonattainment area may be able to attain the NAAQS by the extended attainment date, even if the measured design value for an area does not meet the NAAQS at the end of the original attainment year, if the area is eligible for and is granted an attainment date extension. The original attainment date has not yet passed, and it is possible that the attainment date will be extended per section 181(b)(2). As previously noted, the Colorado SIP submission satisfies the requirements for a modeled demonstration that the area will meet the standard in the attainment year.

    2See CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(A), the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.1103, and 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule (80 FR 12292).

    Comment 2

    The commenter also criticized EPA's approach to calculating design values for using figures that are “truncated rather than rounded.”

    Response: Rules for calculating monitored ozone design values for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are in 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. Section 2.1 of appendix P requires that hourly average ozone be truncated to the third decimal place (0.001 ppm), as shall 8-hour averages compiled from the individual 1-hour averages. Section 2.2 of appendix P then requires that 3-year averages of annual fourth highest 8-hour averages also be truncated to the third decimal place. The truncation is thus in compliance with the procedure required by the regulations.

    III. Final Action

    We are approving the SIP submittal from the State of Colorado for the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area submitted on May 31, 2017. Specifically, we are approving the following:

    • Attainment demonstration with weight of evidence analysis for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;

    • Base and future year emissions inventories;

    • RFP demonstration;

    • Demonstration of RACT for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) sources (except for the following CTG source categories as to which we are not taking any action at this time: Metal Furniture Coatings, 2007; Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, 2008; Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 1996; Industrial Cleaning Solvents, 2006; Aerospace, 1997; and Oil and Natural Gas Industry, 2016.);

    • Demonstration of RACM implementation;

    • Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program revisions in Colorado's Reg. No. 11;

    • NNSR program;

    • Contingency measures plan;

    • MVEBs; and

    • Revisions to Colorado's Reg. No. 7 (except for revisions to Reg. No. 7, Section X pertaining to VOC controls of industrial cleaning solvents, Section XVI.D revisions pertaining to RACT standards for combustion equipment, and Section XIX revisions pertaining to RACT requirements for major sources as to which we are not taking any action).

    We are also approving SIP revisions to Reg. No. 7 submitted by the State on May 13, 2013, except for provisions that have been superseded by later submissions, for which we are not taking any action. We are approving these actions in accordance with section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and part D of the CAA.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Colorado Reg. No. 11 pertaining to regulation of the State's motor vehicle emissions inspection program and Colorado Reg. No. 7 pertaining to regulation of sources of VOC and NOX emissions as discussed in section IV., J. Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/M) Program and N. SIP Control Measures (except we are not acting on Reg. 7, Sections, X, XVI.D, and XIX in this action) of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.3

    3 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Douglas Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart G—Colorado 2. In § 52.320: a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by: i. Revising table entries “I,” “II,” “VI,” “VII,” “VIII,” “IX,” “XII,” and “XVI,” under the centered heading “5 CCR 1001-09, Regulation Number 7, Control of Ozone Via Ozone Precursors (Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides).” ii. Revising table entry “II” and adding table entry “V” in numerical order under the centered heading “5 CCR 1001-13, Regulation Number 11, Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program—Part A, General Provisions, Area of Applicability, Schedules for Obtaining Certification of Emissions Control, Definitions, Exemptions, and Clean Screening/Remote Sensing.” b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “2008 Ozone Moderate Area Attainment Plan” after the last entry under the heading “Denver Metropolitan Area.”

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 52.320 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA
  • effective
  • date
  • Final rule/citation date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5 CCR 1001-09, Regulation Number 7, Control of Ozone Via Ozone Precursors (Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides) I. Applicability 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Previous SIP approval 08/05/11 except for I.A.1.b, I.B.1.b, I.B.2.b, and I.B.2.d; nonsubstantive changes to I.A.1.a. and I.A.1.c. approved 7/3/2018. II. General Provisions 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Previous SIP approval 08/05/11 except for II.A.12, II.C.1, and the repeal of previously approved II.D; nonsubstantive changes to II.D approved 7/3/2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * VI. Storage and Transfer of Petroleum Liquid 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Previous SIP approval 08/05/11; nonsubstantive changes to VI.B.2.a.(iii)(B) approved 7/3/2018. VII. Crude Oil 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Previous SIP approval 08/05/11; nonsubstantive changes to VII.C 7/3/2018. VIII. Petroleum Processing and Refining 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Previous SIP approval 08/05/11; nonsubstantive changes to VIII.C.4.a.(i)(A)(6) 7/3/2018. IX. Surface Coating Operations 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Previous SIP approval 08/05/11; nonsubstantive changes to IX.A.3.c., IX.A.5.a.-d., and IX.A.12.a. 7/3/2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * XII. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Oil and Gas Operations 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Previous SIP approval 02/13/08; substantive changes to Section XII; state-only provisions excluded 7/3/2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * XVI. Control of Emissions from Stationary and Portable Engines in the 8-Hour Ozone Control Area 2/15/2013, 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Previous SIP approval 08/19/05; nonsubstantive changes to Sections XVI.A.-C. 7/3/2018. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5 CCR 1001-13, Regulation Number 11, Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program—Part A, General Provisions, Area of Applicability, Schedules for Obtaining Certification of Emissions Control, Definitions, Exemptions, and Clean Screening/Remote Sensing *         *         *         *         *         *         * II. Definitions 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * V. Expansion of the Enhanced Emissions Program to the North Front Range Area 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) * * *

    Title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA
  • effective
  • date
  • Final rule/citation date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Maintenance Plans *         *         *         *         *         *         * Denver Metropolitan Area *         *         *         *         *         *         * 2008 Ozone Moderate Area Attainment Plan 1/14/2017 8/2/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/3/2018 Except RACT for Metal Furniture Coatings, Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Aerospace, Oil and Natural Gas Industry, and major source RACT. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-13599 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0160; FRL-9980-17—Region 9] Air Plan Approval; California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District; Negative Declarations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD or “District”) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the District's negative declarations for several volatile organic compound (VOC) source categories included in its Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan Analysis. We are approving these negative declarations under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0160. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    On September 13, 2017, YSAQMD adopted its Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) Analysis for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Included in the District's RACT SIP analysis were several negative declarations where the District stated that it did not have sources subject to the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents listed below in Table 1. The District's RACT SIP further stated that the negative declarations were for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. On November 13, 2017, the California Air Resources Board submitted YSAQMD's RACT SIP, including the following negative declarations, to the EPA as a SIP revision.

    Table 1—Submitted Negative Declarations 1 CTG document CTG document title EPA-450/2-77-008 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA-450/2-77-025 Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. EPA-450/2-77-032 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. EPA-450/2-77-033 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. EPA-450/2-77-034 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. EPA-450/2-77-036 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks. EPA-450/2-78-029 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products. EPA-450/2-78-030 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. EPA-450/2-78-032 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. EPA-450/2-78-033 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VIII: Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography. EPA-450/2-78-036 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. EPA-450/3-82-009 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. EPA-450/3-83-006 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. EPA-450/3-83-007 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. EPA-450/3-83-008 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. EPA-450/3-84-015 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. EPA-450/4-91-031 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. EPA-453/R-96-007 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations. 61 FR-44050 8/27/96 Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating). EPA-453/R-97-004 Aerospace (CTG & MACT). EPA-453/R-06-003 Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing. EPA-453/R-06-004 Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings. EPA 453/R-07-003 Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings. EPA 453/R-07-004 Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. EPA 453/R-07-005 Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings. EPA 453/R-08-005 Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives. EPA 453/R-08-006 Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. EPA 453/R-08-003 Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (plastic parts portion only). EPA 453/B-16-001 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. 1 Negative declarations are for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    On May 9, 2018 (83 FR 21235), the EPA proposed to approve YSAQMD's negative declarations for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS into the California SIP. We proposed to approve these negative declarations because we determined that they comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the negative declarations and our evaluation.

    II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received two anonymous comments that were outside the scope of this rulemaking. Neither of the comments were germane to our evaluation of YSAQMD's negative declarations.

    III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the suitability of the negative declarations in our proposed action and duplicated in Table 1 above. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these negative declarations for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS into the California SIP.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(505) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan—in part.

    (c) * * *

    (505) The following plan was submitted on November 13, 2017 by the Governor's designee.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (ii) Additional materials. (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis: “Table 3—CTG Categories for Which YSAQMD Will Adopt a Negative Declaration,” adopted on September 13, 2017.

    3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(14)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 52.222 Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *

    (14) * * *

    (ii) The following negative declarations are for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and were adopted by the District on September 13, 2017 and submitted as part of Yolo-Solano AQMD's RACT SIP on November 13, 2017.

    CTG source category Negative declaration CTG reference document Aerospace EPA-453/R-97-004 Aerospace (CTG & MACT). Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings EPA-450/2-77-008 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings EPA 453/R-08-006 Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. Dry Cleaning EPA-450/3-82-009 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings EPA-450/2-78-032 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings EPA-453/R-06-004 Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings. Flexible Package Printing EPA-453/R-06-003 Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing. Graphic Arts Rotogravure and Flexography EPA-450/2-78-033 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VIII: Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography. Large Appliance Coating EPA-450/2-77-034 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances. Large Appliance Coating EPA 453/R-07-004 Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Magnet Wire Coating EPA-450/2-77-033 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. Metal Can Coating; Metal Coil Coating EPA-450/2-77-008 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. Metal Furniture Coatings EPA-450/2-77-032 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. Metal Furniture Coatings EPA 453/R-07-005 Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives EPA 453/R-08-005 Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts EPA 453/R-08-003 Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (plastic parts portion only). Natural Gas/Gasoline EPA-450/3-83-007 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. Oil and Gas Industry EPA 453/B-16-001 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Paper and Fabric Coating EPA-450/2-77-008 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings EPA 453/R-07-003 Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings. Petroleum Liquid Storage Tanks EPA-450/2-77-036 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks. Resin Manufacturing EPA-450/3-83-008 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. Resin Manufacturing EPA-450/3-83-006 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. Pharmaceutical Products EPA-450/2-78-029 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products. Refineries EPA-450/2-78-036 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. Refineries EPA-450/2-77-025 Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. Rubber Tire Manufacturing EPA-450/2-78-030 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. Ship Coatings 61 FR-44050 8/27/96 Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating). Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing EPA-450/3-84-015 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing EPA-450/4-91-031 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Wood Furniture Coating EPA-453/R-96-007 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14197 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8535] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/cancellation of
  • sale of flood insurance in community
  • Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain
  • Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region IV South Carolina: Columbia, City of, Lexington and Richland Counties 450172 January 16, 1974, Emerg; September 2, 1981, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. July 5, 2018 July 5, 2018. Lexington, Town of, Lexington County 450134 May 27, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1980, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Springdale, Town of, Lexington County 450138 December 4, 1973, Emerg; May 1, 1980, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Swansea, Town of, Lexington County 450139 June 24, 1975, Emerg; June 10, 1977, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Region V Illinois: Quincy, City of, Adams County 170003 March 25, 1974, Emerg; October 15, 1981, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Region VII Nebraska: Adams County, Unincorporated Areas 310411 March 24, 1982, Emerg; June 1, 1988, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Clay Center, City of, Clay County 310040 N/A, Emerg; July 29, 1998, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Hastings, City of, Adams County 310001 July 24, 1974, Emerg; August 17, 1981, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Juniata, Village of, Adams County 310293 June 14, 1979, Emerg; June 18, 1990, Reg; July 5, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. -do- = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: June 26, 2018. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14229 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    83 128 Tuesday, July 3, 2018 Proposed Rules COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 1 RIN 3038-AE73 Financial Surveillance Examination Program Requirements for Self-Regulatory Organizations AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing to amend its regulations governing the minimum standards for a self-regulatory organization's (“SRO”) financial surveillance examination program of futures commission merchants (“FCMs”). The proposed amendments would revise the scope of a third-party expert's evaluation of the SRO's financial surveillance program to cover only the examination standards used by SRO staff in conducting FCM examinations. The proposed amendments also would revise the minimum timeframes between when an SRO must engage a third-party expert to evaluate its FCM examination standards.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE73, by any of the following methods:

    CFTC Comments Portal: https://comments.cftc.gov. Select the “Submit Comments” link for this rulemaking and follow the instructions on the Public Comment Form.

    Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Follow the same instructions as for Mail, above. Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. To avoid possible delays with mail or in-person deliveries, submissions through the CFTC Comments Portal are encouraged.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to https://comments.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 Regulation 145.9. Commission regulations referred to herein are found at 17 CFR chapter I.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from https://comments.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew B. Kulkin, Director, 202-418-5213, [email protected]; Thomas Smith, Deputy Director, 202-418-5495, [email protected]; Jennifer Bauer, Special Counsel, 202-418-5472, [email protected]; or Joshua Beale, Special Counsel, 202-418-5446, [email protected], Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Commission Initiative to Simplify and Modernize Regulations

    In March of 2017, Commission staff initiated an agency-wide internal review of CFTC regulations and practices to identify those areas that could be simplified to make them less burdensome and costly.2 The Commission subsequently published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2017 a Request for Information soliciting suggestions from the public regarding how the Commission's existing rules, regulations, or practices could be applied in a simpler, less burdensome, and costly manner.3

    2See Remarks of Acting Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo before the 42nd Annual International Futures Industry Conference in Boca Raton, FL, dated March 15, 2017. The remarks are available at the Commission's website: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opagiancarlo-20.

    3 Project KISS, 82 FR 21494 (May 9, 2017); amended on May 24, 2017, 82 FR 23765 (May 24, 2017). The Federal Register Request for Information, and the suggestion letters filed by the public are available at the Commission's website: https://comments.cftc.gov/KISS/KissInitiative.aspx.

    The CME Group (“CME”) submitted suggestions on a variety of rules, regulations, and practices in responses to the Commission's Request for Information.4 One area identified by CME for simplification and the reduction of regulatory burden was Regulation 1.52, which imposes an obligation on SROs 5 to conduct periodic examinations of member FCMs 6 for compliance with both SRO and Commission minimum capital and other financial and related reporting requirements. Specifically, the CME suggested that Regulation 1.52 should be amended to eliminate a requirement that a third-party public accounting firm perform periodic evaluations and assessments of the CME's surveillance program to oversee its member FCMs compliance with Commission and CME financial and related reporting requirements.7

    4See Letter from Kathleen Cronin, Senior Managing Director, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, CME Group, dated September 29, 2017. The CME's letter is available at the Commission's website: https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=61395&SearchText=.

    5 The term “self-regulatory organization” is defined in Regulation 1.52 to include a contract market (as defined in Regulation 1.3) or an RFA under section 17 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), but the term as defined in Regulation 1.52 does not include a swap execution facility (as defined in Regulation 1.3). See Regulation 1.52(a)(2).

    6 The term “futures commission merchant” is generally defined in Regulation 1.3 as (1) an entity that is engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery or a swap and, in connection with the solicitation and acceptance of such orders, accepts money, securities or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee or secure futures or swaps transactions, or (2) an entity registered as an FCM.

    7 CME Letter, pp. 13-14.

    B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    FCMs perform critical functions to facilitate the efficient operation of Commission-regulated exchange-traded derivatives markets. In addition to trading for their own accounts and carrying the accounts of their affiliates, FCMs are market intermediaries, standing between customers trading futures and swaps transactions on one side and designated contract markets (“DCMs”) and derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”) on the other side. As part of their role as market intermediaries, FCMs carry customer accounts and hold customer funds to margin futures and cleared swap transactions. FCMs also fulfill daily settlement obligations on behalf of customers by posting sufficient funds to DCOs to support their customers' futures and swap positions, including paying mark-to-market losses associated with such positions. FCMs also are essential to the efficient operation of Commission-regulated markets in that they guarantee each customer's financial performance for futures and swap positions to DCOs by agreeing to use their own financial resources to cover any shortfall resulting from a customer default.8

    8See Regulation 39.16.

    The Act acknowledges the critical role performed by FCMs. Section 4f(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to adopt regulations imposing minimum capital and financial reporting requirements on FCMs to help ensure that they maintain adequate financial resources to meet their obligations.9 Under this statutory authorization, the Commission adopted regulations requiring FCMs, among other requirements, to maintain a minimum level of regulatory capital,10 to segregate customer funds from their own funds in specially designated customer accounts,11 and to maintain appropriate risk management programs to monitor and manage the risks associated with their activities as FCMs.12

    9 Section 4f(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to adopt FCM minimum financial and related reporting requirements. Section 4f(b) provides, in relevant part, that no person shall be registered as an FCM unless such person meets the minimum financial requirements that the Commission may prescribe by regulation as necessary to insure such person meets its obligations as a registrant, and each person registered as an FCM shall at all times continue to meet such prescribed minimum financial requirements.

    10See Regulation 1.17 for FCM minimum capital requirements.

    11See Regulations 1.20, 22.2, and 30.7 for FCM segregation requirements for customer accounts containing futures positions, swap positions, and foreign futures positions, respectively.

    12See Regulation 1.11 for FCM risk management requirements.

    The Commission also has adopted, under the authority granted by section 4f(b), regulations imposing periodic financial reporting requirements on FCMs that are intended to provide the Commission with information regarding their financial condition. The financial reporting requirements include daily statements demonstrating compliance with the segregation of customer funds requirements,13 monthly unaudited and annual audited financial statements,14 and regulatory notices upon the occurrence of specified events including failing to meet minimum capital requirements, failing to comply with segregation requirements, and failing to maintain current books and records.15

    13See Regulations 1.32, 22.2 and 30.7 for FCM requirements to prepare and to submit to the Commission daily segregation computations and schedules for customer futures, cleared swaps and foreign futures accounts, respectively.

    14See Regulation 1.10 for FCM requirements to file unaudited monthly financial statements and annual audited financial statements.

    15See Regulation 1.12.

    In addition to authorizing the Commission to adopt regulations imposing direct financial and related reporting requirements, the Act further establishes a regulatory oversight structure that imposes an obligation on DCMs and registered futures associations (“RFAs”),16 as SROs, to perform frontline regulatory oversight of market intermediaries, including FCMs.17 In 2000, Congress affirmed this regulatory structure of industry self-regulation by amending section 3 of the Act to state, in pertinent part, that it is the purpose of the Act to serve the public interests through a system of effective self-regulation of trading facilities, clearing systems, market participants and market professionals under the oversight of the Commission.18

    16 The National Futures Association (“NFA”) is the only registered RFA. NFA's financial requirements for FCMs are available at its website, www.nfa.futures.org.

    17 Section 3(b) of the Act.

    18 Section 108 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Public Law 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (Dec. 21, 2000).

    To achieve the objective of a self-regulatory structure, the Act and Commission regulations require RFAs and DCMs to adopt financial and related reporting requirements for member FCMs, and to periodically examine FCMs for compliance with such requirements. Section 17(p) of the Act requires an RFA to establish and submit for Commission approval rules imposing minimum capital, segregation and other financial requirements applicable to its members for which such requirements are imposed by the Commission. The RFA's financial requirements for its members must be at least as stringent as those set by the Act or Commission regulations.19 Section 17(p) further provides that the RFA must implement a program to audit and enforce compliance by its members with the RFA's minimum financial requirements.20

    19See section 17(p)(2) of the Act.

    20Id.

    With respect to DCMs, section 5(d)(11)(B) of the Act and Regulation 38.600 require, in relevant part, each DCM to implement rules to ensure the financial integrity of any member FCM and the protection of customer funds.21 DCMs also are required to monitor an FCM member's compliance with the DCM's minimum financial requirements by reviewing financial information filed with the DCM and by conducting periodic examinations of the FCM.22

    21See also, Regulation 38.602 which provides that a DCM must provide for the financial integrity of its transactions by establishing and maintaining appropriate minimum financial standards for its members and non-intermediated market participants, and Regulation 38.603 which requires a DCM to have rules concerning the protection of customer funds.

    22See Regulations 38.600 through 38.605.

    The Commission's and SRO's minimum financial requirements for member FCMs are intended to help ensure that FCMs can continue to meet their financial and operational obligations to both customers and DCOs, which is necessary in order for the Commission-regulated markets to operate efficiently and effectively.

    C. Current Commission Regulation 1.52

    As noted in section I.B., above, the Act and Commission regulations establish SROs (i.e., DCMs and NFA) as frontline regulators for FCMs. Commission Regulation 1.52 establishes the minimum standards that the Commission requires of an SRO oversight program, and includes an explicit requirement that each SRO must adopt rules prescribing minimum financial and related reporting requirements for member FCMs that are the same as, or more stringent than, the requirements imposed by the Commission.23 Consistent with the requirements of Regulation 1.52, SROs have adopted rules imposing FCM capital and financial reporting requirements that are at least as stringent as the FCM capital and financial reporting requirements set forth in applicable Commission regulations.24

    23See Regulation 1.52(b)(1).

    24 For example, CME Rule 970 imposes capital and financial reporting requirements on member FCMs that are at least as stringent as the Commission's capital and financial reporting requirements. CME rules may be accessed via the CME's website: http://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/CME/I/9/9.pdf.

    NFA FCM capital and financial reporting requirements are set forth in Section 1 of the NFA's Financial Requirements section of its rulebook and may be accessed at NFA's website: https://www.nfa.futures.org/rulebook/index.aspx.

    In 2013, the Commission adopted new rules and rule amendments to comprehensively enhance customer protections.25 As part of the 2013 Customer Protection Rulemaking, the Commission amended Regulation 1.52 to impose several additional obligations on SROs with respect to the oversight of FCMs. Amended Regulation 1.52 requires each SRO to establish and operate a supervisory program that includes written policies and procedures concerning the application of the supervisory program in the examination of its member registrants (including FCMs) for the purpose of assessing whether each member registrant is in compliance with applicable SRO and Commission regulations governing net capital and related financial requirements, the obligations to segregate customer funds, risk management requirements, financial reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and sales practices and other compliance requirements. The supervisory program also must adequately address the following elements: (1) The level, training, and independence of SRO examination staff; (2) The SRO's ongoing surveillance of member FCMs, including the review and analysis of financial reports and regulatory notices received; (3) The SRO's procedures for identifying and monitoring FCMs that are deemed to pose a high degree of financial risk; (4) The SRO's conduct of on-site examination of FCMs by SRO staff at least once every 18 months; and (5) The documentation of all aspects of the SRO's operation of its supervisory program.

    25 Enhancing Protections Afforded Customers and Customer Funds Held by Futures Commission Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 FR 68506 (Nov. 14, 2013) (the “2013 Customer Protection Rulemaking”).

    The supervisory program also must, at a minimum, incorporate FCM examination standards addressing: (1) The ethics of an SRO examiner; (2) The independence of an SRO examiner; (3) The supervision, review, and quality control of an SRO examiner's work product; (4) The evidence and documentation to be reviewed and retained in connection with an examination; (5) The examination planning process; (6) Materiality assessment; (7) Quality control procedures to ensure that the SRO examinations maintain the level of quality expected; (8) Communications between an SRO examiner and the regulatory oversight committee, or the functional equivalent of the regulatory oversight committee, of the SRO of which the FCM is a member; (9) Communications between an SRO examiner and an FCM's audit committee of the board of directors or similar governing body; (10) Analytical review procedures; (11) Record retention; and (12) Required items for inclusion in the SRO's examination report, such as repeat violations, material items, and high risk issues.26 Regulation 1.52 further provides that all aspects of an SRO's supervisory program, including the FCM examination standards, must conform to auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) as such PCAOB standards would apply to a non-financial statement audit.27

    26 Regulation 1.52(c) and (d).

    27 The PCAOB is a nonprofit corporation established by Congress to oversee the audits of public companies in order to protect investors and the public interest by promoting informative, accurate, and independent audit reports. The PCAOB also oversees the audits of brokers and dealers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The PCAOB was not, however, vested with the authority to oversee the audits of FCMs.

    Regulation 1.52 also requires each SRO to engage an “examinations expert” to evaluate its supervisory program prior to its initial use, and to evaluate the SRO's application of the supervisory program at least once every three years after its initial use.28 For each evaluation, the SRO is required to obtain from the examinations expert a written report on findings and recommendations issued under the consulting services standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA”) that includes: (1) A statement that the examinations expert has evaluated the supervisory program (including its design to detect material weaknesses in an FCM's system of internal controls), including any comments and recommendations regarding such evaluation; (2) A statement that the examinations expert has evaluated the application of the supervisory program by the SRO, including any comments and recommendations in connection with such evaluation; and, (3) A discussion and recommendations of any new or best practices as prescribed by industry sources, including the AICPA and PCAOB.

    28 An “examinations expert” is defined in Regulation 1.52(a) as an accounting and auditing firm with substantial expertise in the audits of FCMs, risk assessment, and internal control reviews, and is an accounting and auditing firm that is acceptable to the Commission.

    II. Proposed Amendments to Regulation 1.52 A. Response To Request for Information

    The CME stated in its response to the Commission's Request for Information that it fully supported the Commission's objective of strengthening and enhancing SRO oversight programs for FCMs as set forth in the 2013 Customer Protection Rulemaking. CME further stated that it expended significant resources revising the FCM supervisory program to address the enhanced requirements of Regulation 1.52 that were imposed by the 2013 Customer Protection Rulemaking. In this regard, CME stated that it and NFA jointly engaged a public accounting firm as a consultant during the development of the FCM examination standards, and that the public accounting firm's expertise was extremely beneficial in drafting the initial FCM examination standards and revising its supervisory program to address such standards.

    The CME, however, also suggested that the Commission should eliminate the requirement for an SRO to engage an examinations expert once every three years to evaluate the SRO's supervisory program. The CME expressed its view that the engagement of an examinations expert at least once every three years does not provide any meaningful regulatory benefit. The CME noted that under the current regulatory framework, staff of the Commission's Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”) provides effective oversight of the SRO FCM examination programs through the conduct of its SRO rule enforcement reviews. The CME noted that it revises the FCM examinations programs to incorporate any regulatory changes adopted by the Commission or SROs, and provides the actual FCM examination programs, with the revisions, to DSIO staff for review at least once each year.

    Based upon the CME's response to the Commission's Request for Information, and Commission staff's firsthand experience in the CME's and NFA's implementation of their initial supervisory program,29 the Commission is proposing several amendments to Regulation 1.52 to revise the time interval between mandatory examinations expert evaluations of the SRO supervisory program, and to amend the scope of the examinations expert's evaluation to focus on changes to auditing standards adopted by the PCAOB since the last examinations expert's evaluation. The Commission also is proposing several technical amendments to eliminate redundancies in the rule text.

    29 Since adoption of the amendments to Regulation 1.52 resulting from the 2013 Customer Protection Rulemaking, Commission staff has participated in several meetings with the CME, NFA, and their examinations expert to address issues and questions arising during the drafting of the initial examination standards and programs. In 2015, Commission staff, through delegated authority, approved the initial FCM examination standards, and in 2017 approved the CME's and NFA's examination programs. The examination standards and programs are now fully implemented and are used in each DSRO examination of an FCM.

    B. Scope of the Examinations Expert's Evaluation

    The examinations expert is currently required to evaluate, at least once every three years, (1) the supervisory program of an SRO or a Joint Audit Committee (“JAC”),30 and (2) the SRO's or JAC's application of its supervisory program.31 The SRO or JAC also is required to obtain from the examinations expert a written report on finding and recommendations issued under the consulting services standards of the AICPA that includes statements that the examinations expert has evaluated the supervisory program and the SRO's or JAC's application of the supervisory program, and an analysis of the supervisory program's design to detect material weaknesses in internal controls.

    30 As many FCMs are members of more than one SRO, Regulation 1.52 provides a permissive system that allows SROs to enter into agreements allocating primary, but not exclusive, financial oversight and examination responsibilities of FCMs that are members of two or more SROs to one of the SROs, which is termed the “designated self-regulatory organization” (“DSRO”). The term “designated self-regulatory organization” is generally defined in Regulation 1.3 to mean the SRO delegated the primary responsibility to monitor and exam registrants that are subject to oversight by more than one SRO for compliance with minimum financial and related reporting requirements, and for receiving financial reports from such registrants. SROs that agree to participate in a plan to allocate common members to a DSRO are referred to as JAC members under Regulation 1.52. The examination requirements proposed to be amended are effectively identical for SROs and JACs, and the Commission's proposed amendments would revise the examination requirements for both the SROs and JACs.

    31 Regulation 1.52(c)(2)(iv).

    The Commission is proposing to amend Regulations 1.52(c)(2)(iv) and (d)(2)(ii)(I) to remove from the scope of the examinations expert's evaluation the SRO's or JAC's application of its supervisory program during periodic reviews and the analysis of the supervisory program's design to detect material weaknesses in internal controls during both periodic reviews and the initial review prior to the programs' initial use. The Commission initially adopted in 2013 the requirement that the examinations expert issue a written report on its findings and recommendations of the SRO's application of its supervisory program, including its internal controls, due to concerns that a third-party assessment was necessary due to limited Commission resources and expertise to perform a comparable periodic assessment.32 Since 2013, however, Commission staff has been actively involved with the NFA, CME, and their examinations expert in the development of a revised supervisory program that meets the requirements of Regulation 1.52, including the development of FCM examinations standards that are consistent with PCAOB auditing standards. Commission staff also has reviewed the detailed FCM examination programs, including several programs designed to assess the adequacy of an FCM's internal controls that were developed by the NFA and CME, for compliance with Regulation 1.52. Commission staff also has been performing scheduled oversight reviews of NFA's and CME's execution of its revised supervisory program, including its implementation and execution of programs designed to assess the FCM's internal controls.

    32 Customer Protection Rulemaking, 78 FR 65506, 68562.

    Accordingly, following the adoption of the examination standards, the Commission believes that the scope of the examinations expert's review should be limited to the area of its expertise—auditing standards—and that engaging an independent third-party to review the entire program involves additional cost, but results only in a small, incremental benefit. Having assessed the implementation of the revised supervisory program, Commission staff has determined that it has adequate resources and expertise in the application of CFTC regulations to the operations of FCMs, and is appropriately situated to assess whether SRO and JAC staff are accurately and properly applying Commission requirements to FCMs in their execution of the examination programs. Commission staff's review of SRO and JAC supervisory programs includes detailed assessments of whether SRO or JAC staff complied with their respective FCM examination standards, including internal control testing and assessment, in the performance of FCM examinations. In this regard, Commission staff generally review, based on a risk-based approach, the most significant areas of an SRO's or JAC's FCM examination program during a review, including: (1) The staffing levels and adequate training and qualification of SRO or JAC staff members; (2) The detailed testing performed by SRO or JAC staff in each examination area (e.g., segregation of customer funds, capital compliance, and recordkeeping); (3) The timeliness and effectiveness of the SRO's or JAC's review of FCM financial reporting, including FCM daily segregation computations, monthly unaudited and annual audited financial statements, periodic reporting of customer investments, and periodic regulatory notices; and (4) The effectiveness of the SRO's or JAC's disciplinary program. Accordingly, the Commission believes that a more efficient balance of oversight can be achieved by focusing the examinations expert's evaluation on the SRO's or JAC's examination standards, which is an area of the examinations expert's particular expertise. While the Commission still notes that it has limited resources to perform a holistic review of the SRO's or JAC's examination program, covering both the design of the standards and the effectiveness of the audit program, the Commission believes, as noted above, that the proposed amendments strike a reasoned balance between the Commission's expertise and that of the examinations expert.

    The proposed amendments would continue to require an examinations expert to provide the SRO or JAC with a written report on the examinations expert's findings and recommendations. The Commission, however, is not mandating the form and content of the written report, other than that the report must accurately reflect the extent of the examinations expert's evaluation, and include any findings and recommendations resulting from its evaluation. The Commission is also proposing that the written report will be provided to the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight with the understanding that the report will be shared with the Commission.

    C. Frequency of the Examinations Expert's Evaluation of an SRO's Supervisory Program

    Regulations 1.52(c)(2)(iv) and (d)(2)(ii)(I) require an SRO and JAC, respectively, to engage an examinations expert to evaluate their FCM supervisory programs prior to the initiation of the programs, and at least once every three years thereafter. The Commission believes that an examinations expert's evaluation provides important oversight of the SRO FCM examination standards by an independent third-party that is an expert in the understanding and application of the auditing standards issued by the PCAOB. Accordingly, the Commission is not proposing to eliminate the requirement in Regulation 1.52 for an SRO or JAC to engage an examinations expert at the initiation of the development of its supervisory program, or at different periods of time after the initial evaluation.

    The Commission, however, further believes that the frequency of an examinations expert's evaluation of an SRO's or JAC's FCM examination standards should not be based upon a fixed timeframe of once every three years and is therefore proposing amendments that provide for flexibility dependent upon changes in auditing standards issued by the PCAOB.

    Accordingly, the Commission is proposing that SROs and JACs must review and revise their respective FCM examination standards promptly after the issuance of new or amended auditing standards by the PCAOB that have an impact on the FCM examination standards. The SRO or JAC also must engage an examinations expert to evaluate the consistency of the revised FCM examination standards with the PCAOB auditing standards whenever the SRO or JAC adopts material amendments to their respective FCM examination standards.33 The proposal would further provide the DSIO Director with the authority to direct an SRO or JAC to engage an examinations expert. This will address cases where DSIO staff believes that new or amended PCAOB audit standards have a material impact on FCM examinations standards, when an SRO of JAC has not otherwise engaged an examinations expert.34

    33 The purpose of the proposal is for an SRO or JAC to promptly amend their respective FCM examination standards whenever the PCAOB issues new or revised auditing standards that are relevant to the SRO's or JAC's examinations of member FCMs. The SRO or JAC would further be required to engage an examinations expert to evaluate the consistency of any material amendments to the FCM examination standards with the PCAOB new or revised auditing standards. However, the Commission would not expect an SRO or JAC to engage an examinations expert if the amendments to the FCM examination standards are not material. The Commission also would not expect an SRO or JAC to engage an examinations expert more frequently than once every 12 months.

    In the context of the JAC, the annual JAC meeting required by Regulation 1.52(d) may serve as the appropriate forum for discussing amendments to the FCM examination standards, and if necessary, a vote of JAC members could determine that engagement of the examinations expert to more fully assess the supervisory program standards in the context of a non-financial statement audit is warranted.

    34 The Commission also notes that proposal does not prescribe a specific timeframe for which the SRO or JAC should implement any revised examination standards, but only that the adoption must occur “promptly.” This is because the time needed to comport the newly adopted auditing standard into a newly adopted examination standard may vary depending on the complexity of the standard and whether the examinations expert has been engaged. For avoidance of any doubt, the Commission expects “promptly” adoption to occur within a reasonable amount of time under the circumstances. In the event that the adoption should take longer than one year from the time a PCAOB auditing standard is made effective, the SRO or JAC may petition the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight for a longer permitted adoption timeframe.

    The proposal would also set a requirement that an SRO or JAC must engage an examinations expert at least once every five years to address situations where the SRO or JAC have not considered any new or amended PCAOB auditing standards issued during the preceding five years to be material to the FCM examination standards. The Commission is proposing this five-year limit based upon the importance of the FCM examination process by SROs and JACs and its belief that third-party experts should evaluate the FCM examination standards at least once every five years to ensure that they are consistent with PCAOB auditing standards. The Commission requests specific comment on whether the amended timeframe of five years is appropriate, or whether a different timeframe would be more appropriate.

    In proposing the amendment to revise the FCM examination standards, the Commission is intending to limit the examinations expert's evaluation to those FCM examination standards that are new or revised since the last examinations expert's review or assessment. The Commission does not expect the examinations expert to re-assess each examination standard each time an evaluation is performed, but only those standards that may be susceptible to change based on the examinations expert's opinion, auditing standards adopted or amended by the PCAOB, and the examinations expert's understanding of the CFTC regulatory requirements in consultation with SRO or JAC.

    D. Technical Amendments to Regulation 1.52

    The Commission is proposing several technical amendments to Regulation 1.52 which eliminate redundancies and simplify the intent of the rule. Specifically, the Commission is consolidating the FCM examination standards listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of Regulation 1.52 governing SROs into a single revised Regulation 1.52(c)(2)(ii).35 The Commission also is proposing to amend paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F) to reflect the consolidation of the FCM examination standards in revised Regulation 1.52(c)(2)(ii).

    35 The Commission notes that current paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(ii)(F) both contain an explanatory sentence of what topics within PCAOB auditing standards should be used in order to conform the examination standards. The Commission reads paragraph (c)(2)(iii), and by cross-reference (d)(2)(ii)(G), to already include each of these topics. Moreover, paragraph (c)(2)(iii) more appropriately uses in this context the term “examination,” as opposed to “audit” to articulate this construction.

    III. Cost-Benefit Considerations A. Introduction

    Section 15(a) of the Act requires the CFTC to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the Act or issuing certain orders.36 Section 15(a) of the Act further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The CFTC considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15(a) factors below.

    36 7 U.S.C. 19(a).

    Where reasonably feasible, the CFTC endeavors to estimate quantifiable costs and benefits. Where quantification is not feasible, the CFTC identifies and describes costs and benefits qualitatively.

    The CFTC requests comment on the costs and benefits associated with the proposed rule amendments. In particular, the CFTC requests that commenters provide data and any other information or statistics that the commenters relied on to reach any conclusions regarding the CFTC's proposed considerations of costs and benefits.

    B. Economic Baseline

    The CFTC's economic baseline for this proposed rule amendment analysis is the requirements of Regulation 1.52 that exist today. Specifically, current Regulation 1.52 requires an SRO or a JAC to engage an examinations expert to evaluate its supervisory program prior to its initial use, and to evaluate the SRO's application of the supervisory program at least once every three years after its initial use.

    The Commission's proposal would not alter the requirement for an SRO or JAC to engage an examinations expert to evaluate its supervisory program prior to the initial use of the supervisory program. The Commission is proposing, however, to eliminate the requirement that the examinations expert must review the SRO's or JAC's ongoing application of its supervisory program during periodic reviews and the analysis of the supervisory program's design to detect material weaknesses in internal controls during both periodic reviews and the initial review prior to the program's initial use. The Commission also is proposing to revise the frequency of when an SRO or JAC must engage an examinations expert, as discussed below.

    The Commission's proposal to eliminate the requirement that an examinations expert evaluate an SRO's or JAC's application of its supervisory program and the program's design to detect material weaknesses in internal controls will reduce costs to the SROs and JACs. The proposal, however, would not substantially reduce the benefits obtained from an evaluation of the SROs' and JACs' supervisory program, including internal controls, as such reviews are performed by Commission staff on a routine basis. Commission staff evaluates the SRO's or JAC's execution of its supervisory program, including performing detailed reviews of SRO and JAC examination work papers, to assess the scope of the work performed by SRO and JAC staff members and to determine whether the conclusions reached by SRO and JAC staff members are supported by the work performed. Commission staff also reviews all SRO and JAC examination programs for conducting examinations of FCMs to assess the completeness of such programs and to determine that such programs properly reflect any regulatory updates, including rule amendments, adopted since the Commission staff's previous review of the examination programs. Reviews of execution and completeness of supervisory programs for FCMs occur no less frequently than annually. Commission staff has a particular expertise in determining whether registrants are in compliance with Commission regulatory requirements that makes a third-party review redundant.

    The Commission proposes to continue to require that an examinations expert review the FCM examination standards contained in the supervisory program for consistency with PCAOB auditing standards, but is proposing to revise the timeframe for such reviews. Currently, Regulation 1.52 requires an SRO or JAC to engage an examinations expert at least once every three years to perform such a review. The Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 1.52 to require an SRO or JAC to engage an examinations expert if the PCAOB issued new or revised auditing standards that are material to the SRO's or JAC's examination of member FCMs.

    The examinations expert's review, however, would be limited to only the new or revised PCAOB auditing standards that are applicable to the SRO's or JAC's examination of FCMs. Accordingly, the examinations expert would not have to review all of the SRO's or JAC's FCM examination standards for consistency with PCAOB audit standards. The proposal would further require an SRO or JAC to engage an examinations expert at least once every five years even if the SRO or JAC determined that the PCAOB did not issue new or revised auditing standards during the previous five-year period that are material to its examinations of member FCMs. Based on past experience, the Commission anticipates that the adoption of new or revised auditing standards that are material to examination standards applicable to FCMs will be infrequent, and therefore the triggering of an examinations expert review will also likely be an infrequent event.37 Finally, the proposal would provide that an SRO or JAC must engage an examinations expert if directed to by the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight.38

    37 Since 2016 PCAOB has adopted approximately two new standards, neither of which had a significant impact on the examination standards applicable to FCMs. See PCAOB website available at: https://pcaobus.org/Standards/Pages/Current_Activities_Related_to_Standards.aspx.

    38 For example, in circumstances where an SRO or JAC has not engaged an examination expert yet DSIO staff believes a material change to PCAOB auditing standards warrants such engagement.

    The proposed amendments to Regulation 1.52 are intended to streamline the process under which examinations experts conduct their reviews and the time period between those reviews. The Commission believes that these amendments will make conducting the reviews more efficient and less costly, while still balancing the importance of having an independent third-party examinations expert in auditing standards evaluating the examination standards used by SROs and the JAC.

    The Commission does not anticipate that there will be any significant increased costs associated with the proposed amendments. By narrowing the intended scope of examination reviews from an evaluation of the supervisory program to an assessment of the examinations standards for conformity with auditing standards established by the PCAOB as they apply to examinations, the Commission is purposely limiting the scope of the examinations expert's review. The Commission anticipates that this limitation, coupled with extending the time period between expert examiner reviews, will significantly limit the costs associated with engaging and hiring an examinations expert.39 Nonetheless, the Commission believes that these amendments appropriately balance the integrity of the examination program with its costs while continuing to ensure that there is sufficient oversight over the minimum financial requirements at FCMs. As noted, Commission staff reviews no less frequently than annually all SRO and JAC examination programs and anticipates that it will continue to do so. These Commission staff reviews will continue to provide the benefits that have been associated with the examinations experts' reviews.

    39 In the 2013 Customer Protection Rulemaking, the Commission found that it was not feasible to quantify any costs associated with utilizing an examinations expert, largely because several nationally recognized accounting firms expressed their reluctance to provide such information. While it is likely not feasible to quantify such costs for the use of an examinations expert under the proposed amendments, such costs are likely much less than the costs under the existing rule. See, 2013 Customer Protection Rulemaking at 68605.

    C. CEA Section 15(a) Factors i. Protection of Market Participants and the Public

    The Commission preliminarily believes that this proposal maintains the protection of market participants and the public provided by the current regulation. The proposal will continue to protect market participants and the public by ensuring that there is sufficient oversight over the minimum financial requirements at FCMs. As noted, the Commission believes that Commission staff is well-equipped to provide reviews that, under the proposal, would no longer be provided by outside examinations experts and Commission staff intends to continue to conduct such reviews.

    ii. Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Markets

    The Commission preliminarily believes that Regulation 1.52 as amended will continue to help ensure that FCMs can meet their financial and operational obligations to both customers and DCOs, which, along with the Commission's ongoing reviews, will continue to foster the efficiency and financial integrity of markets. The Commission has not identified any effect of Regulation 1.52 on the competitiveness of derivatives markets.

    iii. Price Discovery

    The Commission has not identified any material effect of the proposed amendments on the price discovery process in futures and swap markets.

    iv. Sound Risk Management Practices

    The Commission preliminarily believes that Regulation 1.52 as amended, along with the Commission's ongoing reviews, will continue to help ensure that FCMs can meet their financial and operational obligations to both customers and DCOs, which should continue to foster sound risk management practices.

    v. Other Public Interest Considerations

    The Commission has not identified any additional public interest considerations associated with the proposal.

    D. Consideration of Alternatives

    The Commission considered adopting the CME's suggestion to fully eliminate the requirement that a third-party public accounting firm perform periodic evaluations and assessments of an SRO's program to oversee its member FCMs' compliance with financial and related reporting requirements. The Commission determined instead to eliminate the requirement that the examinations expert must periodically review the SRO's or JAC's ongoing application of its supervisory program, while maintaining reviews of an FCM's examinations standards at a modified interval. The Commission preliminarily believes that there are significant benefits associated with having an outside auditor performing evaluations of examination standards at least every five years (and also when there are material and relevant changes in PCAOB auditing standards) as required by the proposed amendments. While, as noted, Commission staff is well-equipped to review the ongoing application of SRO and JAC supervisory programs and intends to continue to do so at least annually, the Commission believes that third-party public accounting firms are best equipped to perform evaluations of examination standards for conformity with auditing standards established by the PCAOB as they apply to examinations.

    The Commission also considered maintaining the current rule, but the Commission anticipates that the proposal will significantly reduce costs to SROs and JACs without materially impacting benefits.

    The CFTC requests comment on these alternatives as well as any other alternatives that commenters believe would present a superior cost-benefit profile to the proposal.

    IV. Related Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) 40 requires Federal agencies, in promulgating regulations, to consider the impact of those regulations on small entities. The Commission has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its rules on small entities in accordance with the RFA.41 The proposed regulations would affect designated contract markets.

    40 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    41 47 FR 18618 (Apr. 30, 1982).

    The Commission has previously determined that designated contract markets are not small entities for purposes of the RFA, and, thus, the requirements of the RFA do not apply to designated contract markets.42 Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    42Id. at 18619.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rulemaking does not amend existing information collection requirements. The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) provides that a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number issued by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).43 The Commission is proposing amendments to rules that have previously identified collections of information under a pre-existing collection 3038-0052. The proposed amendments, however, only increase the respondents permitted time to file required information and reduce the requirements of review contained therein. As such, the previously identified response hours in collection 3038-0052 remain a reasonable burden hour estimate.

    43 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    The collections contained in this rulemaking are mandatory collections. In formulating burden estimates for the collections in this rulemaking, to avoid double accounting of information collections that already have been assigned control numbers by OMB, or are covered as burden hours in collections of information pending before OMB, the PRA analysis provided in the proposed rulemaking, along with the information collection request (“ICR”) with burden estimates that were incorporated into the rulemaking by reference and submitted to OMB, accounted only burden estimates for collections of information that have not previously been submitted to OMB. The Commission invites comment on the collections of information contained in the proposed rulemaking only to the extent that the collections in the proposed rulemaking would increase the burden hours contained with respect to each of the related currently valid or proposed collections.

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 1

    Brokers, Commodity futures, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposes to amend 17 CFR part 1 as follows:

    PART 1—GENERAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6r, 6s, 7, 7a-1, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-3, 8, 9, 10a, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24 (2012).

    2. Amend § 1.52 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(ii), (iii), (iv), and (v); b. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(vi) and (vii); c. Revise paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(F), (G), (H), and (I); d. Remove paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(J) and (K); and e. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(iii).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1.52 Self-regulatory organization adoption and surveillance of minimum financial requirements.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) The supervisory program must, at a minimum, have examination standards addressing the following:

    (A) The ethics of an examiner;

    (B) The independence of an examiner;

    (C) The supervision, review, and quality control of an examiner's work product;

    (D) The evidence and documentation to be reviewed and retained in connection with an examination;

    (E) The sampling size and techniques used in an examination;

    (F) The examination risk assessment process;

    (G) The examination planning process;

    (H) Materiality assessment;

    (I) Quality control procedures to ensure that the examinations maintain the level of quality expected;

    (J) Communications between an examiner and the regulatory oversight committee, or the functional equivalent of the regulatory oversight committee, of the self-regulatory organization of which the futures commission merchant is a member;

    (K) Communications between an examiner and a futures commission merchant's audit committee of the board of directors or other similar governing body;

    (L) Analytical review procedures;

    (M) Record retention; and

    (N) Required items for inclusion in the examination report, such as repeat violations, material items, and high risk issues. The examination report is intended solely for the information and use of the self-regulatory organizations and the Commission, and is not intended to be and should not be used by any other person or entity.

    (iii)(A) Prior to the initial implementation of the supervisory program, a self-regulatory organization must engage an examinations expert to evaluate the examination standards for consistency with auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as such auditing standards are applicable in the context of the self-regulatory organization's examination of its futures commission merchant members. At least once every five years after the initial implementation of the supervisory program, a self-regulatory organization must engage an examinations expert to evaluate the examination standards for consistency with any new or amended auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board since the previous review performed by the examinations expert. At the conclusion of each evaluation, a self-regulatory organization must obtain a written report from the examinations expert in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(C) of this section.

    (B) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, a self-regulatory organization must review any new or amended auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and must revise its examination standards promptly to reflect any changes in such auditing standards that are applicable in the context of the self-regulatory organization's examination of its futures commission merchant members. A self-regulatory organization must engage an examinations expert to evaluate any material revisions that the self-regulatory organization makes to the examination standards to conform such standards with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's auditing standards, or if directed to engage an examinations expert by the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight. At the conclusion of each review, a self-regulatory organization must obtain a written report from the examinations expert in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(C) of this section.

    (C) At the conclusion of the examinations expert's engagement pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section, the self-regulatory organization must obtain from the examinations expert a written report on findings and recommendations issued under the consulting services standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The self-regulatory organization must provide the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight with a copy of the examinations expert's written report, and the self-regulatory organization's written responses to any of the examinations expert's findings and recommendations, within thirty days of the receipt thereof. Upon resolution of any questions or comments raised by the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, and upon written notice from the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight that it has no further comments or questions on the examinations standards as amended (by reason of the examinations expert's proposals, consideration of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight's questions or comments, or otherwise), the self-regulatory organization shall commence applying such examinations standards for examining its registered futures commission merchant members for all examinations conducted with an “as of” date later than the date of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary's written notification.

    (iv) The supervisory program must require the self-regulatory organization to report to its risk and/or audit committee of the board of directors, or a functional equivalent committee, with timely reports of the activities and findings of the supervisory program to assist the risk and/or audit committee of the board of directors, or a functional equivalent committee, to fulfill its responsibility of overseeing the examination function.

    (v) The examinations expert's written report, the self-regulatory organization's response, if any, as well as any information concerning the supervisory program is confidential.

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (F) The Joint Audit Program must include examination standards addressing the items listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.

    (G)(1) Prior to the initial implementation of the Joint Audit Program, the Joint Audit Committee must engage an examinations expert to evaluate the examination standards for consistency with auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as such auditing standards are applicable in the context of the Joint Audit Committee's examination of its futures commission merchant members. At least once every five years after the initial implementation of the Joint Audit Program, the Joint Audit Committee must engage an examinations expert to evaluate the examination standards for consistency with any new or amended auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board since the previous review performed by the examinations expert. At the conclusion of each review, the Joint Audit Committee must obtain a written report from the examinations expert in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(G)(3) of this section.

    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(G)(1) of this section, the Joint Audit Committee must review any new or amended auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and must revise its examination standards promptly to reflect any changes in such auditing standards that are applicable in the context of the Joint Audit Committee's examination of its futures commission merchant members. The Joint Audit Committee must engage an examinations expert to evaluate any material revisions that the Joint Audit Committee makes to the examination standards to conform such standards with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's auditing standards, or if directed to engage an examinations expert by the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight. The Joint Audit Committee must obtain a written report from the examinations expert in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(G)(3) of this section.

    (3) At the conclusion of the examinations expert's engagement pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(G)(1) or (2) of this section, the Joint Audit Committee must obtain from the examinations expert a written report on findings and recommendations issued under the consulting services standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The Joint Audit Committee must provide the Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight with a copy of the examinations expert's written report, and the Joint Audit Committee's written responses to any of the examinations expert's findings and recommendations, within thirty days of the receipt thereof. Upon resolution of any questions or comments raised by the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, and upon written notice from the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight that it has no further comments or questions on the examinations standards as amended (by reason of the examinations expert's proposals, consideration of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight's questions or comments, or otherwise), the Joint Audit Committee shall commence applying such examinations standards for examining its registered futures commission merchant members for all examinations conducted with an “as of” date later than the date of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary's written notification.

    (H) The Joint Audit Program must require the Joint Audit Committee members to report to their respective risk and/or audit committee of their respective board of directors, or a functional equivalent committee, with timely reports of the activities and findings of the Joint Audit Program to assist the risk and/or audit committee of the board of directors, or a functional equivalent committee, to fulfill its responsibility of overseeing the examination function.

    (I) The examinations expert's written report, the Joint Audit Committee's response, if any, as well as any information concerning the supervisory program is confidential.

    (iii) Meetings of the Joint Audit Committee. (A) The Joint Audit Committee members must meet at least once each year. During such meetings, the Joint Audit Committee members shall consider revisions to the Joint Audit Program as a result of regulatory changes, revisions to the examination standards resulting from new or amended auditing standards issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or the results of an examinations expert's review.

    (B) In addition to the items considered in paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, the Joint Audit Committee members must consider the following items during the meetings:

    (1) Coordinating and sharing information between the Joint Audit Committee members, including issues and industry concerns in connection with examinations of futures commission merchants;

    (2) Identifying industry regulatory reporting issues and financial and operational internal control issues and modifying the Joint Audit Program accordingly;

    (3) Issuing risk alerts for futures commission merchants and/or designated self-regulatory organization examiners on an as-needed basis;

    (4) Responding to industry issues; and

    (5) Providing industry feedback to Commission proposals.

    (C) Minutes must be taken of all meetings and distributed to all members on a timely basis.

    (D) The Director of the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight must receive timely prior notice of each meeting, have the right to attend and participate in each meeting and receive written copies of the minutes required pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(C) of this section, respectively.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2018, by the Commission. Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix to Financial Surveillance Examination Program Requirements for Self-Regulatory Organizations—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2018-14272 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. OSHA-2018-0003] RIN 1218-AB76 Revising the Beryllium Standard for General Industry AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    With this document, OSHA is withdrawing the proposed rule that accompanied its direct final rule (DFR) amending the beryllium standard for general industry to address the application of the standard to materials containing trace amounts of beryllium.

    DATES:

    As of July 3, 2018, the proposed rule published May 7, 2018 (83 FR 19989) is withdrawn.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

    General information and technical inquiries: William Perry or Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1950; fax: (202) 693-1678.

    Copies of this Federal Register document and news releases: Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's web page at http://www.osha.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 7, 2018, OSHA published a DFR amending the application of the beryllium standard to materials containing trace amounts of beryllium (83 FR 19936). OSHA also published a companion proposed rule proposing the same changes to the beryllium standard (83 FR 19989). In the DFR, OSHA stated that it would withdraw the companion proposed rule and confirm the effective date of the DFR if no significant adverse comments were submitted on the DFR by June 6, 2018. OSHA received seven comments in the record from Materion Brush, Inc., Mead Metals Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, Airborn, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, and two private citizens (Document ID OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0010). The seven submissions contained comments that were either supportive of the DFR or were considered not to be significant adverse comments (Document IDs OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0010). Three of these submissions also contained comments that were outside the scope of the DFR and OSHA is not considering portions of those submissions that are outside the scope (OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0006). Accordingly, OSHA is not proceeding with the proposed rule and is withdrawing it from the rulemaking process.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Beryllium, General industry, Health, Occupational safety and health.

    Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this document under the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 27, 2018. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14275 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0222; FRL-9980-21—Region 9] Approval of Arizona Air Plan; Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requirements applicable to the Hayden lead (Pb) nonattainment area (“Hayden Lead NAA”). The EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory, the attainment demonstration, the control strategy, including reasonably available control technology and reasonably available control measures demonstrations, the reasonable further progress demonstration, the contingency measure, and the new source review (NSR) provisions of the submittal as meeting the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations for the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).

    DATES:

    Any comments on this proposal must arrive by August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0222, at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the EPA's full public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415-972-3964, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background A. The Lead NAAQS B. Designation of the Hayden Lead NAA C. CAA Requirements for Lead Nonattainment Areas D. Sources of Lead in the Hayden Lead NAA II. Arizona's SIP Submittal To Address the Hayden Lead NAA A. Arizona's SIP Submittal B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Lead Attainment SIPs A. CAA and EPA Guidance B. Infrastructure SIPs for Lead IV. Review of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan A. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Actions B. Emissions Inventories C. Reasonably Available Control Measure/Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration and Adopted Control Strategy D. Attainment Demonstration E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration F. Contingency Measures G. New Source Review V. The EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comments A. The EPA's Proposed Approvals B. Request for Public Comments VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. The Lead NAAQS

    Under the CAA, the EPA must establish NAAQS for six pollutants, including lead. Lead is generally emitted in the form of particles that are deposited in water, soil, and dust. People may be exposed to lead by inhaling it or by ingesting lead-contaminated food, water, soil, or dust. Once in the body, lead is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream and can result in a broad range of adverse health effects including damage to the central nervous system, cardiovascular function, kidneys, immune system, and red blood cells. Children are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, in part because they are more likely to ingest lead and in part because their still-developing bodies are more sensitive to the effects of lead. The harmful effects to children's developing nervous systems (including their brains) arising from lead exposure may include IQ 1 loss, poor academic achievement, long-term learning disabilities, and an increased risk of delinquent behavior.

    1 IQ (intelligence quotient) is a score created by dividing a person's mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence test, by the person's chronological age, both expressed in terms of years and months. “Glossary of Important Assessment and Measurement Terms,” Philadelphia, PA: National Council on Measurement in Education. 2016.

    The EPA first established a lead standard in 1978 at 1.5 micrograms per meter cubed (µg/m3) as a quarterly average.2 Based on new health and scientific data, the EPA revised the federal lead standard to 0.15 µg/m3 and revised the averaging time for the standard on October 15, 2008.3 A violation of the standard occurs when ambient lead concentrations exceed 0.15 µg/m3 averaged over a 3-month rolling period.

    2See 43 FR 46246 (October 5, 1978).

    3See 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008) (“lead NAAQS rule”).

    B. Designation of the Hayden Lead NAA

    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is set forth in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires the EPA to complete the initial area designations process within two years of promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 107(d) of the CAA allows the EPA to extend the period for initial designations for up to a year in cases where the available information is insufficient to promulgate designations. The initial designations for the 2008 lead NAAQS were established in two rounds and were completed on November 22, 2010 and November 22, 2011.4 The EPA initially designated the Hayden, Arizona area as unclassifiable due to insufficient monitoring data.5

    4See 75 FR 71033 and 76 FR 72097.

    5 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's Globe Highway monitor registered four violations of the lead NAAQS in 2011; however, at the time of designation the data had not been quality assured and certified. Consequently, we did not rely on them as the basis for a nonattainment designation.

    The CAA grants the EPA the authority to change the designation of areas (“redesignate”) in light of changes in circumstances. More specifically, the EPA has the authority under CAA section 107(d)(3) to redesignate areas based on air quality data, planning, and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations. In June 2013, we determined that quality assured, certified monitoring data collected in 2012 at the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ or “State”) Globe Highway monitor showed that the area was violating the lead NAAQS. Accordingly, on May 2, 2014, the EPA issued a proposal to redesignate the Hayden area to nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. That proposal was finalized on September 3, 2014, effective October 3, 2014.6 7

    6See 79 FR 52205.

    7 For an exact description of the Hayden Lead NAA, see 40 CFR 81.303.

    C. CAA Requirements for Lead Nonattainment Areas

    Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop and submit to the EPA a SIP under title 1, part D of the CAA. Under CAA sections 191(a) and 192(a), attainment demonstration SIPs for the lead NAAQS are due 18 months after the effective date of an area's nonattainment designation and must provide for attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after designation.8 The CAA requires that the SIP include emissions inventories, a reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration, a reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT) demonstration, an attainment demonstration, and contingency measures. In general, to demonstrate timely attainment, control measures need to be implemented as expeditiously as practicable.

    8 For the Hayden Lead NAA, the attainment date is October 3, 2019.

    D. Sources of Lead in the Hayden Lead NAA

    Stationary sources of lead are generally large industrial sources, including metals processing, particularly primary and secondary lead smelters. Lead can also be emitted by iron and steel foundries, primary and secondary copper smelters, industrial, commercial and institutional boilers, waste incinerators, glass manufacturing, refineries, and cement manufacturing. ADEQ has determined that the cause of the nonattainment status in the Hayden area is the primary copper smelter owned and operated by ASARCO, LLC (“Asarco”). The State notes that this facility “accounts for over 99 percent of Pb emissions” and that the “[e]missions generally come from the hot-metal smelting process and lead-bearing fugitive dust.” 9

    9 Plan, page 38.

    Because regional ambient air lead concentrations indicate low ambient lead levels relative to the 2008 lead NAAQS, and because the only ambient levels exceeding the NAAQS were at sites near the Asarco facility, ADEQ's lead attainment strategy is focused on reducing lead emissions generated by this source.

    II. Arizona's SIP Submittal To Address for the Hayden Lead NAA A. Arizona's SIP Submittal

    ADEQ is the air quality agency that develops SIPs for the Hayden area. The SIP for the Hayden Lead NAA, entitled “SIP Revision: Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area” (“2017 Hayden Lead Plan” or “Plan”) was due April 3, 2016. It was adopted by ADEQ on March 3, 2017, and submitted to the EPA on the same day.10

    10See letter dated March 3, 2017, from Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a public hearing was held consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

    ADEQ has satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan. The State provided a public comment period and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on March 3, 2017. The SIP submittal includes notices of the State's public hearing as evidence that the hearing was properly noticed.11 We therefore find that the submittal meets the procedural requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).

    11See 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, Appendix F, Public Process Documentation.

    CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the date of submittal by operation of law. The EPA's SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The 2017 Hayden Plan became complete by operation of law on September 3, 2017.

    III. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Lead Attainment SIPs A. CAA and EPA Guidance

    Requirements for the lead NAAQS are set forth in title 1, part D, subparts 1 and 5 of the CAA, which includes section 172, “Nonattainment plan provisions in general,” and sections 191 and 192, “Plan submission deadlines” and “Attainment dates,” respectively.

    Section 192(a) establishes that the attainment date for lead nonattainment areas is “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than five years from the date of the nonattainment designation for the area. The EPA designated the Hayden area as a nonattainment area effective October 3, 2014, and thus the applicable attainment date is no later October 3, 2019. Under section 172(a)(2)(D), the Administrator is precluded from granting an extension of this attainment date because the statute separately establishes a specific attainment date in section 192(a).

    Section 172(c) contains the general statutory planning requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, including the requirements for emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations, RFP demonstrations, and contingency measures. When the EPA issued the lead NAAQS rule, we included some guidelines for implementing these planning requirements.12 The EPA also issued several guidance documents related to planning requirements for the lead NAAQS.13 These include:

    12See 73 FR 66964.

    13 These guidance documents can be found in the docket for today's action.

    • “2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation Questions and Answers,” Memorandum from Scott L. Mathias, Interim Director, Air Quality Policy Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, July 8, 2011, (“Lead Q&A”); and

    • “Addendum to the 2008 Lead NAAQS Implementation Questions and Answers Signed on July 11, 2011, by Scott Mathias,” August 10, 2012. (“Lead Q&A Addendum”); and

    Implementation of the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards—Guide to Developing Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-457/R-12-001, March 2012 (“Lead RACM Guidance”).

    The lead NAAQS rule and its preamble and the guidance documents address the statutory planning requirements for emissions inventories, RACM/RACT, attainment demonstrations including air quality modeling requirements, RFP demonstrations, and contingency measures. The lead NAAQS rule also addresses other matters such as monitoring, designations, lead infrastructure SIPs, and exceptional events. We will discuss each of the CAA and regulatory requirements for lead attainment plans in the next section, which details our review of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan.

    B. Infrastructure SIPs for Lead

    Under section 110 of the CAA, all states (including those without nonattainment areas) are required to submit infrastructure SIPs within three years of the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Because the lead NAAQS was signed and widely disseminated on October 15, 2008, the infrastructure SIPs were due by October 15, 2011. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic program elements, including requirements for emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling, among other things. Subsections (A) through (M) of section 110(a)(2) set forth the elements that a state's program must contain in the SIP. Arizona's lead infrastructure SIP was approved by the EPA on August 10, 2015.14

    14 80 FR 47859.

    IV. Review of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan A. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Actions

    The EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan. We are proposing to approve the 2012 base year emissions inventory in this SIP revision as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance. We are also proposing to approve the attainment demonstration, RACM/RACT analysis, RFP demonstration, and the contingency measure as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.

    The EPA's analysis and findings are discussed below for each applicable requirement. The technical support document (TSD) for today's proposed action contains additional details on selected lead planning requirements.

    B. Emissions Inventories 1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

    The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area. These analyses also enable states to assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that states submit a “comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant.” Therefore, all sources of lead emissions in the nonattainment area must be included in the submitted inventory. A base year emissions inventory is required for the attainment demonstration and for meeting RFP requirements. In general, the base year emissions inventory should be derived from one of the years on which the nonattainment designation was based.15

    15See Lead Q&A and Lead Q&A Addendum.

    In order to demonstrate attainment in accordance with CAA section 172, the state should also provide an attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS. The attainment inventory should generally contain maximum allowable emissions for the attainment year for all sources within the modeling domain.16

    16See Lead Q&A Addendum p. 1.

    In addition to inventory reporting requirements in CAA section 172(c)(3), 40 CFR 51.117(e)(1) requires that the inventory contain all point sources that emit 0.5 tons of lead emissions per year (tpy).17 Based on annual emissions reporting for 2011, the only point source in the Hayden Lead NAA with a potential to emit over 0.5 tpy of lead is the Asarco primary copper smelter, located in Hayden, AZ (“Hayden Facility” or “Facility”).18

    17 Additional emissions inventory reporting requirements are also found in EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) (codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A) and 73 FR 76539. Although the AERR requirements are separate from the SIP-related requirements in CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.117(e)(1), the AERR requirements are intended to be compatible with the SIP-related requirements.

    18 The Asarco primary copper smelter is a large complex that consists of smelter operations as well as concentrator operations. In sections of the Plan, ADEQ refers to these operations separately as the “smelter complex” and “concentrator complex.” Since the smelter and concentrator operations are permitted as a single stationary source, we use the term “Hayden Facility” and “Facility” to refer to the entirety of the smelter and concentrator operations.

    2. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    The base year emissions inventory establishes a baseline that is used to evaluate emission reductions achieved by the control strategy and to establish RFP requirements. ADEQ's discussion of emissions inventory development can be found in the Plan on pages 28-36, as well as in Appendices A and D. ADEQ selected 2012 as the base year for emissions inventory preparation for several reasons. At time of preparation, 2012 was the most recent year with verified ambient air monitoring data from a SLAMS (State or Local Air Monitoring Station) monitor.19 It is also a representative year of exceedances of the primary lead NAAQS. In addition, the Hayden lead nonattainment designation was based upon 2012 monitoring data.

    19 SLAMS include the ambient air quality sites and monitors that are required by the EPA's regulations and are needed to meet specific monitoring objectives, including NAAQS comparisons. See 40 CFR 58.1.

    Lead emissions are grouped into two general categories: Stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be further divided into “point” and “area” sources. Point sources are typically located at permitted facilities and have one or more identified and fixed pieces of equipment and emissions points. These facilities are required to report their emissions to ADEQ on an annual basis. Conversely, area sources consist of widespread and numerous smaller emission sources, such as small permitted facilities, households, and other land uses. The mobile sources category can be divided into two major subcategories: “On-road” and “off-road” mobile sources. On-road mobile sources include light-duty automobiles, light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles. Off-road mobile sources include aircraft, locomotives, construction equipment, mobile equipment, and recreational vehicles. A summary of ADEQ's 2012 base year inventory for each of these categories is included in Table 1 below.

    Table 1—2012 Base Year Lead Emission Inventory for the Hayden Lead NAA Source category Pb emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Point 3.43 Area <0.001 Mobile Source (non-road) 0.015 Mobile Source (on-road) Total 3.45 Source: Plan, Tables 12-16.

    As seen above, the substantial majority of lead emissions in the Hayden Lead NAA are from the point source category (i.e., the Hayden Facility). The Hayden Facility consists of multiple emission points that ADEQ further categorized into smelting point sources (stack emissions), smelting fugitives, road dust, and other process fugitives (from non-smelting process equipment). A more detailed summary of the Hayden Facility's lead emissions is included in Table 2 below.

    Table 2—2012 Base Year Lead Emissions Inventory for the Hayden Facility Source category Pb emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Smelting point sources 1.09 Smelting fugitives 1.88 Road (paved and unpaved) 0.14 Non-smelting process fugitives 0.32 Total 3.43 Source: Id.
    3. Projected Year Emissions Inventory

    The Hayden area was designated nonattainment for lead in 2014. The CAA provides that nonattainment areas must attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the effective date of designation. Therefore, the Hayden Lead NAA must attain the lead NAAQS by 2019. The projected emissions inventory for 2019 is part of the attainment demonstration required under CAA section 172 and informs the air quality modeling for 2019, which is discussed in detail below in section IV.D. ADEQ developed a projected 2019 lead emissions inventory for the Hayden Lead NAA as summarized in Table 3 below.

    Table 3—Base Year and Projected Year Lead Emissions Inventory for the Hayden Lead NAA Source category 2012 base year
  • Pb emissions (tpy)
  • (actual emissions)
  • 2019 projected year
  • Pb emissions (tpy)
  • (allowable emissions)
  • Point 3.43 4.60 Area <0.001 <0.001 Mobile Source (non-road) 0.015 0.020 Mobile Source (on-road) Total 3.45 4.62 Source: Id.

    As with the base year inventory, the substantial majority of lead emissions for the projected year inventory are attributable to the point source category, which represents the Hayden Facility. A more detailed summary of the Hayden Facility's lead emissions is included in Table 4 below.

    Table 4—Comparison of Base Year and Projected Year Lead Emissions Inventory for the Hayden Facility Source category 2012 base year
  • Pb emissions (tpy)
  • (actual emissions)
  • 2019 projected year
  • Pb emissions (tpy)
  • (allowable emissions)
  • Smelting point sources 1.09 2.99 Smelting fugitives 1.88 1.44 Road (paved and unpaved) 0.137 0.043 Non-smelting fugitives 0.322 0.131 Total 3.43 4.60 Source: Id.

    As seen in the tables above, the projected year emissions inventory, which is generally based on maximum allowable emissions (also referred to as potential to emit or PTE), is higher than the base year inventory, which is based on actual emissions. The use of actual emissions for the base year, as well as the use of maximum allowable emissions for the projection year and the attainment modeling, is consistent with CAA requirements 20 and EPA guidance.21 Use of maximum allowable emissions for the modeling ensures the attainment demonstration takes into account possible increases in emissions that are allowed by the underlying rules and permit conditions; however, actual emissions at the Facility are expected to decline. As shown in Table 5, the 2019 projected actual emissions are lower than actual emissions in the 2012 base year inventory. Furthermore, even assuming that the Facility were to emit at the maximum allowable levels in 2019, the submitted modeling shows that the Hayden area would still attain the lead NAAQS, primarily due to the nature of emission changes and their predicted ambient impact. The increase from base year actual emissions to projected year maximum allowable emissions is primarily attributable to smelting point sources at the Hayden Facility. Other source categories at the Facility, such as the roads and non-smelting fugitives, decrease from the base year inventory to the projected year inventory, and, due to their dispersion characteristics, these sources have more influence on the maximum predicted ambient impacts in the nonattainment area than the smelter point sources. As a result, while the reductions in road and non-smelting fugitive lead emissions are small compared to the emissions from the smelting point sources, these reductions occur at sources that are primary contributors to maximum predicted ambient impact in the nonattainment area.

    20See, e.g., CAA section 172(c)(3) (requiring “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area.” (emphasis added))

    21See, e.g., Lead Q&A Addendum p. 1.

    Table 5—Base Year, Projected Actual, and Maximum Allowable Modeled Lead Emissions for the Hayden Facility Modeled source Controls applied 2012 actual
  • Pb emissions
  • (tpy)
  • 2019 projected actual
  • Pb emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Projected
  • reductions
  • in actual
  • Pb emissions
  • (%)
  • Maximum allowable-
  • modeled Pb emissions
  • (PTE)
  • (tpy) a
  • Main stack Secondary hood baghouse, improved primary and secondary hooding, tertiary hooding 1.08 0.904 16 2.99. Flash furnace fugitives Matte tapping ventilation system 0.495 0.1025 79.3 1.03. Converter aisle fugitives Secondary hood baghouse, improved primary and secondary hooding, tertiary hooding 0.968 0.024 97.5 0.37. Anode furnace fugitives Improved ventilation system 0.417 0.04 89.7 0.04. Anode baghouse stack Sent to the main stack 0.0113 Included in main stack N/A Included in main stack. Slag dump Restrictions on slag dumping location 0.05 0.05 0.05. Gas cleaning waste material Thickener project 0.26 0.07 73 0.07. Concentrate storage area Wind fence, water sprays 0.001 0.000056 94 0.00088. Bedding area Wind fence, water sprays 0.00017 0.000015 91 0.00016. Reverts operations Wind fence, water sprays 0.0122 0.00042 97 0.0041. Paved roads Sweepers 0.091 0.015 b 84 0.015. Unpaved roads Chemical dust suppressant (on a schedule achieving 90% control efficiency) 0.046 0.028 b 39 0.028. a PTE values for the concentrate storage area, bedding area, and reverts operations were derived using the same calculation methods that were applied to calculate 2019 projected actuals. However, for PTE values, Asarco supplied more conservative throughput. Also, the lead factors used for PTE calculations were based on mean lead assay values (source specific) plus two standard deviations. b Projected actual values for paved and unpaved roads were based on PTE. Source: ADEQ Modeling TSD, Table 8-1.
    4. Proposed Action on the Base Year Emissions Inventory

    We have reviewed the emissions inventory and calculation methodology used by ADEQ in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan for consistency with CAA requirements, the lead NAAQS rule, and the EPA's guidance. We find that the 2012 base year inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions of lead in the Hayden Lead NAA. We therefore propose to approve the 2012 base year inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). We are not proposing action on the projected attainment inventory, since it is not a required SIP element. However, we have evaluated it for consistency with EPA guidance and find that it supports the attainment and RFP demonstrations, as discussed in the TSD and below.

    C. Reasonably Available Control Measure/Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration and Adopted Control Strategy 1. Requirements for RACM/RACT

    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide for implementation of RACM (including RACT for existing sources) as expeditiously as practicable and provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA defines RACM as measures that are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the nonattainment area. Lead nonattainment plans must contain RACM (including RACT) that address sources of ambient lead concentrations. The EPA's historic definition of RACT is the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility.22 The EPA recommends that, at a minimum, all stationary sources emitting 0.5 tpy or more of lead should undergo a RACT review.23 Based on the 2011 national emissions inventory (2011 NEI v2) and the 2012 base year emissions inventory, the Asarco copper smelter is the only point source in the Hayden Lead NAA that emits over 0.5 tpy of lead.24

    22See, for example, 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979) and footnote 3 of that notice.

    23 73 FR 67038.

    24 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, Chapter 3: Emissions Inventories and Appendix A: Emission Inventory Technical Support Document for the 2008 Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area, Chapter 5, Base Year Emission Inventory for Lead in the Hayden Planning Area.

    2. RACM/RACT Demonstration in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan

    Because of lead's dispersion characteristics, the highest ambient concentrations of lead are expected to be near lead sources, such as the Hayden Facility. This RACM/RACT analysis focuses on evaluating controls at the Hayden Facility, and unlike in a typical RACM demonstration for other types of pollutants, we are not evaluating the broader set of source categories in the Hayden Lead NAA. This is an appropriate approach in this case because the Hayden Facility is the source of over 99 percent of lead emissions in the Hayden Lead NAA.25

    25 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, page 38.

    ADEQ's control strategy relies on the implementation of two source-specific regulations in the Arizona Administrative Code: Rule R18-2-B1301 (Limits on Lead Emissions from the Hayden Smelter) and Rule R18-2-B1301.01 (Limits on Lead-Bearing Fugitive Dust from the Hayden Smelter), and two associated appendices. ADEQ submitted these rules to the EPA for SIP approval on April 6, 2017.26 We approved Rule R18-2-B1301.01 and Appendix 15 into the Arizona SIP on February 22, 2018,27 and proposed to approve Rule R18-2-B1301 and Appendix 14 on March 30, 2018.28 The controls required under these rules are also required under a 2015 consent decree between Asarco and the United States.29

    26See letter dated April 6, 2017, from Timothy S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    27 83 FR 7614.

    28 83 FR 13716.

    29 Consent Decree No. CV-15-02206-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz).

    ADEQ's RACM/RACT analysis can be found on pages 60 through 121 of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan. The EPA's Lead RACM Guidance did not provide specific guidance on what constituted RACM/RACT for primary copper smelters. Consistent with that guidance, ADEQ looked to other federal requirements for lead control at primary copper smelters, similar source categories for which the EPA had established lead control guidance, and other regulations that the EPA has approved as RACM/RACT for lead control. ADEQ used the following references for comparison of lead controls: The national emissions standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) requirements for primary copper smelters at 40 CFR 63, subpart QQQ and the NESHAP requirements for secondary lead smelters at 40 CFR 63, subpart X. For fugitive lead-bearing dust control, ADEQ also used the following references for comparison: Appendix 1 of the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act,30 which describes control measures for fugitive lead-bearing dust; South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1420.1 for lead battery recycling facilities (“Emissions Standards for Lead and Other Toxic Air Contaminants from Large Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facilities”); and particulate matter (PM) fugitive dust rules enacted by other states and local agencies.

    30 58 FR 67748 (December 22, 1993).

    The EPA's TSDs on Rules R18-2-B1301 and R18-2-B1301.01 and Appendices 14 and 15 contain our detailed analysis on the enforceability, stringency, and SIP revision implications for the measures contained in these rules.31 We evaluate below whether these measures satisfy the statutory requirements for RACM/RACT for the Hayden Lead NAA.

    31See Technical Support Document for the EPA's Rulemaking for the Arizona State Implementation Plan: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Rule R18-2-B1301.01, Limits on Lead-Bearing Fugitive Dust from the Hayden Smelter, and Appendix 15, Test Methods for Determining Opacity and Stabilization of Unpaved Roads (August 2017); Technical Support Document for the EPA's Rulemaking for the Arizona State Implementation Plan: Arizona Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 2 Appendix 14 and Rule R18-2-715.02 (March 2018); and Technical Support Document for the EPA's Rulemaking for the Arizona State Implementation Plan: Arizona Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 13 Part B—Hayden, Arizona, Planning Area R18-2-B1301—Limits on Lead Emissions from the Hayden Smelter (March 2018).

    a. Rule R18-2-B1301 and Appendix 14

    Rule R18-2-B1301 establishes a lead emission limit for the Hayden Facility's main stack and operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements, including the development of an O&M plan for the capture and control system, monitoring provisions for parametric limits required to ensure sufficient capture of fugitive lead emissions from the smelter, performance testing requirements, compliance determination requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and reporting requirements. Rule R18-2-B1301 also requires the completion of a fugitive emissions study to characterize lead emissions from the smelter structure that may contribute to nonattainment, but are not captured or controlled. Appendix 14 establishes specific requirements for the study, which is required to validate both the estimate of fugitive emissions used in the attainment demonstration and the operating conditions or ranges for the capture devices' O&M plan.

    Rule R18-2-B1301 establishes a lead emission limit from the smelter's stack of 0.683 pounds of lead per hour. Fugitive lead emissions from the smelter structure are constrained through an improved fugitive gas capture system over the furnace taps and converter chambers. In lieu of a fugitive emissions limit, Asarco must operate its gas capture system within certain operating parameters as described in the facility's O&M plan. Rule R18-2-B1301 defines critical parameters and specifies operating limits on those parameters that the O&M plan must require, at a minimum, in order to sufficiently control fugitive emissions. The fugitive emissions rate will be validated through a year-long fugitive emission study as described in Appendix 14, and it must not exceed the modeled attainment emission rate. If actual fugitive emissions exceed the modeled emission rates shown in Table 5 above and Asarco is unable to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS at the actual measured fugitive emissions levels, ADEQ will need to revise the O&M plan parametric limit minimums as required in R18-2-B1301 and, as necessary, require additional controls to further reduce fugitive emissions. ADEQ must submit these changes as revisions to the Arizona SIP. Other requirements include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions to ensure compliance with the emission and parametric limits.

    We compared these requirements with the primary copper smelter NESHAP and the secondary lead smelter NESHAP in the TSD we prepared in support of our rulemaking action on R18-2-B1301, and we found the rule requirements to be generally consistent with those in the NESHAP. For example, the primary copper smelter NESHAP requires a capture system and control device O&M plan and requires that the smelter operate consistently with good air pollution control practices, similar to R18-2-B1301. The requirements of R18-2-B1301 are also similar to the secondary lead smelter NESHAP requirements, except that the NESHAP includes emissions limits of 1.0 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter for any process vent gas and 0.20 milligrams of lead per dry cubic meter on a rolling 12-month average basis. We propose to find that these limits are not required as RACM for the Hayden Facility because they are intended for a different type of facility and, as discussed below, ADEQ's air quality modeling indicates that the main stack emission limit in R18-2-B1301 (0.683 pound of lead per hour) is sufficient for the Hayden area to attain the lead NAAQS.

    b. Rule R18-2-B1301.01 and Appendix 15

    Rule R18-2-B1301.01 establishes work practice requirements and control measures on sources of lead-bearing fugitive dust surrounding the Hayden Facility. Appendix 15 applies to unpaved roads at the Hayden Facility and includes the following: (1) A test method for determining opacity for fugitive dust from these rules, (2) a test method for determining silt content of the trafficked parts of unpaved roads, and (3) a Qualification and Testing section containing certification requirements and procedures, specifications, and calibration procedures.

    Rule R18-2-B1301.01 specifies a range of operational standards and work practices for processes that may cause emissions of lead-bearing fugitive dust. The requirements must be detailed in a fugitive dust plan that at minimum includes the performance and housekeeping requirements. Subsection (D) includes the following minimum performance and housekeeping requirements, which must be met independent of the fugitive dust plan:

    • Procedures for high wind events, including wetting of sources and cessation of operations if necessary;

    • Physical inspection requirements of control equipment and dust-generating processes to ensure proper operation;

    • Opacity limit of 20 percent and requirements to take corrective action if opacity exceeds 15 percent;

    • Requirements for paved road cleaning at least daily, with vehicular track-out controls and 15 mile per hour speed limits;

    • Requirements for the application frequency of chemical dust suppressant to unpaved roads, controls on silt loading on those roads (silt loading may not exceed 0.33 ounces per square feet or 6 percent), runoff collection requirements to prevent dust from becoming airborne, and 15 miles per hour speed limits;

    • Materials storage, handling, and unloading requirements for copper concentrate and reverts, including requirements for storage on concrete pads, water sprayers, and wind fences;

    • Bedding requirements (including loading and unloading operations requirements for wind fences and water spraying to maintain a nominal 10 percent surface moisture content), rumble grates to reduce trackout at exits, and a daily cleaning schedule inside and near the protected area; and

    • Requirements for the acid plant scrubber blowdown drying system, which must be housed in an enclosed system that uses a venturi scrubber, thickener, filter press and electric dryer under negative pressure.

    Subsection (E) of Rule R18-2-B1301.01 includes contingency requirements for increasing the frequency of road cleaning if the Hayden area does not attain the NAAQS by the attainment date or make RFP. The remainder of the rule includes monitoring, compliance demonstration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Appendix 15 includes test methods and procedures for determining compliance with opacity limits on unpaved roads, silt content on trafficked parts of unpaved roads, and a qualification and testing section for certifying observers in measuring opacity and road stabilization. These requirements address the known sources of fugitive dust resulting from operations surrounding the Hayden Facility that may contribute to airborne lead emissions. We compared these requirements in our TSD reviewing Rule R18-2-B1301.01 with the primary copper smelter NESHAP and SCAQMD Rule 1420.1 for lead control. Rule R18-2-B1301.01 is more stringent than the primary copper smelter NESHAP. For example, Rule R18-2-B1301.01 includes specific fugitive dust requirements and a 20 percent opacity limit for lead-bearing fugitive dust, whereas the NESHAP contains more general requirements for a fugitive dust plan and no opacity limit for fugitive dust. We concluded that while the SCAQMD rule was more stringent in some respects (i.e., requiring total enclosure of the facility, lower speed limits, more frequent sweeping schedules), it was also intended for a different type of facility (lead battery recycling) and therefore was not directly comparable to the Hayden Facility.

    We also compared these requirements to those found in various RACM/RACT particulate matter (PM) rules, as the controls for lead-bearing fugitive dust in a context like the Hayden Facility are like those for controlling PM. We found that Rule R18-2-B1301.01 was as stringent or more stringent than those PM rules. For example, in addition to a 20 percent opacity limit and requirements for chemical dust suppressant and soil stabilization, which are also included in the PM rules, Rule R18-2-B1301.01 has requirements for unpaved roads and corrective measures for visible emissions that are not found in the PM rules.

    3. Proposed Actions on RACM/RACT Demonstration and Adopted Control Strategy

    For the reasons described above, we find that the control measures required under Rules R18-2-B1301 and R18-2-B1301.01 and reflected in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan are reasonably available for the Hayden Facility. In addition, as explained in the following section, ADEQ's air quality modeling indicates these measures are sufficient to provide for attainment in the Hayden Lead NAA. These measures are required to be implemented by July 1, 2018 (for Rule R18-2-B1301) and December 1, 2018 (for Rule R18-2-B1301.01). We believe these are the most expeditious dates practicable, given the history of planning for this source, the current time frame for implementation, and the complexity of these control measures. Accordingly, we propose to find that the RACM/RACT measures are both reasonably available and provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the Hayden Lead NAA. Therefore, we propose to find that the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan provides for the implementation of RACM/RACT as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).

    D. Attainment Demonstration 1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstration

    CAA section 172 requires a state to submit a plan for each of its nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the specified attainment date. This demonstration should consist of four parts:

    (1) Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations of the lead NAAQS;

    (2) Analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, state, and local programs and from potential new state and local measures required to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area;

    (3) Additional emissions reduction measures with schedules for implementation; and

    (4) Contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

    The requirements for the first three parts are described in the sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT above and in the sections on air quality modeling and the attainment demonstration that follow immediately below. The requirements for the fourth part are described below in section IV.F.

    2. Air Quality Modeling in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan

    In the following discussion we evaluate various features of the modeling that ADEQ used in its attainment demonstration. The lead attainment demonstration must include air quality dispersion modeling developed in accordance with EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR part 51, appendix W (“Appendix W”).32 A more detailed description of the modeling used to support this action and our review can be found in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan, Appendix B, Modeling Technical Support Document: Hayden Pb State Implementation Plan Revision (“ADEQ Modeling TSD”) and our TSD for today's proposed action.

    32 The EPA published revisions to Appendix Wat 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017).

    a. Model Selection

    In 2005, the EPA promulgated AERMOD as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion model for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (e.g., for estimating lead concentrations) in all types of terrain, based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. The State used AERMOD version 15181 to model all emission sources using regulatory default options.33 After submitting the Plan, ADEQ discovered an error in the processing of the Camera Hill meteorological data. In May 2018, ADEQ submitted revised modeling using corrected Camera Hill meteorological data and AERMOD version 16216r,34 which the EPA designated as the regulatory version of AERMOD in January 2017.35 All other inputs remained the same. The remainder of this section refers to results of the revised modeling, which effectively supersedes the modeling originally submitted with the Plan.

    33 The EPA periodically releases updated versions of AERMOD. At the time the State conducted its modeling, version 15181, the then-current regulatory version, was released with several beta options. The regulatory default for version 15181 is the use of version 15181, as released by the EPA, without the use of any of the beta options. See https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-preferred-and-recommended-models.

    34See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, ADEQ to Rynda Kay, EPA, Region 9, dated May 22, 2018.

    35See 82 FR 5182, 5189 (January 17, 2017).

    The modeling domain was centered on the Hayden Facility and extended to the edges of the Hayden Lead NAA. A grid spacing of 25 meters was used to resolve AERMOD model concentrations along the ambient air boundary surrounding the Hayden Facility and was increased toward the edges of the NAA. Receptors were excluded within the ambient air boundary, which is generally defined by the facility's physical fence line, except in certain areas where the State inspected the terrain and concluded steep topography precludes public access.36 We conclude that the model receptors placed by the State adequately characterize ambient air conditions.

    36 Ambient air is considered to be the air in those areas where the public generally has access. Non-ambient air generally includes property owned or controlled by the source to which access by the public is prohibited by a fence or other effective physical barrier.

    b. Meteorological Data

    ADEQ conducted its modeling using meteorological data collected between August 2013 and August 2014 at two on-site surface meteorological stations: The Camera Hill site located approximately 0.35 kilometer (km) south of the smelter building, and the Hayden Old Jail site located approximately 1.06 km west of the concentrator and smelter complexes at the Hayden Facility. Due to the complex topography of the area, wind speed and direction can vary significantly between the two stations. The State conducted a performance evaluation to test which meteorological dataset performs best when AERMOD-predicted concentrations are compared to monitored concentrations.37 The State concluded emissions from the main stack and those emanating from the smelter building roofline are best represented by Camera Hill, while lower elevation sources were best represented by Hayden Old Jail, and used these respective data sets for those sources. Accordingly, ADEQ ran the model separately for each set of sources and summed the results appropriately. The State provided audit reports for each monitoring station to document the station's installation and data collection procedures.38 The State used AERMET version 16216 to process meteorological data for use with AERMOD.

    37See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, ADEQ, to Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated May 25, 2018.

    38See email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, ADEQ, to Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated May 22, 2018.

    The State used AERSURFACE version 13016 using data from the Camera Hill and Hayden Old Jail sites to estimate the surface characteristics (i.e., albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness (zo)). The State estimated zo values for 12 spatial sectors out to 1 km at a seasonal temporal resolution for average conditions. We conclude that the State appropriately selected meteorological sites, properly processed meteorological data, and adequately estimated surface characteristics.

    ADEQ used the Auer (1978) 39 land use method, with land cover data from the United States Geological Survey National Land Cover Data 1992 archives, to determine that the 3-km area around the Hayden Facility is composed of 96.2 percent rural land types. Therefore, the State selected rural dispersion coefficients for modeling. We agree with the ADEQ's determination that the facility should be modeled as a rural source.

    39See Auer, A.H., 1978. Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 17(5):636-643.

    c. Emissions Data

    ADEQ developed a modeling emissions inventory based on 2012 data for sources within the Hayden Lead NAA and for the 50-km buffer zone extending from the NAA boundary. In 2012, the Hayden Facility emitted 3.43 tpy lead, accounting for more than 99 percent of lead emissions in the Hayden Lead NAA. The Freeport McMoRan Incorporated copper smelter, located 46 km north of the Hayden Facility, emitted 4.87 tons of lead in 2012; however, the two smelters are separated by large mountains, making these two airsheds distinct. The State determined that aside from the Hayden facility, no other sources were drivers of nonattainment or have the potential to cause significant concentration gradients in the vicinity of the Hayden Lead NAA. We agree with the State's determination that only Hayden Facility emissions need to be included in the attainment modeling.

    Asarco is undertaking substantial upgrades to the Facility that will reduce lead and other pollutant emissions (see section IV.C, above). The State modeled post-upgrade lead emissions based on an emission limit of 0.67 lb/hour for the main stack and emission estimates for fugitive emission sources based on control requirements in Rules R18-2-B1301 and R18-2-B1301.01. These rules address roofline vents over the anode furnace, converter aisle, and the flash furnace; outdoor slag pouring; materials storage and handling (bedding area, revert piles, concentrate storage), paved and unpaved roads, crushing and screening, and a gas cleaning plant. The State provided details and supporting information for the control efficiencies assumed in developing model emission rates. This information, which we reviewed and agree is reasonable, is contained in multiple appendices 40 and supporting spreadsheets 41 that were submitted with the Plan.

    40See Plan Appendix B (ADEQ Modeling TSD), Section 5, and Appendix A (ADEQ Emission Inventory TSD), Section 7.

    41 Detailed information on 2019 projected emission estimates is contained in spreadsheet “2012 Actuals & 2019 projections.xlsx,” while supporting information for the maximum allowable PTE estimates is contained in “Facility PTE.xlsm.”

    The State adequately characterized source parameters (as described in detail in our TSD) as well as the Facility's building layout and locations in its modeling. Where appropriate, the Building Profile Input Program for PRIME, which is a component of AERMOD, was used to assist in characterizing building downwash.

    d. Background Concentrations

    ADEQ selected background lead concentrations using ambient air measurements recorded in 2013 at Children's Park monitor in Tucson, Arizona (AQS ID: 04-019-1028), a regionally representative site. This monitor began measuring 24-hour mean concentrations of lead in total suspended particulate in February 2012 and operated through May 2016. The State used all available measurements during 2013 and calculated a mean concentration of 0.0028 μg/m3. The State used this as the background concentration, and added it to the modeled design values.42 The State determined that it was more appropriate to base a background concentration on data from this site as opposed to using monitoring data near the Hayden Facility during smelter shut-down periods. During shut-downs an increased amount of material handling occurs throughout the facility, elevating the observed concentrations. We agree that ADEQ appropriately and conservatively calculated background concentrations.

    42 Data from 2013 were used because two months of data were missing in the 2012 base year.

    e. Summary of Results

    The EPA has reviewed ADEQ's attainment demonstration for the Hayden Lead NAA and is proposing to determine that the supporting modeling is consistent with CAA requirements and Appendix W. The State's modeling indicates that if the Facility were to emit at maximum allowed levels, the maximum 3-month average ambient concentration would be 0.14165 μg/m3, which is below the NAAQS level of 0.15 μg/m3.4344 This modeled concentration includes the background lead concentration of 0.0028 µg/m3. The modeling indicates that the controls required under Rules R18-2-B1301 and R18-2-B1301.01 are sufficient for the Hayden Lead NAA to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    43See “Hayden-Pb-Modeling Notes-05142018” (attached to email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, ADEQ, to Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated May 22, 2018), and Memo to Rulemaking Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0222 titled “Revised Attainment Demonstration and Contingency Measure Modeling—LEADPOST Output Files,” from Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated June 12, 2018.

    44 As illustrated in Table 5 of today's action, actual emissions are expected to be well below allowable levels.

    E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration 1. Requirements for RFP

    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that attainment plans shall provide for RFP. RFP is defined in section 171(1) as such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by CAA title I, part D for nonattainment areas or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. Historically, RFP has been met through generally linear incremental progress toward attainment by the applicable attainment date. However, the EPA believes that RFP for lead nonattainment areas should be met by “adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule,” which is expected to periodically yield significant emission reductions, and as appropriate, linear progress.45

    45 73 FR 66964 at 67038.

    The EPA recommends that SIPs for lead nonattainment areas provide a detailed schedule for compliance with RACM (including RACT) in the affected areas and accurately indicate the corresponding annual emission reductions to be achieved,46 and expects that a detailed schedule would provide for periodic yields in significant emissions reductions.47 We believe that it is appropriate to expect early implementation of less technology-intensive control measures (e.g., controlling fugitive dust emissions at the stationary source, as well as required controls on area sources) while phasing in the more technology-intensive control measures, such as those involving the purchase and installation of new hardware. The expeditious implementation of RACM/RACT at affected sources within the nonattainment area is an appropriate approach to assure attainment of the lead NAAQS in an expeditious manner.48

    46Id., at 67039; Lead Q&A, p. 2.

    47Id.

    48 See 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008) at 67038-67039.

    2. RFP Demonstration in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan

    The RFP demonstration for the Hayden area is located in Chapter 4 of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan. The Plan includes a detailed schedule for the expeditious implementation of key controls required under Rules R18-2-B1301 and R18-2-B1301.01, along with the emissions reductions associated with these controls, as shown in Table 6.49 Failure to implement any of these control measures by the associated deadline would constitute a failure to make RFP and thus trigger implementation of contingency measures, as described in section IV.F below.

    49 The Plan bases certain implementation dates on the date of EPA's approval of Asarco's fugitive dust plan under Consent Decree No. CV-15-02206-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz). See Plan Table 23. The EPA approved the wind fence elements of the fugitive dust plan on June 26, 2017 and December 20, 2017. See Letters from Matt Salazar, EPA Region 9, to Joseph Wilhelm, Asarco, dated June 26, 2017 and December 20, 2017. The remaining elements were approved on March 15, 2018. See Letter from Matt Salazar, EPA Region 9, to Joseph Wilhelm, Asarco, dated March 15, 2018. The implementation dates in Table 6 are calculated accordingly.

    Table 6—Control Implementation Schedule and Emission Reductions Control measure Date of implementation Pb emissions
  • reduced per year
  • (tpy)
  • Implementation of chemical dust suppression for unpaved roads April 14, 2018 0.018 Implementation of wind fences for materials piles (uncrushed reverts, reverts crushing and crushed reverts, bedding materials, and concentrate) October 24, 2017 and April 18, 2018 0.00488 Implementation of water sprays for materials piles (uncrushed reverts, reverts crushing and crushed reverts, bedding materials, and concentrate) July 13, 2018 Implementation of new acid plant scrubber blowdown drying system November 30, 2016 0.190 Implementation of new primary, secondary, and tertiary hooding systems for converter aisle July 1, 2018 1.318 Implementation of new ventilation system for matte tapping and slag skimming for flash furnace July 1, 2018 0.393 Source: Plan, Table 23.

    For informational purposes, Figures 7 and 8 in the Plan also depict past and projected changes to ambient concentrations of lead. These figures demonstrate that implementation of the controls required under the Plan will bring the ambient concentration in the Hayden Lead NAA into compliance with the lead NAAQS. The ambient concentration projections also support the State's contingency measure analysis, as discussed below.

    3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration

    Consistent with EPA guidance, the Hayden lead SIP provides a detailed schedule for implementing required controls and accurately indicates the corresponding annual emission reductions to be achieved.50 These reductions will occur at sources, such as unpaved roads and various non-smelting fugitive sources that have a greater influence on the maximum predicted ambient impacts than the smelter point sources and the schedule provides for periodic yields in significant emissions reductions sufficient to attain the NAAQS. We therefore propose to find that the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan meets the requirements of section 172(c)(2) for RFP.

    50See Table 6.

    F. Contingency Measures 1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

    Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all lead attainment plans must include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain the lead NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly and without significant additional action by the state or the EPA if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to meet its attainment date. They must also be measures not relied on to demonstrate RFP or attainment in the plan and should provide SIP-creditable emissions reductions generally equivalent to about one year's worth of RFP. The EPA has explained that, “where a single source is responsible for nonattainment, it may be possible to identify the amount of reductions required by reference to reductions in ambient air concentrations.” 51 Finally, the SIP should contain a trigger mechanism for the contingency measures and specify a schedule for their implementation.52

    51See Lead Q&A, p.3.

    52See CAA section 172(c)(9).

    The EPA recognizes that certain actions, such as the notification of sources, modification of permits, etc., may be needed before a measure can be implemented. However, states must show that their contingency measures can be implemented with only minimal further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative review. The EPA generally expects all actions needed to affect full implementation of the contingency measures to occur within 60 days after the EPA notifies the state of such failure.53 The state should therefore ensure that the measures are fully implemented as expeditiously as practicable after the requirement takes effect.

    53 73 FR 66964 at 67039.

    2. Contingency Measure in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan

    Chapter 4 of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan describes the contingency measure that will be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain by its attainment date. The contingency measure and the associated calculations are summarized below.

    Because lead concentrations in the Hayden area are almost entirely attributable to the Asarco smelter, ADEQ chose to use ambient air concentrations to demonstrate equivalency to a year's worth of RFP. To determine the amount of emissions reductions needed for contingency measures (annual average RFP) ADEQ used the following equation:

    (2012 highest monitored concentration—2019 modeled concentration)/7 years = Annual Average RFP

    Using this equation, ADEQ initially calculated it would need a contingency measure that would achieve a reduction in ambient lead concentrations of at least 0.0114 μg/m3.54 Based on the revised modeling submitted by ADEQ in May 2018, the contingency measure would need to achieve a reduction of at least 0.0086 μg/m3.55

    54 0.20 μg/m3−0.12 μg/m3/7 years = 0.0114 μg/m3.

    55See Memo to Rulemaking Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0222 titled “Revised Attainment Demonstration and Contingency Measure Modeling—LEADPOST Output Files,” from Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated June 12, 2018.

    ADEQ Rule R18-2-B1301.01 requires that Asarco increase the frequency of paved road cleaning from once per day to twice per day within 60 days of notification by the EPA that the area has failed to make RFP or to attain by the statutory attainment date.56 To determine the benefit of the increased road cleaning frequency, ADEQ applied a 45 percent reduction to the paved road silt content percentage that Asarco reported in its 2015 emissions inventory (which reflected once-daily street sweeping).57 The State determined that the implementation of this measure would reduce the modeled design value from 0.14165 μg/m3 to 0.12935 μg/m3.58 This amounts to a reduction of 0.0123 μg/m3, which exceeds the amount of reductions required from contingency measures (one year's RFP).

    56 The EPA approved this rule on February 22, 2018 (83 FR 7614).

    57 To cross check the emissions inventory, ADEQ back-calculated the silt content percentage on paved roads to determine if it was consistent with emissions factors in AP-42. ADEQ assumed the 9.5 percent silt content was the result of a 45 percent reduction due to once daily street sweeping. The 45 percent figure is consistent with the Maricopa Association of Governments' Five Percent Plan for PM10, which used a 55 percent reduction, but adds in a 10 percent safety margin. The EPA approved the Five Percent Plan on June 10, 2014 (79 FR 33107). Using this assumption, ADEQ calculated the silt content percentage on paved roads without once-daily street sweeping to be approximately 21 percent, which is in line with the range of values in AP-42 (15.4-21.7 percent).

    58See “Hayden-Pb-Modeling Notes-05142018” (attached to email from Farah Mohammadesmaeili, ADEQ, to Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated May 22, 2018), Section 4.7.3 and Appendix E of the Plan, and Memo to Rulemaking Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0222 titled “Revised Attainment Demonstration and Contingency Measure Modeling—LEADPOST Output Files,” from Rynda Kay, EPA Region 9, dated June 12, 2018.

    3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures

    Rule R18-2-B1301.01, which includes a schedule for prompt implementation of the contingency measure, is fully adopted by the State and has been approved by the EPA. The reductions generated by the contingency measure exceed one year's RFP. We therefore propose to find that the State has demonstrated that the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan meets the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures that would be triggered for failure to make RFP and/or for failure to attain.

    G. New Source Review 1. Requirements for NSR

    States containing areas designated as nonattainment for the lead NAAQS must submit SIPs that address the requirements of nonattainment NSR. Specifically, CAA section 172(c)(5) requires states that have areas designated as nonattainment for the lead NAAQS to submit provisions requiring permits for the construction and operation of new or modified stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area, in accordance with the permit requirements under CAA section 173.

    2. NSR in the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan

    The 2017 Hayden Lead Plan explains that in 2012 ADEQ submitted a SIP revision to update its NSR program and that the EPA subsequently issued a limited approval/limited disapproval of this SIP revision.59 ADEQ also noted that it had revised its rules to correct the deficiencies identified in the limited approval/limited disapproval and intended to submit these changes as a SIP revision. ADEQ subsequently submitted this revision and, on May 4, 2018, the EPA approved it into the SIP.60 These two recent SIP revisions ensure that ADEQ's rules provide for appropriate NSR for lead sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Hayden Lead NAA. Therefore, the EPA concludes that the NSR requirements have been met for this area.

    59 80 FR 67319 (November 2, 2015).

    60 83 FR 19631 (May 4, 2018).

    3. Proposed Action on NSR

    We propose to find that the State has demonstrated that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5) for the Hayden Lead NAA.

    V. The EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comments A. The EPA's Proposed Approvals

    This SIP submittal addresses CAA requirements and EPA regulations for expeditious attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS for the Hayden Lead NAA. For the reasons discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the following elements of the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan:

    (1) The SIP's base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.117(e)(1);

    (2) the attainment demonstration, including air quality modeling, as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1);

    (3) the RACM/RACT demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1);

    (4) the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2); and

    (5) the contingency measures as meeting the requirements of the CAA section 172(c)(9);

    We are also proposing to find that the State has demonstrated that the Arizona SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5) for the Hayden Lead NAA.

    B. Request for Public Comments

    We are taking public comments for thirty days following the publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register. We will take all comments into consideration in our final rule.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). We have offered to consult with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, which has lands bordering on the Hayden Lead NAA.61

    61See letter from Matthew Lakin, EPA Region 9, to Terry Rambler, San Carlos Apache Tribe, dated December 18, 2017.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14198 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0167; FRL-9980-42-OAR] RIN 2060-AT93 Public Hearing for Standards for 2019 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2020 Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public hearing to be held in Ypsilanti, MI on July 18, 2018 for the proposed rule “Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2019 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2020.” This proposed rule will be published separately in the Federal Register. The pre-publication version of this proposal can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/regulations-and-volume-standards-under-renewable-fuel-standard. In the separate notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA has proposed amendments to the renewable fuel standard program regulations that would establish annual percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuels that would apply to all gasoline and diesel produced in the U.S. or imported in the year 2019. In addition, the separate proposal includes a proposed biomass-based diesel applicable volume for 2020.

    DATES:

    The public hearing will be held on July 18, 2018 at the location noted below under ADDRESSES. The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end when all parties present who wish to speak have had an opportunity to do so. Parties wishing to testify at the hearing should notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by July 13, 2018. Additional information regarding the hearing appears below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The hearing will be held at the following location: Ann Arbor Marriott Ypsilanti at Eagle Crest, 1275 S. Huron St., Ypsilanti, MI 48197 (phone number 734-487-2000). A complete set of documents related to the proposal will be available for public inspection through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0167. Documents can also be viewed at the EPA Docket Center, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 3334, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia MacAllister, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4131; Fax number: (734) 214-4816; Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The proposal for which EPA is holding the public hearing will be published separately in the Federal Register. The pre-publication version can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/regulations-and-volume-standards-under-renewable-fuel-standard.

    Public Hearing: The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposal (which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/regulations-and-volume-standards-under-renewable-fuel-standard). The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Written comments must be received by the last day of the comment period, as specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

    How can I get copies of this document, the proposed rule, and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0167. The EPA has also developed a website for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, including the notice of proposed rulemaking, at the address given above.

    Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking for detailed information on accessing information related to the proposal.

    Dated: June 26, 2018. Christopher Grundler, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14329 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Chapter I [EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107; FRL-9980-45-OA] RIN 2010-AA12 Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 13, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed an advance notice of proposed rulemaking titled, “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in Rulemaking Process.” The EPA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule, which was scheduled to close on July 13, 2018, until August 13, 2018. The EPA is making this change in response to public requests for an extension of the comment period.

    DATES:

    The public comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2018 (83 FR 27524), is extended. Written comments must be received on or before August 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system).

    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on this document, please contact Elizabeth Kopits, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 1809T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (202) 566-2299; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document extends the public comment period for the proposed rule to ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on the proposal. EPA is proposing this rule under authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, in addition to the authorities listed in the April 30th document.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Brittany Bolen, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14330 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 51 and 61 [WC Docket No. 18-156; FCC 18-76] 8YY Access Charge Reform AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission proposes to migrate interstate and intrastate originating end office and tandem switching and transport charges for toll free (8YY) calls to bill-and-keep, continuing the reform efforts that began with the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order. The Commission also proposes to cap 8YY database query rates at the lowest rate charged by any price cap local exchange carrier, and to limit charges to one database query charge per call, regardless of the number of carriers are in the call path or the number of database queries conducted. These proposals should limit unreasonably inflated charges and reduce or eliminate incentives for parties to engage in the types of abuse described in the record.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018. Reply comments must be submitted on or before October 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 18-156, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 888-835-5322.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irina Asoskov, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at 202-418-2196 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM or Notice), FCC 18-76, released on June 8, 2018. A full-text version of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may be obtained at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/fcc-18-76a1.pdf.

    I. Background

    1. AT&T first introduced interstate toll free service, using 800 numbers, in 1967. The defining characteristic of that service, then known as Inward Wide Area Telecommunications Service (WATS), was that such calls were paid for by the company that received the calls and had subscribed to the toll free service. At the time, and for many years after, interstate calling rates were substantial, so the calling party received significant financial benefit from making a toll free call rather than a direct-dialed long distance (or toll) call. Today, by contrast, the prevalence of unlimited minutes plans for both wireless and wireline service and the advent of the internet and other advances in communications have reduced the financial benefit to the calling party of being able to make a telephone call and not pay for the toll portion of the call.

    2. Nonetheless, many businesses and consumers continue to find 8YY numbers useful. Demand for 8YY numbers continues to grow. In fact, the Commission recently authorized a new 833 code to supplement the 800, 888, 877, 866, 855, and 844 codes already in use for 8YY calling. The record offers several explanations for the continued demand for 8YY numbers. A toll free number can give a business a national presence and “project a professional image.” Toll free numbers can also act as a powerful branding tool, particularly if the subscriber can obtain a vanity number, such as 1-800-FLOWERS, that promotes its business. Many businesses also use toll free numbers to track the effectiveness of their advertising and marketing strategy. These marketing efforts increase the demand for toll free numbers, as businesses need to assign unique numbers to each advertising campaign or even to different segments of the same advertising campaign.

    3. The record indicates that 8YY minutes of use appear to be increasing, at least relative to other originating access minutes. As a result, according to some commenters, 8YY calls account for a substantial majority of originating access minutes. We seek comment on parties' experiences regarding demand for 8YY numbers and legitimate minutes of use. We also invite parties to provide additional information regarding the usefulness of 8YY numbers and demand for 8YY services.

    A. History of Intercarrier Compensation for 8YY Calls

    4. Following the breakup of AT&T, the Commission analyzed the treatment of toll free originating and terminating switched access charges for purposes of carrier revenue recovery. In addition to end office rate elements, the Commission allowed LECs to recover a portion of fixed local loop costs through the carrier common line (CCL) charge that LECs were allowed to recover from IXCs. In devising the CCL rate element for toll free calls, the Commission recognized that toll free calls generally “originated over regular local loops and terminated over a dedicated access line to the 8YY subscriber's premises.” The Commission referred to the originating end of such calls as the “open end” and the terminating end as the “closed end.” In the 1986 WATS Order, the Commission placed the bulk of CCL charges on terminating access minutes, allowing carriers to recover the rest of their loop costs through traffic-sensitive charges. The Commission also exempted the “closed end” of the call from the CCL charges, based on a finding that the costs of the closed end of a toll free call were covered by special access charges. Exempting the “closed end” of 8YY calls from CCL charges, however, meant that “800 traffic would be exempt from carrier common line charges altogether, despite the fact that it makes use of the public switched network.” In other words, because LECs recovered the bulk of their loop costs from terminating access charges, and the terminating end of toll free calls was exempt from the CCL charge, LECs were not able to recover from IXCs the loop costs associated with originating 8YY calls. The Commission allowed LECs to recover their loop costs by treating the originating (open) end of interstate 8YY calls as terminating for purposes of assessing the CCL charge.

    5. In 1997, the Commission reaffirmed its prior decision that the “open end” of an 8YY call should be treated as the terminating end for access charge purposes. The Commission noted that “an IXC is unable to influence the end user's choice of access provider for originating access services because the end user on the terminating end is paying for the [8YY] call.” In the early 2000s, the Commission eliminated the CCL charge, but did not specifically address 8YY services. At present, originating carriers receive payments from 8YY providers for originating interstate toll free calls through originating end office, tandem switching and transport, and database query charges.

    6. Database query charges. From 1967, when AT&T first introduced toll free service, until late 1986, “LECs were unable to provide access for 800 service to any IXC other than AT&T.” In 1986, the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) and other LECs began offering other IXCs 8YY access through an NXX-based methodology, whereby the first three digits following the 800 prefix of the dialed number were associated with a specific IXC. Toll free subscribers seeking a particular 800 number had to obtain it from the IXC to which the NXX in that number had been assigned and could not change carriers without changing their 800 number. For example, if MCI had been assigned all numbers beginning with 800-468, then someone who wanted to subscribe to 800-468-3927 (800-GO-TEXAS) would have to do business with MCI. In 1989, the BOCs and some other carriers began developing “common channel signaling networks based on the CCS7 protocol,” in which their CCS7 networks would be linked with databases containing the 800 service information. The Commission established a separate access element for the database cost recovery. The Commission required LECs to “develop rates for 800 data base access based only on their data-base-specific costs” and expressed an expectation that the costs associated with the 800 number database would be “relatively modest.”

    7. In 1993, the Commission determined that the newly-created 800 database was “absolutely necessary to the provision of 800 service using the data base access system” and concluded that access to the database must be provided pursuant to tariff. In contrast to NXX-based routing, which relied on LECs using their central office switches to process 800 calls, the new routing technology required originating LECs to route 8YY calls through a switch equipped with a “service switching point” (SSP). The SSP would then “suspend” routing of the call until it determined where to send it by transmitting a query over the signaling system 7 (SS7) to a regional service control point (SCP). The SCP would regularly obtain routing information from the central (SMS/800) database. Not all end offices of the LECs that owned an SCP were connected to the SCP. 8YY calls from consumers served by end offices that were not connected to an SCP were routed to one of the LEC's tandem switches equipped with an SCP and the call would be processed from there. Those LECs that did not own an SCP could purchase query services from a LEC that did.

    8. In a series of orders, the Commission determined that certain costs associated with the provision of 8YY database query services were reasonable and allowed price cap and rate-of-return carriers to include them in their rate calculations.

    B. Access Charge Reforms Adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order

    9. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission found that, over time, the intercarrier compensation system had become “riddled with inefficiencies and opportunities for wasteful arbitrage.” To rid the system of arbitrage schemes that impose “undue costs on consumers, inefficiently diverting capital away from more productive uses such as broadband deployment” and to provide incentives to transition telecommunications networks to IP technology, the Commission adopted a national, default bill-and-keep framework as the ultimate end state of all telecommunications traffic exchanged with a LEC. As the first step in implementing that framework, the Commission adopted a multi-year transition to bill-and-keep for many terminating access charges, determined that “the originating access regime should be reformed,” and capped most originating access charges, with the exception of intrastate originating access charges of rate-of-return carriers. The cap applied to a wide range of originating access charges, including, but not limited to, database query charges. The Commission also adopted bill-and-keep as the default compensation regime for non-access traffic between LECs and commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers, thus bringing that traffic into parity with CMRS-related access traffic, which had long been subject to bill-and-keep.

    10. Based on a determination that concerns regarding network inefficiencies, arbitrage, and costly litigation were “less pressing with respect to originating access” than with respect to terminating access, the Commission did not adopt any further reforms to originating access charges. In a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that accompanied the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission sought comment on the steps it should take to transition originating access and transport to bill-and-keep, as well as issues related to 8YY traffic. The Commission sought comment on the timing, transition, and possible need for a recovery mechanism for the remaining rate elements. The Commission explained that access charges for originating 8YY traffic have been treated similarly to terminating access charges for non-8YY calls. It sought comment on “the appropriate treatment of 8YY originated minutes” and on whether 8YY access reform should be treated differently from originating access reform more generally. Comments regarding these issues were mixed.

    C. 8YY Routing and Related Access Elements

    11. To understand how the current 8YY system allows for arbitrage and fraud, it is necessary to understand the typical wireline call path for, and intercarrier charges associated with, 8YY calls. As described by various commenters, when a wireline customer places a call to an 8YY number, the call is initially carried by the caller's LEC to that carrier's end office switch. At that point, the LEC may conduct the database query from the end office switch to the SCP, where it obtains the routing information. Then the LEC may route the call to a tandem switch which may or may not be owned by the same LEC. If the LEC did not conduct the database query at its end office, then it may conduct the query from a tandem office, or it may rely on a third-party tandem provider to perform the database query. Once the routing information has been obtained, the call is then routed to the IXC—either directly, or through an intermediate provider—and, ultimately, the 8YY customer.

    12. Under our current rules, the LEC that originates an 8YY call is entitled to charge the IXC that terminates the 8YY call originating access charges for the specific services provided, which would typically include originating end office switching, database queries, interoffice transport and, often, tandem switching and transport. The amount of access charges an originating LEC receives for such calls is dependent on the applicable switching and transport rates, including the number of miles that are subject to the transport charge, which is billed on a per-minute, per-mile basis. In some cases, the originating LEC and a third-party tandem provider bill the IXC separately, but some intermediate carriers submit one bill for originating and tandem and transport charges to the IXC and subsequently reimburse the originating carrier pursuant to an agreement between the originating LEC and the tandem carrier. Because database queries can originate from either an end office or a tandem office, tandem providers can also charge the IXC for database queries. According to AT&T, it is not unusual for an IXC to be assessed a database dip charge by both the LEC that originates an 8YY call, and by the tandem provider that picks up that call. AT&T claims that database queries account for a significant share—approximately 19 percent—of the originating access charges it is billed for 8YY calls.

    13. Thus, in the case of 8YY traffic, originating carriers involved in the call have incentives to route calls in ways that maximize the compensation they receive—regardless of whether they receive those access revenues directly or indirectly, via shared revenue arrangements. Moreover, the current system encourages bad actors to place fraudulent, or otherwise illegitimate, robocalls with the sole purpose of generating originating access revenues. These inflated charges raise costs for both IXCs and 8YY subscribers, which have no control over the choice of originating and intermediate providers.

    14. While we have described the typical call paths for 8YY calls as laid out by commenters in the current record, to further our understanding of the issues, we invite commenters to provide additional information about their experiences with various call paths associated with 8YY calls.

    D. More Recent Procedural History

    15. On September 30, 2016, AT&T filed a petition seeking forbearance from, among other things, rules related to the tariffing of 8YY database query charges. AT&T alleged that “some LECs are engaged in schemes to overcharge” for certain originating 8YY traffic and claimed that “arbitrage schemes are increasingly shifting to 8YY.” AT&T pointed to a “wide variation in the tariffed charges” for 8YY database queries and asserted that the rates it had negotiated in contracts with some providers were generally lower—and more uniform—than the tariffed rates for those services.

    16. Other IXCs echoed many of AT&T's concerns. Verizon argued that “[t]raffic pumping involving sham 8YY calls already is a serious arbitrage problem” and Sprint agreed that the charges for 8YY database queries are “unjustifiably high.” Even parties that opposed the forbearance petition acknowledged that the variances in 8YY database query charges may create arbitrage opportunities. AT&T withdrew its petition before the Commission reached a decision.

    17. Subsequently, on May 19, 2017, the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc) filed an ex parte letter, urging the Commission to require carriers to “apply the per minute charges for terminating traffic to the originating or `open' end of 8YY calls.” Ad Hoc asserts that the Commission could reduce or eliminate incentives to use 8YY for arbitrage and access stimulation schemes if it were to treat originating 8YY calls the same as terminating access calls for purposes of intercarrier compensation.

    18. In a public notice dated June 29, 2017, the Wireline Competition Bureau invited interested parties to update the record on issues raised by the Commission in the USF/ICC Transformation Order with respect to access charges for 8YY. We incorporate the comments from the June 29, 2017 Public Notice and the FNPRM portion of the USF/ICC Transformation Order into this record and seek further comment on issues related to 8YY access charge reform, as discussed in greater detail below.

    II. Alleged Abuses of the 8YY Intercarrier Compensation Regime

    19. Parties raise concerns about abuses of the 8YY intercarrier compensation regime. Based on the current record in this proceeding, we propose to revise our rules to change the incentives that are leading to these reported abuses.

    20. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission acted to “reduce arbitrage and competitive distortions” which had occurred over time. However, commenters allege that because the Commission left originating access charges “largely unreformed and expensive,” abuses of the intercarrier compensation system with respect to 8YY service have flourished. The record currently includes descriptions of at least four different categories of schemes by which carriers are reported to be exploiting the current regime governing intercarrier compensation for originating 8YY traffic. In the interest of having a robust record, we seek additional comment on the existence, prevalence, and impact of each of these reported schemes and on any other 8YY-related schemes that commenters propose we address.

    21. Benchmarking abuse. Currently, pursuant to the competitive LEC benchmarking rule, competitive LECs are permitted to tariff interstate access charges at a level no higher than the tariffed rate for such services offered by the incumbent LEC serving the same geographic area. Commenters complain that some competitive LECs aggregate 8YY traffic from originating LECs and instead of “benchmark[ing] its originating tandem switched transport rates to the rates tariffed by the incumbent LEC in the area where the call originated, the CLEC bills the higher rates tariffed by the incumbent LEC in the area where the call is handed off to the IXC.” We seek comment on this practice and on whether it is a legitimate practice or an improper attempt to exploit a loophole in the Commission's rules. Are there examples of other forms of potential benchmarking abuse in addition to the one we describe here? How prevalent is benchmarking abuse? How much does it cost individual IXCs or 8YY subscribers in additional access charges? Are there legitimate reasons a LEC would choose to hand off 8YY traffic in an area other than where the call originated?

    22. Mileage pumping. Because originating carriers charge IXCs for transport on a per-minute, per-mile basis, the farther they transport the originating traffic, the greater the compensation they receive from the IXC serving the 8YY subscriber. As a result, originating carriers have an incentive to artificially inflate their mileage in order to maximize the transport rates they charge to the IXC, particularly if transport rates are materially higher than transport costs, as some commenters' filings suggest. In fact, AT&T alleges that carriers engage in “mileage pumping” schemes, in which “a CLEC tariffs a per-mile charge for transport and then either (i) bills the IXC for transport it does not actually provide . . . or (ii) inefficiently routes traffic long distances—sometimes more than a hundred miles—to inflate the number of miles applied to the per-mile transport charge.” We seek comment on this practice. Are there other examples of mileage pumping schemes that differ from the ones described by AT&T? If so, please describe them. How prevalent are mileage pumping schemes? How much do they cost 8YY providers or subscribers in inflated charges? Are there legitimate reasons a carrier would haul traffic 100 miles or more before handing it off to an IXC?

    23. Traffic pumping. There is also evidence in the record that companies are using traffic pumping schemes to exploit inflated access rates. As described by commenters, in these schemes, a traffic pumper enters into a revenue sharing agreement with a LEC and subsequently uses automated software to place illegitimate calls to 8YY numbers. These calls often use auto dialers or “robocallers” to target Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems and use varying means to keep the IVR engaged, preventing the call from ending. The LEC then bills the IXC for the calls—including the artificially inflated minutes of use—and shares the proceeds with the traffic pumper. These “[a]nnoying and disruptive 8YY calls” waste the targeted businesses' resources and “devalue [providers'] 8YY products.” We seek comment on this practice. How prevalent are traffic pumping schemes involving toll free calls? Are there examples of 8YY traffic pumping schemes that differ materially from those already described in the record? We encourage parties to quantify the costs these schemes impose on 8YY providers and subscribers.

    24. Database queries. As the least regulated rate element of the 8YY traffic flow, database queries also appear to have been the subject of abuse. Commenters point out substantial variance in database charges and contend that query charges are excessive and unrelated to actual costs. For example, AT&T provides numerous examples of database query charges, ranging from as low as $0.0015 to as high as $0.015. IXCs also claim that there are times when they are billed for multiple queries on a single call. We invite commenters to provide information about the actual cost of a database query to a LEC compared to the amount IXCs are being assessed for the database dips. We also seek comment on the impact on IXCs and their customers of paying these database charges. Are there ways for IXCs to determine whether a call has been “dipped” more than once? Is there any legitimate reason for a call to be subjected to multiple dips?

    25. Other abuses. We also seek comment on whether there are any other abuses related to 8YY access charges that are not described above. If so, what are they? What impact do any other 8YY-related abuses have on carriers and on 8YY subscribers? To the extent that commenters identify other abuses of the 8YY system, we seek comment on whether our proposed reforms would sufficiently address those abuses. If not, what additional measures would we need to take to eliminate those abuses?

    III. Addressing Alleged Abuses of the 8YY Intercarrier Compensation Regime

    26. To address abuses of the current 8YY intercarrier compensation system, we propose to move, over time, all originating interstate and intrastate end office and tandem switching and transport charges related to 8YY calls to bill-and-keep. To avoid a flash cut to bill-and-keep for originating 8YY access charges, we propose a three-year transition period. We propose to allow originating carriers to recover their costs primarily through end-user charges, though we invite comment on allowing some recovery through Connect America Fund (CAF) support. We also propose to cap 8YY database query rates nationwide and to prohibit carriers from assessing more than one database query charge per call, even if more than one carrier handles the call before it is handed off to an IXC. Additionally, we seek comment on other issues related to 8YY traffic, including alternative approaches to address abuses related to 8YY calls.

    A. Moving 8YY Originating End Office and Tandem Switching and Transport Charges to Bill-and-Keep

    27. Consistent with the bill-and-keep framework the Commission adopted as “a default framework and end state for all intercarrier compensation traffic,” we propose moving all interstate and intrastate originating access charges related to 8YY calls to bill-and-keep, except for database query charges. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on an alternative approach that would transition all originating interstate and intrastate end office 8YY access charges to bill-and-keep but move 8YY tandem switching and transport to bill-and-keep only where the originating carrier also owns the tandem.

    1. Moving Most Elements of Originating 8YY Access Charges to Bill-and-Keep Should Curtail Abuses of 8YY Calls

    28. The current record shows that toll free subscribers are burdened by unpredictable and uncontrollable call volumes and associated charges for calls to their 8YY numbers. With the proliferation of unlawful robocalls, the volume of traffic routed to 8YY numbers no longer depends on the “promotional efforts” of the 8YY subscriber. Indeed, just the opposite is true—fraudulent calls are only “controllable from the originating point.” And there is significant evidence that some carriers are exploiting loopholes in the current intercarrier compensation system to inflate their bills to IXCs that serve 8YY customers. The intercarrier compensation system needs to adapt to this new reality.

    29. Accordingly, in an effort to combat the abuses that appear to plague the existing 8YY regime, we propose to move interstate and intrastate originating 8YY end office, tandem switching and transport access charges to bill-and-keep. Consistent with the USF/ICC Transformation Order, we propose to allow carriers to negotiate private agreements that depart from bill-and-keep, but not permit carriers to tariff any originating end office or tandem switching and transport charges related to 8YY traffic. We seek comment on this approach. Are there any obstacles that would prevent carriers from moving to bill-and-keep for these charges? Would our proposal adequately address the problems currently plaguing the 8YY industry? As explained below, we expect our proposed changes to have numerous benefits, including: Removing incentives for abuse, reducing costs for consumers, potentially lowering rates or improving service for 8YY subscribers, encouraging the transition to IP services, and reducing the number of disputes over intercarrier compensation.

    30. The basic logic underpinning our proposal is that each carrier should be responsible for the costs of the parts of the call path which it has discretion to choose. Should we adopt any exceptions to the proposal? For example, are there instances where an IXC, or some other party, may require the originating LEC to route traffic through a specific tandem? If so, should the originating LEC be allowed to charge the IXC for the costs it incurs in using that tandem? If the originating LEC routes 8YY traffic over a tandem that it does not own, how should the originating LEC and the tandem owner recover their respective costs? Should the originating LEC be required to pay the tandem owner for the use of the tandem and recover those costs from its own end users? Are there situations where such an arrangement would not be just and reasonable?

    31. Curtailing abuses. We seek comment on the extent to which our proposals will curtail 8YY abuses. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission found that, over time, bill-and-keep will “eliminate wasteful arbitrage schemes and other behaviors designed to take advantage of or avoid above-cost interconnection rates.” The Commission's prediction has proven accurate, as filings submitted in this proceeding indicate that the transition to bill-and-keep has reduced fraud and abuse related to terminating traffic. However, the reforms adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order did not address 8YY traffic, and the record in this proceeding shows an increase in certain types of abuses “designed to take advantage” of the intercarrier compensation system, such as the inefficient routing of 8YY calls.

    32. In light of the positive outcome of bill-and-keep for terminating traffic, we expect that our proposed reforms to 8YY originating access charges will eliminate abuses—including benchmarking, mileage pumping, and traffic pumping schemes—related to 8YY calls. All of these schemes arise from carriers' ability to bill IXCs inflated access charges relating to 8YY traffic. Moving the access elements associated with these abuses to bill-and-keep should eliminate any ability to profit from these activities. We expect the proposed reforms will provide originating carriers with the incentive to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible in routing 8YY traffic. We seek comment on this expectation.

    33. Based on the current record in this proceeding, we propose to revise our rules to change the incentives that are leading to abuses of the intercarrier compensation system for 8YY. We seek comment on each of these alleged abuses, including mileage pumping, traffic pumping, benchmarking abuse, and excessive and unnecessary database dips. How should our rules be modified to curb such abuses? Will moving originating end office and tandem switching and transport rates for 8YY calls to bill-and-keep discourage carriers from engaging in traffic or mileage pumping? We seek comment on any costs and burdens on small entities associated with the proposed rules, including data quantifying the extent of those costs or burdens.

    34. At least one competitive LEC that offers toll free services to businesses and also provides originating 8YY services opposes proposals to move originating access charges to bill-and-keep. This carrier asserts that fraudulent toll free calls should be addressed on a case-by-case basis through inter-carrier cooperation and by the Commission's Enforcement Bureau and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This carrier's contracts require its customers to adopt anti-fraud measures and provide remedies against customers that are suspected of engaging in unlawful activity. Do other carriers use similar contract provisions? How effective are they? What efforts do carriers or their customers make to identify illegitimate 8YY calls? How effective are those efforts? What security mechanisms do wholesalers or traffic aggregators employ to screen incoming calls? What obstacles do carriers or 8YY subscribers face in distinguishing illegitimate traffic from legitimate traffic? We seek comment on these and other issues related to the alternative approach of addressing unlawful toll free calls on a case-by-case basis.

    a. Benefits to Consumers

    35. We seek comment on the extent to which our proposals will benefit consumers. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission concluded that the intercarrier compensation regime distorted competition because carriers shifted their network costs onto other carriers and, as a result, consumers could not identify and switch to more efficient providers. At the same time, the Commission observed that “because the calling party chooses the access provider but does not pay for the toll call, it has no incentive to select a provider with lower originating access rates.” In the 8YY industry, consumers who call 8YY telephone numbers are not charged directly for the calls, do not know what their originating carrier is charging for routing their 8YY call and, therefore, cannot exercise effective consumer choice. Yet, inefficiencies and abuses of the intercarrier compensation system result in higher prices to 8YY subscribers, who must recover their costs from their customers—a group that likely includes originating 8YY callers. Thus, in the end, consumers indirectly subsidize inefficiencies and abuses of the 8YY intercarrier compensation system.

    36. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission reviewed economic evidence and concluded that, upon transitioning to bill-and-keep, “carriers will reduce consumers' effective price of calling, through reduced charges and/or improved service quality.” The Commission further predicted that these “reduced quality-adjusted prices will lead to substantial savings on calls made, and to increased calling.” This prediction appears to have proven true. For example, while there are several factors that may explain increased calling, significant growth has occurred in wireless subscribership since the Commission moved all CMRS traffic to bill-and-keep.

    37. We recognize that consumers appear to find toll free calling an attractive way to reach certain businesses and do not expect that to change if we move originating access charges for 8YY calls to bill-and-keep. Given that the Commission has already moved wireless calls—including 8YY calls from wireless numbers—to bill-and-keep, consumers' use of wireless services may be instructive in helping predict the effects our proposed changes will have on consumers' use of toll free services. Are there any lessons we can learn from the effect bill-and-keep has had on wireless 8YY calls? We seek data on whether wireless 8YY originating calls have increased or decreased over the past five years. Do consumers make fewer toll free calls from wireless phones than they do from wireline phones? Has the number of 8YY calls decreased as more people have switched to wireless phones as their primary method of telecommunications?

    38. We expect that transitioning 8YY calls to bill-and-keep will ultimately benefit consumers. We invite comment on this view and welcome commenters to provide economic analysis and data in support of their views.

    b. Benefits to 8YY Subscribers

    39. We seek comment on the extent to which our proposals will benefit 8YY subscribers. Because incentives in the 8YY industry are misaligned (8YY subscribers are paying originating carriers that they did not select), 8YY subscribers are likely paying higher rates than they otherwise would, even for legitimate 8YY traffic. We anticipate that, by correctly aligning carriers' incentives and pricing signals, bill-and-keep will lead to increased competition and “reduced quality-adjusted prices” for 8YY subscribers. In addition, we predict that moving to bill-and-keep will prompt “carriers [to] engage in substantial innovation to attract and retain” customers.

    40. We seek comment on these expectations and predictions. Are our proposed changes to the 8YY access charge regime likely to result in lower rates for 8YY subscribers? Will our proposed changes lead to more competition and innovation? In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission estimated that “incumbent LECs will, on average, pass through at least 50 percent of ICC savings to end users, while CMRS providers and competitive LECs will pass through at least 75 percent of these savings.” Should we expect similar passthrough levels by 8YY providers? Are there effects that resulted from the Commission's actions in the USF/ICC Transformation Order that might be instructive here?

    c. Encouraging the Transition to All-IP Services

    41. We seek comment on the extent to which our proposals will encourage the transition to all-IP services. We are concerned that the current compensation regime creates disincentives for carriers to transition to IP. For example, AT&T claims that “CLECs engaged in arbitrage are resisting agreements to exchange traffic in IP format because they are reluctant to relinquish high access revenues from originating 8YY traffic that would go to bill-and-keep under an IP arrangement.” Are other parties having similar experiences? Do other parties share AT&T's concerns that the current intercarrier compensation system is impeding the transition to all-IP services?

    42. There is no obvious justification for using tandem switches in an IP environment. As a result, carriers might be reluctant to transition to IP-based services because of concerns about lost intercarrier compensation revenues. We seek comment on this issue. Are there carriers that are reluctant to move to IP-based interconnection due to concerns about losing intercarrier compensation revenues? Will moving originating 8YY access charges—particularly tandem switching and transport charges—to bill-and-keep expedite the transition to IP services? Will it discipline prices? Will it improve network efficiency?

    d. Reducing Intercarrier Compensation Disputes

    43. We seek comment on the extent to which our proposals will reduce intercarrier compensation disputes. The Commission found in the USF/ICC Transformation Order that “bill-and-keep will . . . reduce ongoing call monitoring, intercarrier billing disputes, and contract enforcement efforts.” Similarly, we expect that by eliminating the incentives to abuse the intercarrier compensation system for 8YY traffic, our proposed reforms will allow carriers to reduce the resources they currently dedicate to monitoring their 8YY call traffic and disputing 8YY invoices.

    44. We invite comment on these expectations. What would be the monetary impact of such savings? Is there any reason that our proposed reforms would not reduce intercarrier disputes related to 8YY calls? Are there any other benefits that are likely to arise from moving most 8YY intercarrier compensation charges to bill-and-keep, in addition to the ones already discussed in this Notice?

    2. Alternative Proposal

    45. We recognize that our proposal to move all tandem switching and transport to bill-and-keep is a departure from the approach the Commission took in reforming terminating access charges. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted bill-and-keep for terminating tandem switching and transport only where the terminating price cap carrier owns the tandem. Accordingly, we invite comment on an alternative proposal to transition all originating interstate and intrastate end office 8YY access charges to bill-and-keep, but to move 8YY tandem switching and transport to bill-and-keep only where the originating carrier also owns the tandem. Under this approach, we propose to cap the mileage that carriers can charge for tandem switching and transport based on the number of miles between the originating end office and the nearest tandem in the same local access and transport area (LATA). As part of this alternative approach, we also propose to cap tandem switching and transport rates based on the rates charged by the incumbent LEC serving the LATA in which the call originates, without regard to the rates charged by the incumbent LEC serving the area where the tandem is located.

    46. We seek comment on whether this alternative proposal would adequately address abuses in the 8YY marketplace, including benchmarking abuse and mileage pumping. If we adopt this approach, what are the relative benefits compared to our proposed framework for transitioning all tandem switching and transport elements of originating toll free traffic to bill-and-keep? For example, under this alternative approach, would there be less need for revenue recovery? How would common ownership of the end office and tandem be determined? Should we determine ownership at the holding company level? Is there any reason that an originating LEC should not be deemed to “own” a tandem that is owned or operated by an affiliate of the originating LEC? Finally, we seek comment on the drawbacks of this alternative proposal, particularly relative to our proposal to adopt bill-and-keep as the default methodology for all 8YY originating access charges, without regard to who owns the tandem.

    B. Providing a Transition Period

    47. We propose to provide a three-year transition period for moving originating end office and tandem switching and transport access charges for 8YY calls to bill-and-keep. In proposing this transition, we acknowledge concerns that a “flash cut” to bill-and-keep might be “hugely disruptive for originating access providers and . . . could prompt `financial distress.' ” Adopting a glide path will allow providers to evaluate their cost recovery options and make any appropriate changes to their end-user rates to offset the loss of 8YY access payments.

    48. A three-year transition period would be consistent with the Commission's decision, in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, to adopt a glide path to a bill-and-keep methodology for many terminating access charges. That decision was prompted by a desire to “provide industry with certainty and sufficient time to adapt to a changed regulatory landscape.” As the Commission explained, “adopting a gradual glide path to a bill-and-keep methodology for intercarrier compensation generally . . . will help avoid market disruption to service providers and consumers” and “moderate potential adverse effects on consumers and carriers of moving too quickly.”

    49. We propose a three-step transition process that corresponds with the process for filing annual access tariffs, to become effective on July 1 of every year. Each step will last one year and apply to all LECs that tariff rates related to originating 8YY calls. The rules will apply directly to incumbent LECs, including both rate-of-return carriers and price cap LECs, and will apply to competitive LECs through the continuing application of the existing benchmarking rule. At the first step, to become effective on July 1 of the base year, we propose to require carriers to reduce all interstate and intrastate originating end office and tandem switching and transport tariffed rates for 8YY calls by one-third. At the second step, one year later, we propose to require carriers to further reduce their originating end office and tandem switching and transport rates for 8YY calls by an additional one-third. At the third and final step, two years after the base year filing, we propose to require carriers to move their tariffed rates for originating 8YY end office and tandem switching and transport to bill-and-keep. We seek comment on this proposal.

    50. Do commenters have concerns about the adoption of a transition period? Should we adopt different transition periods for originating end office access charges and for tandem switching and transport charges? If so, why and what should they be? Will our proposed transition adequately address concerns about problems associated with a flash cut? Conversely, would a shorter transition of 8YY traffic to bill-and-keep help speed the transition to IP services? Would the proposed transition impact some carriers differently than others? Are there any other aspects of 8YY traffic flow that we should address when we consider a transition period? We also seek comment on our proposed rules for effectuating this proposal. Do the proposed rules provide sufficient guidance for implementing our proposed transition period? Are there additional issues that we should address in the proposed rules to avoid confusion during implementation?

    51. Consistent with the rules the Commission adopted to implement the transition to bill-and-keep for terminating end office access services in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, we propose to require carriers to first convert their originating 8YY access charges to single composite per-minute rates for each of the four categories of services being transitioned (interstate originating end office access, intrastate originating end office access, interstate originating tandem switched transport access, and intrastate originating tandem switched transport access). Our proposed rules require LECs to calculate their baseline rates—which will be the starting point for the rate reductions described above—by dividing their baseline revenues from a particular category of access charges (e.g., interstate originating end office access charges for toll free calls) by the corresponding minutes of use for that category. We seek comment on this proposed approach. What lessons can be learned from implementation of the transition to bill-and-keep for terminating end office access services that we should apply here? Would this approach be reasonably straightforward to implement? Are there potential gaming or other implementation concerns about which we should be concerned?

    52. In the alternative, should we require LECs to reduce all rate elements for originating end office and tandem switching and transport for toll free calls by one-third the first year, by an additional one-third the second year, and to bill-and-keep the third year? Would such an approach be simpler for carriers to implement from a tariffing and billing perspective? Does it make any difference to the carriers paying these access charges whether the transition involves composite rates? What are the advantages and disadvantages to one approach as compared to the other? Are there potential gaming or other implementation concerns about which we should be concerned if we adopt this three-year transition approach?

    53. Unlike the rules the Commission adopted in the Transformation Order, our proposed rules do not specifically address the treatment of fixed charges (e.g., non-recurring charges and some monthly recurring charges, such as those billed on a per-DS1 or per-DS3 basis). We seek comment on whether we should address such charges in connection with toll free calls by, for example, requiring LECs to allocate their fixed charges between 8YY and non-8YY calls. Or, should we bring per-minute charges related to originating toll free calls to bill-and-keep but defer action on fixed charges until we address originating access charges more broadly outside of the toll free context? Does the answer to this question depend on whether we require LECs to adopt composite rates as part of the transition of 8YY originating access charges to bill-and-keep?

    54. If we decide to include fixed charges as part of our reforms of originating access charges for 8YY calls, should we dictate a specific methodology for allocating such charges between toll free and other originating traffic? If so, how should the rules allocate fixed charges between 8YY and non-8YY calls? In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission directed carriers to allocate fifty percent of their fixed charges to terminating access and fifty percent to originating access. Should we take a similar approach here and direct LECs to allocate half of their fixed charges for originating access to toll free traffic? Or should a greater percentage of fixed charges be allocated to toll free originating traffic, particularly given that filings in the record suggest that toll free calls account for significantly more than half of all originating access minutes billed to IXCs? In the alternative, should we allow LECs to allocate based on their particular traffic data, but establish a default allocation for carriers that lack sufficient information regarding their traffic data? If we establish a default allocation, should the percentage be fifty percent allocated to 8YY calls? Or should the percentage be different?

    55. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission modified the CLEC benchmarking rule and adopted “a limited allowance of additional time to make tariff filings during the transition period” in order “to ensure smooth operation of our transition” to bill-and-keep. We seek comment on whether a similar allowance is warranted here. For example, should we allow competitive LECs that benchmark their originating 8YY access charges to a competing incumbent LEC an additional 15 days from the effective date of the tariff to which a competitive LEC is benchmarking to make its modified tariff filing? Would such an allowance be necessary if we adopted our alternative proposal and required LECs to reduce their individual rate elements for toll free calls rather than converting their existing charges to composite per-minute rates? If all LECs were required to reduce their originating access rates for 8YY calls by the same proportions, would it be necessary to give competitive LECs additional time after incumbent LECs file their tariffs to come into compliance with the proposed reductions? We invite comments on these issues, as well as any other suggested modifications to the application of the CLEC benchmarking rule during the transition period, based on lessons learned during the transition to bill-and-keep for terminating access charges.

    56. We seek comment on any costs and burdens on small entities associated with the proposed rule, including data quantifying the extent of those costs or burdens. We also invite suggested modifications to the proposed transition. Are there other issues we should consider? Are there lessons learned during the transition to bill-and-keep for terminating access charges that should inform our approach here? Any alternative approaches should also be supported by data and other evidence showing their relative advantages and disadvantages. We welcome specific comments on the language and the potential impact of the proposed rules accompanying this item.

    C. Revenue Recovery

    57. Some commenters express concerns about the financial impact of moving 8YY calls to bill-and-keep and argue that some carriers may need a source of revenue recovery to mitigate the impact of lost access revenues. Other commenters express concern that moving originating access for 8YY calls to bill-and-keep might deter consumers from making toll free calls. The latter concerns appear to be based on an assumption that carriers will directly bill consumers for originating 8YY access on a per-call or per-minute basis. We do not propose that carriers should recover any lost revenue through 8YY-specific charges, whether billed per-call, per-minute, or on a flat-rated monthly basis. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the way most customers are billed for voice services today (e.g., flat-rated, unlimited calling plans). We seek comment on whether there are additional steps we should take to address concerns that our proposed reforms might discourage legitimate 8YY calls.

    58. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted a transitional recovery mechanism to partially mitigate revenue reductions incumbent LECs would experience because of these intercarrier compensation reform measures. The recovery mechanism had two basic components. First, the Commission defined the revenue incumbent LECs were eligible to recover—referred to as “Eligible Recovery.” The Eligible Recovery calculation was different for price cap carriers and rate-of-return carriers, with the rate-of-return calculation based on a more complex formula, which included such carriers' 2011 interstate switched access revenue requirement. Second, the Commission specified that incumbent LECs may recover Eligible Recovery through limited end-user charges, and, where eligible, and a carrier elects to receive it, support from the CAF. The recovery mechanism differed between price cap carriers and rate-of-return carriers, with CAF ICC support for price cap carriers eventually phasing out, but no similar sunset for rate-of return carriers. The Commission declined to permit competitive LECs to participate in the recovery mechanism, explaining that, because competitive LECs lack market power for the provision of these services, they were free to recover reduced access revenue through regular end-user charges.

    59. More recently, in the Technology Transitions Order, the Commission concluded that incumbent LECs, like competitive LECs, are “non-dominant in their provision of interstate switched access services.” Accordingly, incumbent LECs, like competitive LECs, should be able to recover revenues they may lose as a result of our proposals directly from their end users, subject only to the discipline of the market. This is similar to the approach the Commission took with competitive LECs in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, and to the approach the Commission adopted with CMRS providers. When those providers were transitioned to bill-and-keep, the Commission did not provide any revenue recovery mechanisms. Instead, the Commission relied on the competitive market to determine whether, and how much, those providers could increase their rates to recover any revenues lost due to the transition to bill-and-keep.

    60. We seek comment on whether incumbent LECs, like competitive LECs, should be able to recover their lost access charge revenues from their end users. Should the market determine whether any rate increases are reasonable? Is there any reason consumers would not be able to switch providers—for example, moving from a wireline LEC to a wireless provider—if their existing carrier charges too much for its services? Is there any reason LECs cannot adjust their end-user rates to recover revenues they may lose due to our proposed changes to the intercarrier compensation regime for originating 8YY calls? Should we provide any additional revenue recovery? For example, should we allow incumbent LECs to recover lost revenue through mechanisms, such as the Access Recovery Charge (ARC)? Why would carriers need to rely on ARCs if they are nondominant in the provision of the originating switched access services at issue here? If we allow carriers to recover lost revenues through ARCs, would we need to raise the Residential Rate Ceiling, which currently prohibits providers from imposing an ARC on any consumer paying an inclusive local monthly phone rate of $30 or more, in order to allow sufficient revenue recovery? Would we need to increase the existing cap on ARCs? Are there other issues to consider if we allow price cap carriers and competitive LECs to rely on increased ARCs? Are there any regulatory barriers that might impede incumbent LECs' ability to recover a reasonable amount of lost revenue from their end users? Are there any state or local regulations that would prevent LECs from raising their end-user rates to recover reasonable lost revenues related to intrastate 8YY calls?

    61. We also propose to exclude from any recovery mechanism revenues generated by illegitimate or unlawful 8YY calls, such as those involving autodialed calls to toll free numbers, because it would be unreasonable for a LEC to rely on access revenues generated by such calls. We seek comment on this issue. We also seek comment on how we should determine which portion of originating carriers' 8YY revenues are legitimate for purposes of establishing the need for revenue recovery. Do we need to make any determinations regarding what revenues LECs should reasonably be allowed to recover from their end users, or can we rely on the competitive market to discipline carriers' switched access rates?

    62. Rate-of-return carriers. While we propose to allow rate-of-return carriers to recover their legitimate 8YY costs through reasonable increases in end-user rates—though not through new line items—we recognize that many rate-of-return carriers, particularly those serving rural areas, already require CAF ICC support to keep end-user rates at acceptable levels. We seek detailed comment on the effect transitioning originating 8YY charges to bill-and-keep will have on rural and high-cost areas. Would rate-of-return carriers be disproportionately affected compared to price cap and competitive LECs? For example, for rate-of-return carriers, what proportion of originating access revenues are attributable to 8YY calls? Does this proportion differ significantly from that of price cap carriers? What effect would our existing rate-averaging and rate-integration rules have on our proposed reforms? We seek comment on the need for originating LECs to replace the revenues they currently obtain from 8YY calls. We urge commenters, whenever possible, to provide quantifiable data or evidence supporting their views.

    63. We also seek comment on whether we should provide rate-of-return carriers additional CAF ICC support to help cover the costs of originating 8YY access or to replace some or all of the revenue such carriers currently earn from originating access on legitimate 8YY calls. Would using CAF ICC support in this manner comport with the Commission's mandate under section 254 to advance universal service through “specific, predictable and sufficient” mechanisms?

    D. Limiting Database Query Charges 1. Adopting a Uniform Cap

    64. According to at least one commenter, database query charges comprise a significant proportion of the charges IXCs currently pay to originating LECs for 8YY calls. From the originating carrier's perspective, the database query is a cost a LEC must incur in order to route an 8YY call to the proper IXC, either by maintaining its own SCP database or by paying a third-party SCP for the database query.

    65. Nonetheless, we recognize the need to rein in any unreasonable charges for database queries. IXCs point out that 8YY database query rates vary widely among carriers and are typically untethered from the costs incurred in querying a database. We propose to address concerns about excessive and irrationally priced rates for database query charges by capping those charges nationwide at the lowest rate currently charged by any price cap LEC. We also propose to allow only one database query charge per 8YY call.

    66. We invite comment on these proposals. In this item, we do not propose to move database query charges to bill-and-keep. Are there reasons that we should consider doing so immediately? Should we revisit that question after a set period of time? Are there harms that might arise if we moved other elements of originating access for 8YY to bill-and-keep, before we moved database query charges to bill-and-keep? We also seek comment on alternative methods of ensuring that database dip charges are just and reasonable.

    67. Is the proposed cap on database query charges reasonable? Should we adopt a transition period for carriers to lower their rates to the proposed cap? If so, how should we structure such a transition period? Should we adopt a firm cap, as we propose, or should we establish a rebuttable presumption that rates above a certain threshold are presumptively unjust and unreasonable? Should we provide a specific waiver process for carriers that can demonstrate that their costs for database queries exceed the national cap? Should we build in automatic reductions to the permissible data base query charge to account for improvements in technology? If so, what amounts and over what timeframe? Conversely, should we allow adjustments to any rate caps to account for inflation? Does this proposal create the proper incentives for carriers to minimize access costs and route 8YY traffic as efficiently as possible? We also seek comment on any costs and burdens on small entities associated with this proposal, including data quantifying the extent of those costs or burdens.

    2. Determining the Appropriate Cap

    68. AT&T alleges that query rates currently range from $0.0015 to $0.015 per query, and that rates can vary widely even among corporate affiliates. We seek comment and additional data on the variability of 8YY database query rates. Do the rate examples provided by AT&T accurately reflect carriers' rates for database queries? We recognize that the rates were capped at their then-current levels by the adoption of the USF/ICC Transformation Order, but we seek comment on the underlying reason for the extreme variability in rates for database queries. Are these rates reflective of the costs carriers incur in providing database dip services? Do querying costs vary by geographic region? Do query rates (or costs) vary by the type of customer? How do incumbent LECs set their database query rates? What impact have high database query rates had on IXCs and 8YY subscribers?

    69. Evidence provided by AT&T indicates that the lowest rate currently charged by a price cap LEC is $0.0015 per query, charged by CenturyTel. Is this correct? If so, is there any reason this rate should not serve as a nationwide cap for all 8YY database query charges? Are rates above $0.0015 per query unjust and unreasonable? Is there any reason to believe this rate is below the cost of querying the database? Inteliquent observes that,

    [r]ate structures between incumbent local exchange carriers trade off non-recurring setup charges, monthly recurring interconnect charges, 8YY query charge, per minute of use switching charges, and per minute per mile transport charges. For example, although some carriers charge a materially higher non-recurring set up charge or monthly recurring interconnect charge, those higher rates typically are offset by a lower per minute of use switching charge. Similarly, the 8YY DIP query charge may be high because the switched per minute of use charge is low, and vice versa.

    70. Is this a correct representation of how LECs allocate their charges? Is there any reason to believe that CenturyTel's rate of $0.0015 is artificially low because CenturyTel allocates some database dip costs to other originating charges? Should we consider a cap based on the average or median rates currently charged by LECs?

    71. What infrastructure is necessary to conduct a database query? How expensive is it to become an SCP owner/operator? How many SCP owner/operators are there? Is the market for database queries competitive? We encourage commenters to provide detailed information about the rates SCP's charge for database dips, the costs LECs incur in connecting to SCPs, and any other costs associated with database queries. Are there economies of scale associated with database dips?

    72. We understand that Somos is offering a new product—RouteLink, which “provides direct access to authoritative Toll-Free data,” thus eliminating any need for an SCP intermediary. How many carriers, Responsible Organizations (“RespOrgs”), or other entities use Somos's RouteLink? What advantages does RouteLink provide compared to other ways to connect to Somos's database? What effect, if any, does the introduction of RouteLink have on what constitutes a reasonable rate for database queries?

    3. One Dip per Call

    73. Regarding our proposal to limit carriers to one database query charge per call, we recognize that the Commission has previously declined to impose such a requirement on LECs. Instead, the Commission deferred the matter to an industry association, the Ordering and Billing Forum of the Exchange Carrier Standards Association. Did this Association take any action on database query charges? Should the Commission act now, given the current concerns about carriers billing IXCs for more than one query per call? Specifically, we seek comment on whether billing for more than one query charge per 8YY call is an unjust and unreasonable practice, even if the duplicative queries are performed by different carriers in the call chain. Is there any legitimate reason that an IXC should reasonably be expected to pay for multiple database queries in connection with a single 8YY call?

    E. Legal Authority

    74. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission determined that it had the authority to comprehensively reform intercarrier compensation and move all interstate and intrastate access charges to bill-and-keep, explaining that “the legal authority to adopt the bill-and-keep methodology described herein applies to all intercarrier compensation traffic.” Pursuant to this authority, the Commission adopted bill-and-keep as the end state for all traffic exchanged between carriers and adopted a glide path toward that methodology for all terminating access charges.

    75. The Commission's actions in the USF/ICC Transformation Order were upheld on appeal, including the Commission's decision to prescribe bill-and-keep as the default methodology for intercarrier compensation for various categories of traffic. The Court specifically rejected challenges to Commission's regulation of originating charges, noting that the FCC's inclusion of originating access charges in its reform effort was “reasonable” and entitled to deference.

    76. Our statutory authority to implement changes to pricing methodology governing the exchange of traffic with LECs flows directly from sections 251(b)(5) and 201(b) of the Act. Section 251(b)(5) states that LECs have a “duty to establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and termination of telecommunications.” In addition to providing the substantive authority for various rules and requirements, the Supreme Court in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, held that “the grant in § 201(b) means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the `provisions of this Act,' which include §§ 251 and 252.”

    77. In addition to our authority to reform originating 8YY access charges, we also have authority to establish a transition plan for moving toward that ultimate objective in a manner that will minimize market disruptions. Indeed, the Commission's pre-existing regimes for establishing reciprocal compensation rates for section 251(b)(5) traffic have been upheld as lawful, and can be applied to originating 8YY traffic, as provided by our transitional intercarrier compensation rules related to “ultimately phasing down” originating access charges. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “[w]hen necessary to avoid excessively burdening carriers, the gradual implementation of new rates and policies is a standard tool of the Commission,” and the transition “may certainly be accomplished gradually to permit the affected carriers, subscribers and state regulators to adjust to the new pricing system, thus preserving the efficient operation of the interstate telephone network during the interim.”

    78. We invite comment on our legal authority to adopt the changes to the 8YY intercarrier compensation system that we are proposing in this Notice. Is there any reason that the precedents cited above would not apply to our current proposals? Does the Commission have the authority to create a revenue recovery mechanism and to cap database query charges as part of its reform of 8YY originating access? Does the Commission have the authority to make these changes pursuant to one or more different statutory provisions, other than sections 201(b) and 251(b)(5)?

    F. Related Issues 1. Role of Intermediate Providers

    79. To better inform our reform efforts, we seek comment on the role intermediate providers, such as third-party tandem providers, or other providers that are interposed in the call path between an originating carrier and 8YY providers, play in the 8YY market. We also seek comment on how wireless 8YY calls have been affected by the fact that CMRS providers cannot charge originating access charges.

    80. Several parties express frustration with certain practices employed by intermediate providers in the 8YY call flow. In particular, some carriers complain about the role intermediate providers play in facilitating abuses of the 8YY intercarrier compensation system. We seek comment on whether intermediate providers perform a legitimate function that should be preserved. Once originating 8YY traffic moves to bill-and-keep, we expect the market will determine how much, if anything, aggregators or other “middlemen” should be paid for their services (including database queries). Should the Commission provide any regulations or guidance regarding the offering of these services or compensation for these services? Or can we rely on the marketplace?

    2. Network Edge

    81. Although we have issued a separate Public Notice to refresh the record on other intercarrier compensation issues, including the network edge, we seek comment on whether the network edge requires a distinct approach in the 8YY context, particularly in a scenario where an IXC seeks a direct connection for 8YY originating traffic. Parties argue that some carriers take advantage of the Commission's current rules by specifying inefficient transport routes for 8YY traffic. Should originating carriers be allowed to specify a certain transport route, particularly if they are financially responsible for the transport? Should we develop separate rules for certain locations (e.g., Alaska) with respect to 8YY traffic? What role, if any, should states continue to play in determining the network edge for 8YY traffic?

    3. Traffic Imbalances

    82. Some parties argue that bill-and-keep is inappropriate for toll free calls because the traffic flow is unbalanced, i.e., 8YY subscribers are unlikely to call consumers and, therefore, the traffic always flows from the consumer to the 8YY subscriber. These arguments do not strike us as persuasive. As the Commission explained in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, “both parties generally benefit from participating in a call, and therefore . . . both parties should split the cost of the call.” This reasoning applies to 8YY calls. If callers did not benefit from placing an 8YY call, then we would expect to see a decline in demand for 8YY numbers as well as in volume of 8YY calls, especially as more and more consumers have moved to wireless-only methods of telecommunications. This is not the case, however, as demand for 8YY numbers appears to be growing, as do minutes of use. Thus, it is clear that 8YY calls confer some benefit not only to the 8YY subscriber, but also to the calling party.

    83. Indeed, the Commission has previously “reject[ed] claims that, as a policy matter, bill-and-keep is only appropriate in the case of roughly balanced traffic.” We continue to reject such claims and reiterate that “bill-and-keep is most consistent with the models used for wireless and IP networks, models that have flourished and promoted innovation and investment without any symmetry or balanced traffic requirement.” Nonetheless, we seek comment on whether there is a legitimate reason to find that traffic imbalances make 8YY calls ill-suited for bill-and-keep.

    4. CMRS Providers

    84. We do not include CMRS providers in our proposals because wireless carriers are already subject to bill-and-keep for 8YY calls and their end-user rates remain largely unregulated. We seek comment on whether there are any CMRS-related issues we need to address in this proceeding. Have CMRS providers been able to meet their revenue needs for originating 8YY calls through pre-existing end-user charges? If not, what other mechanisms have CMRS providers used to meet their revenue needs related to originating 8YY calls?

    85. Some commenters assert that CMRS providers collect revenue for originating 8YY calls pursuant to revenue sharing arrangements with intermediate providers. We seek comment on this allegation. Are there wireless carriers that refuse to connect directly with other providers in order to facilitate revenue sharing arrangements? If so, how prevalent is this practice? What rationale do wireless providers use for refusing direct connection? How are 8YY access charges and database dips affected by a refusal of direct connection?

    86. We also seek comment on what lessons we can learn from the wireless experience with bill-and-keep as we reform originating access for wireline 8YY calls. What is the typical call path for wireless 8YY calls? Does it differ materially from the call path for wireline 8YY calls? Have wireless rates increased to account for access costs for which CMRS providers cannot charge other carriers? If so, how large have these rate increases been? Has competition effectively disciplined CMRS providers' ability to increase their rates to account for “lost” access charge revenues?

    5. Unintended Consequences

    87. Although we expect our proposals to bring numerous benefits to both carriers and end users, we do not want to overlook any potentially negative unintended consequences that could result from our proposed reforms. We therefore seek comment on the potential risks related to our proposals.

    a. Potential Effects on Consumers

    88. Some commenters object that moving 8YY calls to bill-and-keep would undermine consumer expectations that 8YY calls are “free” to the calling party. Other parties counter that, “from the beginning,” the term “toll-free” has meant that “the caller doesn't pay tolli.e., long distance—charges, not that the caller's monthly charge on his or her local bill will never change.” Under our proposal, 8YY calls will remain “toll free” because originating callers will not be charged for the long-distance portion of the call. Nonetheless, we seek comment on whether 8YY calls will continue to meet consumers' expectations of “toll free.” Would it still be accurate to label these calls “toll free” since the long distance, or “toll” portion of the call would be free to the caller and paid by the 8YY subscriber?

    89. Some carriers claim they will need to educate their customers if toll free calls are no longer “free.” Would any consumer education be necessary or appropriate if we were to adopt our proposals? Do consumers need to be informed of the change in our originating access charge regime for 8YY calls? If so, what would it cost to disseminate such information? Who should bear the costs of educating consumers about these changes? Is there any merit to claims that transitioning 8YY to bill-and-keep would leave providers open to “false advertising” claims because “toll free” calls will not be completely free? Are there any other possible negative consequences for consumers resulting from transitioning 8YY traffic to bill-and-keep?

    b. Potential Effects on 8YY Subscribers

    90. Some commenters argue that moving originating 8YY access charges to bill-and-keep would harm 8YY subscribers, because consumers will be reluctant to place 8YY calls. Despite these concerns, the largest toll free subscribers appear to favor transitioning 8YY traffic to bill-and-keep. Would our proposed reforms disproportionately affect some 8YY subscribers more than others? From the 8YY subscriber perspective, do the benefits of transitioning to bill-and-keep outweigh the adverse consequences from it?

    91. What is the proportion of the originating 8YY access charges (including end office, tandem switching and transport) to the remaining 8YY charges that 8YY subscribers pay, on average? Will 8YY subscribers continue to pay a larger proportion of the total costs of an 8YY call, or will the callers be responsible for the larger share? Will this calculus vary by geography?

    92. We also note that, despite evidence of abuse, 8YY numbers continue to be in high demand. What factors explain this dynamic? It is our understanding that this growth in demand is at least partially due to businesses using 8YY numbers in new ways, such as call tracking to determine which advertisements generate the most responses. Will the transition to bill-and-keep reduce the benefits of 8YY calls?

    c. Other Consequences

    93. In this Notice, we propose to move 8YY originating end office and tandem switching and transport charges to bill-and-keep before reforming the remaining rate elements not yet affected by changes in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, including non-8YY originating traffic. Would doing so create new opportunities for abuses of the intercarrier compensation system, or shift abuses to other forms of originating access? If so, how? How would our proposed changes affect network efficiency?

    94. Are there any other possible unintended negative consequences of our proposals? Would our proposed reforms result in call completion issues, as predicted by some commenters? Would they “lead smaller competitors to exit all or part of the market?”

    6. Additional Proposals for Reform

    95. We invite parties to propose additional, or alternative, methods for reforming originating 8YY access charges. We also seek comment on proposals already in the record. We encourage commenters to consider how any proposal would reduce abusive practices related to 8YY calls. We particularly invite comparison of the relative benefits and drawbacks of these proposals compared to the proposals we have set forth in the Notice.

    IV. Rule Revisions

    96. We seek comment on the rule changes proposed in Appendix A. Among other changes, we propose to add new definitions for the following terms: Baseline Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls, Baseline Composite Interstate Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls, Baseline Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls, Baseline Composite Intrastate Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls, Database Query Charge, and Toll Free Call. The proposed rules also discuss the proposed transition of originating access charges for toll free calls to bill-and-keep, proposed new limitations on database query charges for toll free calls, and proposed modifications to the CLEC benchmarking rules. What, if any, other rule additions or modifications would need to be made to codify these proposals? Are there any conforming rule changes that commenters consider necessary? Are there any conflicts or inconsistencies between existing rules and those proposed herein? We ask commenters to provide any other proposed actions and rule additions or modifications we should consider to address the issues regarding 8YY calls described in this Notice including updates to any relevant comments or proposals made in response to the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, and the June 29, 2017 Public Notice.

    V. Procedural Matters

    97. Filing Instructions. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    98. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    99. Ex Parte Requirements. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    100. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    101. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and actions considered in this Notice. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    102. Contact Person. For further information about this proceeding, please contact Irina Asoskov, FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, Room 5-A235, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-2196, [email protected]

    VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    103. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

    A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    104. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted a bill-and-keep framework—under which a carrier generally looks to its end users to pay for its network costs—“as the default methodology for all intercarrier compensation traffic.” In the FNPRM portion of that item, the Commission also sought comment on additional steps to implement a bill-and-keep cost recovery mechanism for certain access charges and sought comment on outstanding issues subject to reform in the future, including originating access charges and cost recovery for toll free (8YY) calls. In this FNPRM, we propose transitioning interstate and intrastate originating end office and tandem switching and transport charges for 8YY traffic to bill-and-keep, consistent with the Commission's reforms and policy directives in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. In the FNPRM we also propose capping database query charges associated with 8YY calls. We also propose amending our rules to limit charges to one database query per 8YY call. The FNPRM also asks for comment on various issues related to the 8YY network generally and 8YY cost recovery specifically.

    B. Legal Basis

    105. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this Notice is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-206, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-206, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), and 403.

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    106. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

    107. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry-specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 28.8 million businesses. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations, based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 37,132 General Purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184 Special Purpose governments (independent school districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government category show that the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data, we estimate that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

    108. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

    109. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. The Commission therefore estimates that most providers of local exchange carrier service are small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules.

    110. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted. Three hundred and seven (307) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees.

    111. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined above. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider services. Of these, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, the Commission estimates that most Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.

    112. We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

    113. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined above. The applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to internally developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities.

    114. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year, all of which operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, all of these resellers can be considered small entities.

    115. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities.

    116. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of IXCs, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined above. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be considered small. According to internally developed Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be affected by the rules proposed in the Notice.

    117. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a definition for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the Commission's Form 499 Filer Database, 500 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. The Commission does not have data regarding how many of these 500 companies have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 500 or fewer prepaid calling card providers that may be affected by the rules proposed in the Notice.

    118. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry is comprised of establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities.

    119. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees that may be affected by our proposed rules. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

    120. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions.

    121. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, a little less than two thirds of these entities can be considered small.

    122. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” industry is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Thus a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small.

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    123. In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks public comment on additional steps to complete its intercarrier compensation reform regarding toll free or 8YY calls. The transition to complete the reform of new intercarrier compensation rules could affect all carriers, including small entities, and may include new administrative processes. In proposing these reforms, we seek comment on various reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements that may apply to all carriers, including small entities. We seek comment on any costs and burdens on small entities associated with the proposed rules, including data quantifying the extent of those costs or burdens. These issues include the appropriate path or transition to move 8YY originating access charges to bill-and-keep and on the appropriate recovery of 8YY database costs. We also seek data to analyze the effects of proposed reforms and need for revenue recovery.

    124. Compliance with a transition to a new system for 8YY originating access may impact some small entities and may include new or reduced administrative processes. For carriers that may be affected, obligations may include certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements to determine and establish their eligibility to receive recovery from other sources as 8YY originating access revenue is reduced. Modifications to the rules to address potential arbitrage opportunities will affect certain carriers, potentially including small entities. However, these impacts are mitigated by the certainty and reduced litigation that should occur as a result of the reforms adopted. The FNPRM seeks comment on several issues relating to bill-and-keep implementation for 8YY originating access as well as cost recovery for 8YY database dips. The FNPRM also seeks comment on how reduced intercarrier compensation revenues in the future would impact carriers, and how recovery, if any, for those reduced revenues should be addressed. The Commission asks if the recovery approach adopted should be different depending on the type of carrier or regulation.

    E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    125. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives it has considered to the proposed rule which minimize any significant impact on small entities. These alternatives may include (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.

    126. This FNPRM invites comment on a number of proposals and alternatives to modify or adopt 8YY originating access and database dip rules. As a general matter, actions taken as a result of our actions should benefit all service providers, including small entities, by providing greater regulatory certainty and by moving toward the Commission's goal of bill-and-keep for all access charges. In the FNPRM, we encourage small entities to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns that they have, including on any issues or measures that may apply to small entities in a unique fashion. We especially encourage commenters to discuss the proposed transitional recovery mechanism to help transition LECs away from existing revenues. Our proposed tailored approach to transitional recovery is designed to balance the different circumstances facing the different carrier types and provide all carriers with necessary predictability, certainty, and stability to transition from the current intercarrier compensation system. The FNPRM also seeks comment on other actions the Commission could take to further discourage or eliminate abuse of the intercarrier compensation regime that governs 8YY calls. Finally, we seek comment on alternatives to our proposals that we should consider to achieve our objectives with less impact on small entities.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

    127. None.

    I. Ordering Clauses

    128. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-206, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-206, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 403, and § 1.1 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

    129. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before September 4, 2018 and reply comments on or before October 1, 2018.

    130. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 51 and 61

    Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 51 and 61 as follows:

    PART 51—INTERCONNECTION 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.

    2. Revise § 51.903 to read as follows:
    § 51.903 Definitions.

    (a) Access Reciprocal Compensation means telecommunications traffic exchanged between telecommunications service providers that is interstate or intrastate exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access, other than special access.

    (b) Baseline Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls means originating End Office Access Service billed revenue from interstate Toll Free Calls for [Base Year − 1] divided by end office switching interstate Toll Free calling minutes for [Base Year − 1].

    (c) Baseline Composite Interstate Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls means originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service billed revenue from interstate Toll Free Calls for [Base Year − 1] divided by tandem-switched interstate Toll Free calling minutes for [Base Year − 1].

    (d) Baseline Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls means originating End Office Access Service billed revenue from intrastate Toll Free Calls for [Base Year − 1] divided by end office switching intrastate Toll Free calling minutes for [Base Year − 1].

    (e) Baseline Composite Intrastate Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls means originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service billed revenue from intrastate Toll Free Calls for [Base Year − 1] divided by tandem-switched intrastate Toll Free calling minutes for [Base Year − 1].

    (f) Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. A Competitive Local Exchange Carrier is any local exchange carrier, as defined in § 51.5, that is not an incumbent local exchange carrier.

    (g) Composite Terminating End Office Access Rate means terminating End Office Access Service revenue, calculated using demand for a given time period, divided by end office switching minutes for the same time period.

    (h) Database Query Charge means a charge that is expressed in dollars and cents that an originating carrier or tandem switch provider assesses upon an interexchange carrier for obtaining routing information for a Toll Free Call and includes any charges for signaling or transport services used to obtain such routing information.

    (i) Dedicated Transport Access Service means originating and terminating transport on circuits dedicated to the use of a single carrier or other customer provided by an incumbent local exchange carrier or any functional equivalent of the incumbent local exchange carrier access service provided by a non-incumbent local exchange carrier. Dedicated Transport Access Service rate elements for an incumbent local exchange carrier include the entrance facility rate elements specified in § 69.110 of this chapter, the dedicated transport rate elements specified in § 69.111 of this chapter, the direct-trunked transport rate elements specified in § 69.112 of this chapter, and the intrastate rate elements for functionally equivalent access services. Dedicated Transport Access Service rate elements for a non-incumbent local exchange carrier include any functionally equivalent access services.

    (j) End Office Access Service means:

    (1) The switching of access traffic at the carrier's end office switch and the delivery to or from of such traffic to the called party's premises;

    (2) The routing of interexchange telecommunications traffic to or from the called party's premises, either directly or via contractual or other arrangements with an affiliated or unaffiliated entity, regardless of the specific functions provided or facilities used; or

    (3) Any functional equivalent of the incumbent local exchange carrier access service provided by a non-incumbent local exchange carrier. End Office Access Service rate elements for an incumbent local exchange carrier include the local switching rate elements specified in § 69.106 of this chapter, the carrier common line rate elements specified in § 69.154 of this chapter, and the intrastate rate elements for functionally equivalent access services. End Office Access Service rate elements for an incumbent local exchange carrier also include any rate elements assessed on local switching access minutes, including the information surcharge and residual rate elements. End office Access Service rate elements for a non-incumbent local exchange carrier include any functionally equivalent access service.

    Note to paragraph (j):

    For incumbent local exchange carriers, residual rate elements may include, for example, state Transport Interconnection Charges, Residual Interconnection Charges, and PICCs. For non-incumbent local exchange carriers, residual rate elements may include any functionally equivalent access service.

    (k) Fiscal Year 2011 means October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.

    (l) Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier means a Price Cap Carrier or Rate-of-Return Carrier.

    (m) Price Cap Carrier has the same meaning as that term is defined in § 61.3(aa) of this chapter.

    (n) Rate-of-Return Carrier is any incumbent local exchange carrier not subject to price cap regulation as that term is defined in § 61.3(aa) of this chapter, but only with respect to the territory in which it operates as an incumbent local exchange carrier.

    (o) Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service means:

    (1) Tandem switching and common transport between the tandem switch and end office; or

    (2) Any functional equivalent of the incumbent local exchange carrier access service provided by a non-incumbent local exchange carrier via other facilities. Tandem-Switched Transport rate elements for an incumbent local exchange carrier include the rate elements specified in § 69.111 of this chapter, except for the dedicated transport rate elements specified in that section, and intrastate rate elements for functionally equivalent service. Tandem Switched Transport Access Service rate elements for a non-incumbent local exchange carrier include any functionally equivalent access service.

    (p) Toll Free Call means a call to a toll free number, as defined in § 52.101(f) of this subchapter.

    (q) Transitional Intrastate Access Service means terminating End Office Access Service that was subject to intrastate access rates as of December 31, 2011; terminating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service that was subject to intrastate access rates as of December 31, 2011; and originating and terminating Dedicated Transport Access Service that was subject to intrastate access rates as of December 31, 2011.

    3. Add § 51.921 to Subpart J to read as follows:
    § 51.921 Transition of Originating Access Charges for Toll Free Calls.

    (a) Effective [July 1, base year], notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's rules, each Incumbent LEC shall calculate:

    (1) A single per-minute Baseline Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls for each state in which it provides such service;

    (2) A single per-minute Baseline Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls;

    (3) A single per-minute Baseline Composite Intrastate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls for each state in which it provides such service; and

    (4) A single per-minute Baseline Composite Interstate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (b) Step 1. Beginning July 1, [base year], notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's rules:

    (1) Each Incumbent LEC shall establish rates for intrastate originating End Office Access Service for Toll Free Calls in each state in which it provides such service using the following methodology:

    (i) Each Incumbent LEC shall calculate its [base year] Target Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls. The [base year] Target Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls means two-thirds of the Baseline Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (ii) Beginning [July 1, base year], a LEC is prohibited from filing an intrastate access tariff that includes an Originating End Office Rate for intrastate Toll Free Calls that exceeds its [base year] Target Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls for that particular state.

    (2) Each Incumbent LEC shall establish rates for interstate originating End Office Access Service for Toll Free Calls using the following methodology:

    (i) Each Incumbent LEC shall calculate its [base year] Target Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls. The [base year] Target Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls means two-thirds of the Baseline Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (ii) Beginning [July 1, base year], a LEC is prohibited from filing an interstate access tariff that includes an Originating End Office Rate for interstate Toll Free Calls that exceeds its [base year] Target Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (3) Each Incumbent LEC shall establish rates for intrastate originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service for Toll Free Calls in each state in which it provides such service using the following methodology:

    (i) Each Incumbent LEC shall calculate its [base year] Target Composite Intrastate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls. The [base year] Target Composite Intrastate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls means two-thirds of the Baseline Composite Intrastate Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (ii) Beginning [July 1, base year], a LEC is prohibited from filing an intrastate access tariff that includes an originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for intrastate Toll Free Calls that exceeds its [base year] Target Composite Intrastate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls for that particular state.

    (4) Each Incumbent LEC shall establish rates for interstate originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service for Toll Free Calls using the following methodology:

    (i) Each Incumbent LEC shall calculate its [base year] Target Composite Interstate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls. The [base year] Target Composite Interstate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls means two-thirds of the Baseline Composite Interstate Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (ii) Beginning [July 1, base year], a LEC is prohibited from filing an interstate access tariff that includes an originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for interstate Toll Free Calls that exceeds its [base year] Target Composite Interstate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (c) Step 2. Beginning July 1, [base year + 1], notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's rules:

    (1) Each Incumbent LEC shall establish intrastate rates for originating End Office Access Service for Toll Free Calls in each state in which it provides such service using the following methodology:

    (i) Each Incumbent LEC shall calculate its [base year + 1] Target Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls. The [base year + 1] Target Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls means one-third of the Baseline Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (ii) Beginning July 1, [base year + 1], a LEC is prohibited from filing an intrastate access tariff that includes an Originating End Office Access Rate for intrastate Toll Free Calls that exceeds its [base year + 1] Target Composite Intrastate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls for that particular state.

    (2) Each Incumbent LEC shall establish interstate rates for originating End Office Access Service for Toll Free Calls using the following methodology:

    (i) Each Incumbent LEC shall calculate its [base year + 1] Target Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls. The [base year + 1] Target Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls means one-third of the Baseline Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (ii) Beginning July 1, [base year + 1], a LEC is prohibited from filing an interstate access tariff that includes an Originating End Office Access Rate for interstate Toll Free Calls that exceeds its [base year + 1] Target Composite Interstate Originating End Office Access Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (3) Each Incumbent LEC shall establish rates for originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service for intrastate Toll Free Calls in each state in which it provides such service using the following methodology:

    (i) Each Incumbent LEC shall calculate its [base year + 2] Target Composite Intrastate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls. The [base year + 2] Target Composite Intrastate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for intrastate Toll Free Calls means one-third of the [base year] Baseline Composite Intrastate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (ii) Beginning July 1, [base year + 2], a LEC is prohibited from filing an intrastate access tariff that includes an Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for intrastate Toll Free Calls that exceeds its [base year + 2] Target Composite Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for intrastate Toll Free Calls for that particular state.

    (4) Each Incumbent LEC shall establish rates for interstate originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service for Toll Free Calls using the following methodology:

    (i) Each Incumbent LEC shall calculate its [base year + 2] Target Composite Interstate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls. The [base year + 2] Target Composite Interstate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls means one-third of the [base year] Baseline Composite Interstate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (ii) Beginning July 1, [base year + 2], a LEC is prohibited from filing an interstate access tariff that includes an Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for interstate Toll Free Calls that exceeds its [base year + 2] Target Composite Interstate Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service Rate for Toll Free Calls.

    (d) Step 3. Beginning July 1, [base year + 2], notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's rules, all LECs shall, in accordance with bill-and-keep, revise and refile their interstate and intrastate switched access reciprocal compensation tariffs and any state tariffs to remove any intercarrier charges applicable to interstate and intrastate originating End Office Access Service and Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service for all interstate and intrastate rate elements for Toll Free Calls.

    (e) Nothing in this section shall prevent a LEC from negotiating a rate for Originating End Office Access Service for Toll Free Calls or for Originating Tandem-Switched Transport Access Service for Toll Free Calls that is different from its tariffed rates, or that is different from bill-and-keep if there is no tariffed rate for such services.

    4. Add § 51.923 to Subpart J to read as follows:
    § 51.923 Limitation on Database Query Charges for Toll Free Calls.

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's rules, on [the first July 1/annual tariff filing after rule adoption], every Incumbent LEC shall cap the rates for database query charges in its interstate or intrastate tariffs at $.0015 per Toll Free Call.

    (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Commission's rules, on [the first July 1/annual tariff filing after rule adoption], LECs involved in the routing of a Toll Free Call to a provider of Toll Free calling services may not, collectively, charge the provider of Toll Free calling services more than one database query charge per Toll Free Call.

    PART 61—TARIFFS 5. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205 and 403, unless otherwise noted.

    6. Amend § 61.26 by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (e) to read as follows:
    § 61.26 Tariffing of Competitive Interstate Switched Exchange Access Services.

    (a) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (i) The functional equivalent of the ILEC interstate exchange access services typically associated with the following rate elements: Carrier common line (originating); carrier common line (terminating); local end office switching; interconnection charge; information surcharge; tandem switched transport termination (fixed); tandem switched transport facility (per mile); tandem switching; and Database Query Charge, as that term is defined in section [51.903(m)] of this chapter;

    (e) Rural exemption. Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, and notwithstanding paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, a rural CLEC competing with a non-rural ILEC shall not file a tariff for its interstate exchange access services that prices those services above the rate prescribed in the NECA access tariff, assuming the highest rate band for local switching. In addition to that NECA rate, the rural CLEC may assess a presubscribed interexchange carrier charge if, and only to the extent that, the competing ILEC assesses this charge. Beginning July 1, 2013, all CLEC reciprocal compensation rates for intrastate switched exchange access services subject to this subpart also shall be no higher than that NECA rate. The rural exemption in this section does not apply to Toll Free Calls.

    [FR Doc. 2018-14150 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 128 Tuesday, July 3, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0033] Oral Rabies Vaccine Trial; Availability of a Supplemental Environmental Assessment AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) relative to an oral rabies vaccination field trial in New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia. The supplemental EA analyzes expanding the field trial for an experimental oral rabies vaccine for wildlife to additional areas in Ohio and West Virginia. The proposed field trial is necessary to evaluate whether the wildlife rabies vaccine will produce sufficient levels of population immunity against raccoon rabies. We are making the supplemental EA available to the public for review and comment.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0033.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0033, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    The supplemental environmental assessment and any comments we receive may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0033 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    This notice and the supplemental environmental assessment are also posted on the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service website at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/ws/ws_nepa_environmental_documents.shtml.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Richard Chipman, Rabies Program Coordinator, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 59 Chennell Drive, Suite 7, Concord, NH 03301; (603) 223-9623, email: [email protected]. To obtain copies of the supplemental environmental assessment, contact Ms. Beth Kabert, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Services, 140-C Locust Grove Road, Pittstown, NJ 08867; (908) 735-5654, fax (908) 735-0821; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Wildlife Services (WS) program in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) cooperates with Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private individuals to research and implement the best methods of managing conflicts between wildlife and human health and safety, agriculture, property, and natural resources. Wildlife-borne diseases that can affect domestic animals and humans are among the types of conflicts that APHIS-WS addresses. Wildlife is the dominant reservoir of rabies in the United States.

    APHIS-WS conducts an oral rabies vaccination (ORV) program to control the spread of rabies. The ORV program has utilized a vaccinia-rabies glycoprotein (V-RG) vaccine. APHIS-WS' use of the V-RG vaccine has resulted in several notable accomplishments, including the elimination of canine rabies from sources in Mexico, the successful control of gray fox rabies virus variant in western Texas, and the prevention of any appreciable spread of raccoon rabies in the eastern United States. While the prevention of any appreciable spread of raccoon rabies in the eastern United States represents a major accomplishment in rabies management, the V-RG vaccine has not been effective in eliminating raccoon rabies from high-risk spread corridors. This fact prompted APHIS-WS to evaluate rabies vaccines capable of producing higher levels of population immunity against raccoon rabies to better control the spread of this disease.

    Since 2011, APHIS-WS has been conducting field trials to study the immunogenicity and safety of an experimental oral rabies vaccine, a human adenovirus type 5 rabies glycoprotein recombinant vaccine called ONRAB (produced by Artemis Technologies Inc., Guelph, Ontario, Canada). The field trials began in portions of West Virginia, including U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service National Forest System lands.

    Beginning in 2012, APHIS-WS has expanded the field trials into portions of New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and new areas of West Virginia, including National Forest System lands, in order to further assess the immunogenicity of ONRAB in raccoons and skunks for raccoon rabies virus variant.

    APHIS-WS is now proposing to add Belmont and Monroe Counties in Ohio, and Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, and Ohio Counties in West Virginia to the field trial bait zone. Based on favorable results from previous U.S. ONRAB field trials and pressure from rabies cases in Pennsylvania and the West Virginia panhandle, we determined the need to use ONRAB vaccine baits in the remaining areas of the Ohio and West Virginia where rabies cases may still persist.

    APHIS-WS has prepared a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) in which we analyze expanding the area of the field trial zone in Ohio and West Virginia. We are making the supplemental EA available to the public for review and comment. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before the date listed under the heading DATES at the beginning of this notice.

    The supplemental EA may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). In addition, paper copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of June 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14307 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service WTO Agricultural Quantity-Based Safeguard Trigger Levels AGENCY:

    Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Notice of product coverage and trigger levels for safeguard measures provided for in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists the updated quantity-based trigger levels for products which may be subject to additional import duties under the safeguard provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. This notice also includes the relevant period applicable for the trigger levels on each of the listed products.

    DATES:

    July 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Safeguard Staff, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1020, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1020.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Souleymane Diaby, (202) 720-0638, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that additional import duties may be imposed on imports of products subject to tariffication as a result of the Uruguay Round, if certain conditions are met. The agreement permits additional duties to be charged if the price of an individual shipment of imported products falls below the average price for similar goods imported during the years 1986-88 by a specified percentage. It also permits additional duties when the volume of imports of that product exceeds the sum of (1) a base trigger level multiplied by the average of the last three years of available import data and (2) the change in yearly consumption in the most recent year for which data are available (provided that the final trigger level is not less than 105 percent of the three-year import average). The base trigger level is set at 105, 110, or 125 percent of the three-year import average, depending on the percentage of domestic consumption that is represented by imports. These additional duties may not be imposed on quantities for which minimum or current access commitments were made during the Uruguay Round negotiations, and only one type of safeguard, price or quantity, may be applied at any given time to an article. Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires that the President cause to be published in the Federal Register information regarding the price and quantity safeguards, including the quantity trigger levels, which must be updated annually based upon import levels during the most recent 3 years. The President delegated this duty to the Secretary of Agriculture in Presidential Proclamation No. 6763, dated December 23, 1994, 60 FR 1005 (Jan. 4, 1995). The Secretary of Agriculture further delegated this duty, which lies with the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service (7 CFR 2.43(a)(2)). The Annex to this notice contains the updated quantity trigger levels, which are set at 125 percent of the most recent 3-year average level of imports for each commodity, consistent with the provisions of Article 5.

    Additional information on the products subject to safeguards and the additional duties which may apply can be found in subchapter IV of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2018) and in the Secretary of Agriculture's Notice of Uruguay Round Agricultural Safeguard Trigger Levels, published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 427 (Jan. 4, 1995).

    Notice: As provided in Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, consistent with Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the safeguard quantity trigger levels previously notified are superseded by the levels indicated in the Annex to this notice. The definitions of these products were provided in the Notice of Safeguard Action published in the Federal Register, at 60 FR 427 (Jan. 4, 1995).

    Issued at Washington, DC, this 18th day of June 2018. Ken Isley, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. Product Quantity-based safeguard trigger Trigger
  • level
  • Unit Period
    Beef 298,248 MT Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Mutton 5,103 MT Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Cream 1,323,021 Liters Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Evaporated or Condensed Milk 3,867,417 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Nonfat Dry Milk 1,267,208 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Dried Whole Milk 12,116,875 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Dried Cream 10,167 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Dried Whey/Buttermilk 245,833 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Butter 1 29,959,300 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Butteroil 8,183,833 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Chocolate Crumb 10,487,292 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Lowfat Chocolate Crumb 163,000 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Animal Feed Containing Milk 1,154,583 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Ice Cream 5,925,091 Liters Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Dairy Mixtures 18,623,423 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Infant Formula Containing Oligosaccharides 3,909,000 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Blue Cheese 4,179,292 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Cheddar Cheese 11,799,917 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. American-Type Cheese 1,121,250 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Edam/Gouda Cheese 8,804,167 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Italian-Type Cheese 21,480,750 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Swiss Cheese with Eye Formation 29,604,667 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Gruyere Process Cheese 3,801,292 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. NSPF Cheese 52,789,750 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Lowfat Cheese 443,875 Kilograms Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Peanut Butter/Paste 4,314 MT Jan 1, 2018-Dec 31, 2018. Peanuts 1 14,577
  • 40,078
  • MT
  • MT
  • April 1, 2017-Mar 31, 2018.
  • April 1, 2018-Mar 31, 2019.
  • Raw Cane Sugar 1 723,461
  • 574,933
  • MT
  • MT
  • Oct 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018.
  • Oct 1, 2018-Sept 30, 2019.
  • Refined Sugars and Syrups 1 444,126
  • 396,386
  • MT
  • MT
  • Oct 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018.
  • Oct 1, 2018-Sept 30, 2019.
  • Articles over 65% Sugar 451
  • 405
  • MT
  • MT
  • Oct 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018.
  • Oct 1, 2018-Sept 30, 2019.
  • Articles over 10% Sugar 15,540
  • 8,028
  • MT
  • MT
  • Oct 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018.
  • Oct 1, 2018-Sept 30, 2019.
  • Blended Syrups 233
  • 362
  • MT
  • MT
  • Oct 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018.
  • Oct 1, 2018-Sept 30, 2019.
  • Sweetened Cocoa Powder 81
  • 111
  • MT
  • MT
  • Oct 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018.
  • Oct 1, 2018-Sept 30, 2019.
  • Mixes and Doughs 234
  • 243
  • MT
  • MT
  • Oct 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018.
  • Oct 1, 2018-Sept 30, 2019.
  • Mixed Condiments and Seasonings 692
  • 473
  • MT
  • MT
  • Oct 1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018.
  • Oct 1, 2018-Sept 30, 2019.
  • Short Staple Cotton 2 3,376,608
  • 2,592,880
  • Kilograms
  • Kilograms
  • Sep 20, 2017-Sep 19, 2018.
  • Sep 20, 2018-Sep 19, 2019.
  • Harsh or Rough Cotton 13
  • 32,958
  • Kilograms
  • Kilograms
  • Aug 1, 2017-July 31, 2018.
  • Aug 1, 2018-July 31, 2019.
  • Medium Staple Cotton 0
  • 8,333
  • Kilograms
  • Kilograms
  • Aug 1, 2017-July 31, 2018.
  • Aug 1, 2018-July 31, 2019.
  • Extra Long Staple Cotton 1,219,841
  • 722,750
  • Kilograms
  • Kilograms
  • Aug 1, 2017-July 31, 2018.
  • Aug 1, 2018-July 31, 2019.
  • Cotton Waste 2 1,232,012
  • 1,019,017
  • Kilograms
  • Kilograms
  • Sep 20, 2017-Sep 19, 2018.
  • Sep 20, 2018-Sep 19, 2019.
  • Cotton, Processed, Not Spun 2 23,004
  • 198,226
  • Kilograms
  • Kilograms
  • Sep 11, 2017-Sep 10, 2018.
  • Sep 11, 2018-Sep 10, 2019.
  • 1 Includes change in U.S. consumption. 2 12-month period from October to September.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14312 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Florida Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Florida Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday July 24, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST for the purpose discussing civil rights concerns in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday July 24, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST. Public Call Information: Dial: 888-417-8465, Conference ID: 7051072.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hinton, DFO, at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above toll-free call-in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324 or may be emailed to the Regional Director, Jeff Hinton at [email protected] Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Florida Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Discussion: Civil Rights Issues in Florida Public Comment Adjournment Dated: June 27, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14231 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.

    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before July 23, 2018. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.

    Docket Number: 17-017. Applicant: University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, 116 Atwood Street, Suite 201, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Instrument: Photonic Professional GT System. Manufacturer: Nanoscribe, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to support the fabrication of devices comprised primarily of both commercially available and in house developed UV curable polymers. Biomaterials and other biopolymers that have been specifically designed to be cured using a radical polymerization process will also be investigated in this device. Any polymer or biomaterial that can be ablated using the wavelength and power available in the Nanoscribe system will also be used for subtractive manufacturing. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: August 2, 2017.

    Docket Number: 18-001. Applicant: William March Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005. Instrument: 3D-Discovery Bioprinter and Direct Write Electrospinner. Manufacturer: regenHU, Switzerland. Intended Use: The instrument will be used for a multitude of techniques across disciplines ranging from biology to materials science, chemical engineering and bioengineering. Techniques like thermoplastic and hydrogel extrusion, 3D printing, 2-component printing, cell-bioprinting, electrospinning/direct write electrospinning, drug/factor encapsulation. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: February 28, 2018.

    Docket Number: 18-002. Applicant: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Building #17, Room 5225, Atlanta, GA 30333. Instrument: CelloScope Optical Screening Instrument. Manufacturer: BioSense Solutions ApS, Denmark. Intended Use: The instrument will be used for research use only to study several Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacterial pathogens. Use of this optical screening instrument, will be developing and evaluating an automated antimicrobial susceptibility test for bacterial pathogens based on time-lapse imaging of cells incubating in broth microdilution drug panels. Experiments to be conducted include growth assessment of these bacterial pathogens in the presence and absence of clinically relevant antibiotics. The antibiotics selected for our studies are those recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) for primary testing. The objectives of the investigations are to more rapidly determine antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial pathogens. Currently, the gold-standard method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing requires 16-20 or 24-48 hours, depending on the species. The techniques required to perform these experiments include inoculation of a testing drug panel with a bacterial suspension and assessing susceptibly by optical screening. The research conducted using this instrument may substantially reduce the time required to make an informed therapeutic decision. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: March 15, 2018.

    Docket Number: 18-003. Applicant: University of Virginia, Physics Department, 382 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903. Instrument: Superconducting Magnet System. Manufacturer: Cryogenic Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study the beta decay of neutrons. Neutrons are elementary constituents of any matter in our universe. The experiments require measuring the kinetic energies of electrons and protons, two of the particles that are produced in neutron decay. The Nab spectrometer is to extract the neutrino-electron correlation coefficient “a” and the Fierz term “b” which describes the dynamic properties of the decay particles; the results test our understanding of the Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics. The Nab spectrometer, electrons and protons are guided by the magnetic field, produced by the magnet system that we are importing. Electrons and protons eventually reach detectors. The detectors allow us to determine the kinetic energies of both particles, respectively. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 17, 2018.

    Docket Number: 18-004. Applicant: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Procurement Services, 1700 Y Street, Lincoln, NE 68588-0645. Instrument: Closed Cycle Cryogen Free Cryostat. Manufacturer: Autocue Systems, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to study the optoelectronic properties of novel atomically thin semiconductor materials such as metal chalcogenides, which are promising for application in energy conversion (for example solar cells) and micro-/nanoelectronics. Leading-edge fundamental research on the optoelectronic properties of novel nanomaterials, with the goal of developing advanced materials to support the needs for new energy conversion processes and next-generation electronics and computing. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 17, 2018.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Gregory W. Campbell, Director, Subsidies Enforcement, Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14264 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (Commerce) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. Commerce invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, Commerce finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of a review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to a review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete a Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of a proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of July 2018,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in July for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when Commerce is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings INDIA: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, A-533-863 7/1/17-6/30/18 INDIA: Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) Film, A-533-824 7/1/17-6/30/18 IRAN: In-Shell Pistachios, A-507-502 7/1/17-6/30/18 ITALY: Certain Pasta, A-475-818 7/1/17-6/30/18 ITALY: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, A-475-832 7/1/17-6/30/18 JAPAN: Clad Steel Plate, A-588-838 7/1/17-6/30/18 JAPAN: Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products, A-588-873 7/1/17-6/30/18 JAPAN: Polyvinyl Alcohol, A-588-861 7/1/17-6/30/18 JAPAN: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, A-588-845 7/1/17-6/30/18 JAPAN: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar, A-588-876 3/7/17-6/30/18 MALAYSIA: Steel Nails, A-557-816 7/1/17-6/30/18 MALAYSIA: Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe, A-557-815 7/1/17-6/30/18 OMAN: Steel Nails, A-523-808 7/1/17-6/30/18 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, A-580-878 7/1/17-6/30/18 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, A-580-834 7/1/17-6/30/18 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Steel Nails, A-580-874 7/1/17-6/30/18 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETMAN: Steel Nails, A-552-818 7/1/17-6/30/18 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETMAN: Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe, A-552-816 7/1/17-6/30/18 TAIWAN: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, A-583-856 7/1/17-6/30/18 TAIWAN: Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) Film, A-583-837 7/1/17-6/30/18 TAIWAN: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, A-583-831 7/1/17-6/30/18 TAIWAN: Steel Nails, A-583-854 7/1/17-6/30/18 THAILAND: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A-549-807 7/1/17-6/30/18 THAILAND: Weld Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe, A-549-830 7/1/17-6/30/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, A-570-814 7/1/17-6/30/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts, A-570-962 7/1/17-6/30/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Steel Grating, A-570-947 7/1/17-6/30/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe, A-570-910 7/1/17-6/30/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products, A-570-029 7/1/17-6/30/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, A-570-026 7/1/17-6/30/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Persulfates, A-570-847 7/1/17-6/30/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Xanthan Gum, A-570-985 7/1/17-6/30/18 TURKEY: Certain Pasta, A-489-805 7/1/17-6/30/18 TURKEY: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar, A-489-829 3/7/17-6/30/18 Countervailing Duty Proceedings INDIA: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, C-533-864 1/1/17-12/31/17 INDIA: Polyethylene Terephthalate (Pet) Film, C-533-825 1/1/17-12/31/17 ITALY: Certain Pasta, C-475-819 1/1/17-12/31/17 ITALY: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, C-475-833 1/1/17-12/31/17 REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, C-580-879 1/1/17-12/31/17 SOCIALIST OF REPUBLIC OF VIETMAN: Steel Nails, C-552-819 1/1/17-12/31/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts, C-570-963 1/1/17-12/31/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe, C-570-911 1/1/17-12/31/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products, C-570-030 1/1/17-12/31/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products, C-570-027 1/1/17-12/31/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand, C-570-946 1/1/17-12/31/17 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Steel Grating, C-570-948 1/1/17-12/31/17 TURKEY: Certain Pasta, C-489-806 1/1/17-12/31/17 TURKEY: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar, C-489-830 3/1/17-12/31/17 Suspension Agreements UKRAINE: Oil Country Tubular Goods, A-823-815 7/1/17-6/30/18

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party Commerce was unable to locate in prior segments, Commerce will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), Commerce clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance website at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    Commerce no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.3 Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless Commerce specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.4 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, Commerce will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity). Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    3See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS website at http://access.trade.gov. 5 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    5See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Commerce will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of July 2018. If Commerce does not receive, by the last day of July 2018, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14263 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Renewal of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee and Solicitation of Nominations for Membership AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of renewal of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee and solicitation of nominations for membership.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Commerce announces the renewal of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee shall advise the Secretary of Commerce regarding the development and administration of programs and policies to expand the competitiveness of U.S. exports of renewable energy and energy efficiency goods and services. The Committee's work on energy efficiency will focus on technologies, services, and platforms that provide system-level energy efficiency to electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. These include smart grid technologies and services, as well as equipment and systems that increase the resiliency of power infrastructure such as energy storage. For the purposes of this Committee, covered goods and services will not include vehicles, feedstock for biofuels, or energy efficiency as it relates to consumer goods. Non-fossil fuels that are considered renewable fuels (e.g., liquid biofuels and pellets) are included. This notice also requests nominations for membership.

    DATES:

    Nominations for members must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on August 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations may be emailed [email protected]; faxed to the attention of Victoria Gunderson at 202-482-5665; or mailed to Victoria Gunderson, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 28018, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Victoria Gunderson, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 28018, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-7890; fax 202-482-5665; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee shall consist of approximately 35 members appointed by the Secretary in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance and based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the Committee. The Secretary of Commerce invites nominations to the Committee of qualified individuals who will represent U.S. companies, U.S. trade associations, and U.S. private sector organizations with activities focused on the export competitiveness of U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency goods and services. Members shall reflect the diversity of this sector, including in terms of entity or organization size, geographic location, and subsector represented. The Committee shall also represent the diversity of company or organizational roles in the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, including, for example, project developers, technology integrators, financial institutions, and manufacturers.

    Prospective applicants and nominees are strongly encouraged to review materials and information on the Committee website, including the Committee's charter, to gain an understanding of the Committee's responsibilities, matters on which the Committee will provide recommendations, and expectations for members based on the work of previous Committees: http://export.gov/reee/reeeac.

    Members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary from the date of appointment to the Committee to the date on which the Committee's charter terminates. Members serve in a representative capacity presenting the views and interests of a U.S. entity or U.S. organization, as well as their particular subsector; they are, therefore, not Special Government Employees.

    Members of the Committee must not be registered as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. No member may represent a company that is majority owned or controlled by a foreign government entity (or foreign government entities). Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their travel expenses.

    If you are interested in applying or nominating someone else to become a member of the Committee, please provide the following information:

    (1) Sponsor letter on the company's, trade association's or organization's letterhead containing the name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone, fax, and email address) of the individual who is applying or being nominated;

    (2) An affirmative statement that the nominee will be able to meet the expected time commitments of Committee work. Committee work includes (1) attending in-person committee meetings roughly four times per year (lasting one day each), (2) undertaking additional work outside of full committee meetings including subcommittee conference calls or meetings as needed, and (3) frequently drafting, preparing, or commenting on proposed recommendations to be evaluated at Committee meetings;

    (3) Short biography of nominee, including credentials;

    (4) Brief description of the company, trade association, or organization to be represented and its business activities; company size (number of employees and annual sales); and export markets served;

    (5) An affirmative statement that the nominee meets all Committee eligibility requirements.

    Please do not send company, trade association, or organization brochures or any other information.

    See the ADDRESSES and DATES captions above for how and the deadline for submitting nominations.

    Nominees selected for appointment to the Committee will be notified by mail.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Edward OMalley, Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14276 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of federal advisory committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (“the Panel”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Panel's charter is being renewed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1074g(c)(1) and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The Panel's charter and contact information for the Panel's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    The Panel provides the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, independent advice and recommendations on the development of the uniform formulary. The Secretary of Defense shall consider the comments of the Panel before implementing the uniform formulary or implementing changes to the uniform formulary.

    The Panel shall be composed of no more than 15 members and shall include members that represent: a. Non-governmental organizations and associations that represent the views and interests of a large number of eligible covered beneficiaries; b. Contractors responsible for the TRICARE retail pharmacy program; c. Contractors responsible for the national mail-order pharmacy program; and d. TRICARE network providers. All members of the Panel are appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Panel-related travel and per diem, Panel members serve without compensation.

    The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Panel membership about the Panel's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Panel. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Panel, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Shelly Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14290 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Amendment of federal advisory committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is amending the charter for the Defense Innovation Board (“the Board”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Board's charter is being amended in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The DoD is amending the charter for the Board previously announced in the Federal Register on April 18, 2018 (83 FR 17153) to reflect a change in the committee's sponsor. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering will be the sponsor for the Board. The amended charter and contact information for the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14262 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. Office of the Secretary Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces will take place.

    DATES:

    Open to the public, Friday, July 20, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 1432, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dwight Sullivan, 703-695-1055 (Voice), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is DACIPAD, One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Website: http://dacipad.whs.mil/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 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 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: In section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291), as modified by section 537 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), Congress tasked the DAC-IPAD to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces. This will be the eighth public meeting held by the DAC-IPAD. The purpose of the meeting is to gather information for the Committee to make an assessment and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding the military justice data collection standards and criteria required by Article 140a, UCMJ. The Committee will receive testimony from each of the Military Services regarding their perspectives on best practices for implementing Article 140a, followed by Committee deliberations on its findings and recommendations with respect to Article 140a implementation. The Committee will also receive status update briefings from the DAC-IPAD Director, Data Working Group, and Case Review Working Group.

    Agenda: 9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m. Public Meeting Begins—Welcome and Introduction; 9:15 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Military Services' Perspectives on Best Practices for Implementing Article 140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and accessibility; 10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Break; 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Presentation by DAC-IPAD Policy Working Group Members and Deliberations on Best Practices for Implementing Article 140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and accessibility; 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Lunch; 1:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Deliberations on Best Practices for Implementing Article 140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and accessibility; 4:00 p.m.-4:40 p.m. Updates from the Staff Director, Data Working Group and the Case Review Working Group; 4:40 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Public Comment; 5:00 p.m. Public Meeting Adjourned.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. Visitors are required to sign in at the One Liberty Center security desk and must leave government-issued photo identification on file and wear a visitor badge while in the building. Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) holders who do not have authorized access to One Liberty Center must provide an alternate form of government-issued photo identification to leave on file with security while in the building. All visitors must pass through a metal detection security screening. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the DAC-IPAD at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. In the event the Office of Personnel Management closes the government due to inclement weather or for any other reason, please consult the website for any changes to the public meeting date or time.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Committee about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the DAC-IPAD at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Committee members for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the DAC-IPAD at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the DAC-IPAD operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. Oral statements from the public will be permitted, though the number and length of such oral statements may be limited based on the time available and the number of such requests. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 4:40 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 20, 2018, in front of the Committee members.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14257 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.327S.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: July 3, 2018.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5158, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6039.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purposes of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program are to: (1) Improve results for students with disabilities by promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) support educational activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom for students with disabilities; (3) provide support for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom; and (4) provide accessible educational materials to students with disabilities in a timely manner.1

    1 Applicants should note that other laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28 CFR part 35) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may require that State educational agencies and local educational agencies provide captioning, video description, and other accessible educational materials to students with disabilities when such materials are necessary to provide students with disabilities with equally integrated and equally effective access to the benefits of the educational program or activity, or as part of a “free appropriate public education” as defined in the Department of Education's Section 504 regulation.

    Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority and the competitive preference priority within this priority are from allowable activities specified in sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1474(c)(1)(D) and 1481(d).

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is: Stepping-up Technology Implementation.

    Background:

    The mission of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood, educational, and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all people with disabilities, their families, their communities, and the Nation.

    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to: identify strategies needed to effectively implement evidence-based (as defined in this notice) technology tools 2 that benefit students with disabilities and children or students with high needs,3 and develop and disseminate products 4 that will help a broad range of sites to effectively implement these technology tools. This priority is consistent with Priority 5 of the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities) 5 —Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents; and Priority 2 of the Supplemental Priorities—Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education With an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers. Priority 5 emphasizes meeting the unique needs of students with disabilities, including their academic needs, by offering students the opportunity to meet challenging objectives and receive an educational program that is both meaningful and appropriately ambitious in light of each student's circumstances. Priority 2 emphasizes supporting innovative strategies or research that has the potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements in the delivery of educational services or other significant and tangible educational benefits to students, educators, or other Department stakeholders.

    2 For the purposes of this priority, “technology tools” may include, but are not limited to, digital math text readers for students with visual impairments, reading software to improve literacy and communication development, and text-to-speech software to improve reading performance. These tools must assist or otherwise benefit students with disabilities.

    3 For the purposes of this priority, “children or students with high needs” means children or students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance or support, such as children and students who are living in poverty, who are English Learners, who are academically far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, or are children or students with disabilities.

    4 For the purposes of this priority, “products” may include, but are not limited to, instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials, and professional development modules such as collaborative groups, coaching, mentoring, or online supports.

    5 The Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs was published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) and can be found at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-02/pdf/2018-04291.pdf.

    Congress recognized in IDEA that “almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by . . . supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities” (section 601(c)(5) of IDEA).

    The use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, enhances instruction and access to the general education curriculum. “Innovative technology tools, programs, and software can be used to promote engagement and enhance the learning experience” (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011). Innovative technology tools and programs are especially helpful as educators work to engage and motivate students who struggle with the general education curriculum. However, having access alone does not translate to outcomes. Judge et al. (2004) argued that there is a rapid expansion in technology in early childhood settings, and teachers need support in understanding its usage and value to ensure quality learning experiences for young students. When teachers receive the necessary professional development supports to use technology effectively, technology integration in early childhood settings has been demonstrated to increase social awareness and collaborative behaviors, improve abstract reasoning and problem solving abilities, and enhance visual-motor coordination (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012).

    Technologies (e.g., online career-readiness tools, computer-based writing tools to support literacy, web-based curriculum to support 21st-century learning) can support State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) by: (a) Improving student learning and engagement; (b) accommodating the special needs of students; (c) facilitating student and teacher access to digital content and resources; and (d) improving the quality of instruction through personalized learning and data (Duffey & Fox, 2012; Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levi, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). As stipulated in section 4109 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), technologies can be used to support LEAs and SEAs to increase student access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences.

    Notwithstanding the potential benefits of using technology to improve learning outcomes, research suggests that implementation can be a significant challenge. For example, data from a survey of more than 1,000 kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) teachers, principals, and assistant principals indicated that more than half of teachers who did not use technology identified issues of implementation (e.g., necessity, applicability to lessons) rather than availability as reasons for their non-use (Grunwald & Associates, 2010). Additionally, “research indicates that technology must be used in ways that align with curricular and teacher goals, and offer students opportunities to use these tools in their learning” (Center on Innovation and Improvement, 2011). Even as schools have started to deliver coursework online, and the number of students involved in online learning has grown, many of these online learning technologies are not readily accessible to students with disabilities (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012). These findings demonstrate a need for products and resources that can assist educators to readily implement technology tools for students with disabilities.

    In response to this need, Stepping-up Technology Implementation projects have built on technology development efforts by identifying, developing, and disseminating products and resources that promote the effective implementation 6 of instructional and assistive technology tools in early childhood programs or K-12 settings.7

    6 In this context, “effective implementation” means “making better use of research findings in typical service settings through the use of processes and activities (such as accountable implementation teams) that are purposeful and described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and strength of these processes and activities” (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).

    7 For the purposes of this priority, “settings” include: General education classrooms; special education classrooms; high-quality early childhood programs; private schools; home education; after school programs; juvenile justice facilities; and settings other than those listed above in which students may receive services under IDEA.

    Priority:

    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative agreements to: (a) Identify strategies needed to readily implement existing evidence-based technology tools that benefit students with disabilities and children or students with high needs; and (b) develop and disseminate products (See footnote 3; e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will assist personnel in early childhood programs or K-12 settings to readily use, understand, and implement these technology tools.

    To be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application requirements. Any project funded under this absolute priority must also meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.

    Application Requirements

    An applicant must include in its application—

    (a) A project design that is evidence-based;

    (b) A logic model (as defined in this notice) or conceptual framework that depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.

    Note:

    The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel; www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework; www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf; and http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2015057.

    (c) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section of this priority;

    (d) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;

    (e) Documentation ensuring that the final products disseminated to help sites effectively implement technology tools will be both open educational resources (OER) 8 and licensed through an open access licensing authority;

    8 Open educational resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials that the public may freely use and reuse at no cost. Unlike fixed, copyrighted resources, OER have been authored or created by an individual or organization that chooses to retain few, if any, ownership rights. Retrieved from www.oercommons.org/about.

    (f) Documentation that the technology tool used by the project is fully developed,9 evidence-based, and addresses, at a minimum, the following principles of universal design for learning:

    9 A technology that is “fully developed” is a completed, existing technology that is ready to be implemented. Any enhancements or additions to the existing technology should be minor and time-limited, and must be completed before the end of year two.

    (1) Multiple means of presentation so that students can approach information in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and websites, screen readers that include features such as text-to-speech, changeable color contrast, alterable text size, or selection of different reading levels);

    (2) Multiple means of expression so that all students can demonstrate knowledge through options such as writing, online concept mapping, or speech-to-text programs, where appropriate; and

    (3) Multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning (e.g., options among several different learning activities or content for a particular competency or skill and providing opportunities for increased collaboration or scaffolding); 10

    10 For more information on the principles of universal design, see www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles.

    (g) A plan for how the project will sustain project activities after funding ends;

    (h) A plan, which includes appropriate consideration of sites other than traditional public elementary and secondary school settings, including private schools, after school programs, juvenile justice facilities, early childhood programs, and settings where students are supported under IDEA, for recruiting and selecting 11 the following:

    11 For more information on recruiting and selecting sites, refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned from OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf.

    (1) Three development sites. Development sites are the sites in which iterative development 12 of the products and resources intended to support the implementation of technology tools will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with one development site in year one of the project period and two additional development sites in year two;

    12 For the purposes of this priority, “iterative development” refers to a process of testing, systematically securing feedback, and then revising the educational intervention to increase the likelihood that it will be implemented with fidelity (Diamond & Powell, 2011).

    (2) Four pilot sites. Pilot sites are the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of the products and resources will occur. The project must work with the four pilot sites during years three and four of the project period; and

    (3) Ten dissemination sites. Dissemination sites will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination sites will be used to (a) refine the products for use by teachers and (b) evaluate the performance of the tool. Dissemination sites will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than development or pilot sites. Also, at this stage (i.e., the fifth year), dissemination sites will extend the benefits of the technology tool to additional students. To be selected as a dissemination site, eligible sites must commit to working with the project to implement the evidence-based technology tool.

    Note:

    A site may not serve in more than one category (i.e., development, pilot, dissemination).

    Note:

    A minimum of two of the seven development and pilot sites must be in settings other than traditional public elementary and secondary schools. A minimum of three of the 10 dissemination sites must be in settings other than traditional public elementary and secondary schools. These non-traditional sites must otherwise meet the requirements of each category listed earlier.

    (i) School site information (e.g., elementary, middle, high school, or early childhood programs, high-quality early childhood programs, private schools, after school programs, juvenile justice facilities, and settings where students are supported under IDEA; schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement (in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), (c)(4)(D), or (d)(2)(C)-(D) of the ESEA) about the development, pilot, and dissemination sites, including student demographics (e.g., race or ethnicity, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) and other pertinent data; and

    (j) A budget for attendance at the following:

    (1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

    Note:

    Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative.

    (2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.

    (3) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.

    Project Activities:

    To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:

    (a) Recruit a minimum of three development sites and four pilot sites in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraphs (h) and (i) of the Application Requirements section of this notice.

    Note:

    Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting.

    (b) Identify and develop resources and products that, when used to support the implementation of the technology tool, create accessible learning opportunities for all children, including children with disabilities, and children or students with high needs and support the sustained implementation of the selected technology tool. Development of the products must be an iterative process beginning in a single development school and continuing through repeated cycles of development and refinement in the other development sites, followed by a formative evaluation and refinement in the pilot sites. To support implementation of the technology tool the products and resources must, at a minimum, include:

    (1) An instrument or method for assessing—

    (i) The school staff's current technology uses and needs, current technology investments, firewall issues, and the knowledge and availability of dedicated on-site technology personnel;

    (ii) The readiness of development and pilot sites to implement the technology tool. Any instruments and methods for assessing readiness may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides, and surveys of teachers' interests; and

    (iii) Whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes.

    (c) Provide ongoing professional development activities necessary for teachers to implement the technology tool with fidelity and to integrate it into the curriculum.

    (d) Collect and analyze data on whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes for early childhood development, K-12, or college- and career-readiness.

    (e) Collect formative and summative data from the development and pilot sites to refine and evaluate the products.

    (f) If the project is extended to a fifth year—

    (1) Provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than 10 dissemination sites that are not the same used as development or pilot sites; and

    (2) Collect summative data about the success of the project's products and services in supporting implementation of the technology tool in the dissemination sites.

    (g) By the end of the project period, provide—

    (1) Information on the products and resources, as supported by the project evaluation, including any accessibility features, that will enable other sites to implement and sustain implementation of the technology tool;

    (2) Information on the technology implementation report, including data on how teachers used the technology, data on how technology impacted student outcomes, how technology was implemented with fidelity, and features of universal design for learning;

    (3) Information on how the technology tool contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for children with disabilities, as well as children or students with high needs (e.g., data to assess how well the project addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic model); and

    (4) A plan for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying products beyond the sites directly involved in the project.

    Cohort Collaboration and Support

    OSEP project officer(s) will provide coordination support among the projects. Each project funded under this priority must:

    (a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to share and collaborate on implementation and specific project issues; and

    (b) Provide information annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (i.e., the process of technology implementation).

    Note:

    The following website provides more information about implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.

    Fifth Year of Project

    The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond 48 months to work with dissemination sites if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data gathered as part of the project evaluation) and making a positive contribution to the implementation of an evidence-based technology tool with fidelity in the development and pilot sites. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month period. In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and will consider:

    (a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the last half of the third year of the project period;

    (b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

    (c) The degree to which the project's activities have contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for students with disabilities.

    Competitive Preference Priority: Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priority. The competitive preference priority is from allowable activities in sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of IDEA. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application that meets the competitive preference priority. Applicants should indicate in the abstract if the competitive preference priority is addressed and must address the priority in the narrative section.

    This competitive preference priority is:

    Projects that Support English Learners in Reading (Two Points).

    To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must implement an evidence-based technology tool designed to help teachers use culturally responsive teaching practices 13 to meet the cultural and linguistic needs of English Learners (ELs) and improve their language acquisition, language development, and reading. To meet the competitive preference priority, a project must:

    13 Culturally responsive teaching practices can be defined as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them” (Gay, 2010).

    (a) Implement a culturally responsive reading curriculum that provides learning opportunities through a variety of media; and

    (b) Develop and disseminate products and resources (e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will assist teachers in K-12 settings to implement the technology.

    References:

    Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28-37. Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD). (2012). The foundation of online learning for students with disabilities (COLSD White Paper). Lawrence, KS: Author. Retrieved from www.centerononlinelearning.res.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Foundation_7_2012.pdf. Diamond, K.E., & Powell, D.R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional development intervention for Head Start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 75-93. Duffey, D., & Fox, C. (2012). National educational technology trends 2012: State leadership empowers educators, transforms teaching and learning. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED536746.pdf. Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, K.A., Friedman, R.M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D. & Levi, D. (2012). Out of print: Reimagining the K-12 textbook in a digital age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536747.pdf. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Grunwald & Associates. (2010). Educators, technology, and 21st century skills: Dispelling five myths. Minneapolis, MN: Walden University, Richard W. Riley College of Education. Retrieved from www.waldenu.edu/-/media/Walden/general-media/about-walden/colleges-and-schools/riley-college-of-education/educational-research/full-report-dispelling-five-myths.pdf?la=en. Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Cabuck, B. (2004). Digital equity: New findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 383-396. McManis, L.D., & Gunnewig, S.B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 14-24. Perlman, C.L., & Redding, S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/handbook. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.

    Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:

    Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

    Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

    Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:

    (i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

    (ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

    (iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

    Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

    Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

    (iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—

    (A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

    Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

    Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

    (i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

    (iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—

    (A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation (e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.

    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

    Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

    (iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that—

    (A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

    What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the Handbook documentation.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.

    Estimated Available Funds: $1,500,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $500,000 per year.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $475,000 per year.

    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 3.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 48 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: IHEs and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

    4. Other: (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).

    (b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

    2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make awards by the end of FY 2018.

    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

    • Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:

    (a) Significance (10 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the proposed project;

    (ii) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project;

    (iii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses;

    (iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies; and

    (v) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings.

    (b) Quality of project services (25 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability.

    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;

    (ii) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services;

    (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services;

    (iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and

    (v) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.

    (c) Quality of the project design (20 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

    (ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives;

    (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs;

    (iv) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project; and

    (v) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework.

    (d) Quality of the management plan (20 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

    (ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator, and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;

    (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project;

    (iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate; and

    (v) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

    (e) Adequacy of resources (10 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;

    (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;

    (iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project;

    (iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project; and

    (v) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

    (f) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).

    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;

    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible;

    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;

    (iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and

    (v) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

    4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

    5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program. These measures are included in the application package and focus on the extent to which projects are of high quality, are relevant to improving outcomes of children with disabilities, as well as children with high-needs, and generate evidence of validity and availability to appropriate populations. Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.

    Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).

    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Johnny W. Collett, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14338 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0052] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Household Education Survey 2019 (NHES: 2019) AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0052. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 206-06, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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.

    Title of Collection: National Household Education Survey 2019 (NHES: 2019).

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0768.

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

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 123,177.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 12,964.

    Abstract: The National Household Education Survey (NHES) is a data collection program of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) designed to provide descriptive data on the education activities of the U.S. population, with an emphasis on topics that are appropriate for household surveys rather than institutional surveys. Such topics have covered a wide range of issues, including early childhood care and education, children's readiness for school, parents' perceptions of school safety and discipline, before- and after-school activities of school-age children, participation in adult and career education, parents' involvement in their children's education, school choice, homeschooling, and civic involvement. This request is to conduct the NHES:2019 full scale data collection, from December 2018 through September 2019, in conjunction with an In-Person Study of Nonresponding Households, designed to provide insight about nonresponse that can help plan future survey administrations. NHES:2019 will use mail and web data collection modes and will field two surveys: The Early Childhood Program Participation survey (ECPP) and the Parent and Family Involvement in Education survey (PFI).

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14273 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, July 25, 2018, 1:00 p.m.-5:15 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Santa Fe Community College, Jemez Complex, 6401 Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda • Call to Order • Welcome and Introductions • Approval of Agenda and Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2018, and May 23, 2018 • Old Business ○ Report from Nominating Committee ○ Other Items • New Business ○ Election of NNMCAB Chair and Vice-Chair for Fiscal Year 2019 ○ Other Items • Background on Material Disposal Area C • Break • Overview of Aggregate Areas • Public Comment Period • Update from EM-Los Alamos Field Office • Update from New Mexico Environment Department • Update from NNMCAB Deputy Designated Federal Officer and Executive Director • Wrap-Up Comments from NNMCAB Members • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Northern New Mexico, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Menice Santistevan at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the internet at: https://energy.gov/em/nnmcab/meeting-materials.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on June 28, 2018. Latanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14327 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Monday, July 23, 2018, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.; Tuesday, July 24, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Garden Inn, 1065 Stevens Creek Road, Augusta, GA 30907.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Boyette, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-6120.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda Monday, July 23, 2018 Opening, Chair Update, and Agenda Review Agency Updates Break Administrative & Outreach Committee Update Facilities Disposition & Site Remediation Committee Update Nuclear Materials Committee Update Strategic & Legacy Management Committee Update Waste Management Committee Update Discussion of Draft Recommendations • Ship Low Activity Glass Logs to Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) • Transuranic (TRU) Shipments to WIPP • Restart the Savannah River Site (SRS)/Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Exchange Public Comments Recess Tuesday, July 24, 2018 Reconvene Agenda Review Presentations • D Area Ash Project • Pollination Activities Lunch Break Presentations • 235-F Deactivation • Price Anderson Act and Nuclear Quality Assurance-1 (NQA 1) Standards Break Presentations • Salt Waste Processing Facility Update • Interim Salt Processing (Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) & Actinide Removal Process (ARP)/Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU)) Public Comments Voting • Recommendations Proposed for Closure ○ #351: Savannah River National Laboratory Funding ○ #352: Glass Waste Storage ○ #353: Defense Waste Processing Facility Additional Failed Equipment Storage • Draft Recommendations ○ Ship Low Activity Glass Logs to WIPP ○ TRU Shipments to WIPP ○ Restart the SRS/INL SNF Exchange Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Savannah River Site, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Amy Boyette at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Amy Boyette's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Amy Boyette at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: http://cab.srs.gov/srs-cab.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on June 28, 2018. Latanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14328 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada AGENCY:

    Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Valley Electric Association, Valley Conference Center, 800 East Highway 372, Pahrump, Nevada 89041.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 232 Energy Way, M/S 167, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630-0522; Fax (702) 295-2025 or Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda 1. DOE and Liaison Updates 2. Recommendation Development for Community Interest Analysis—Work Plan Item #7 3. Educational Briefing on Emergency Preparedness Working Group

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 minutes allotted for public comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at the address listed above or at the following website: http://www.nnss.gov/NSSAB/pages/MM_FY18.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on June 27, 2018. Latanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14256 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-180-000] VA Solar 1, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 22, 2018, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, VA Solar 1, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C (Respondent) alleging that the Respondent violated its Open Access Transmission Tariff by terminating an interconnection service request submitted on behalf of the Complainant, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for the Respondent in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 12, 2018.

    Dated: June 25, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14224 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-121-000] National Grid LNG, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fields Point Liquefaction Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Fields Point Liquefaction Project, proposed by National Grid LNG, LLC (National Grid) in the above-referenced docket. National Grid requests authorization to construct natural gas liquefaction facilities at its existing Fields Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facility in Providence, Rhode Island.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Fields Point Liquefaction Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, and the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.

    For its Fields Point Liquefaction Project, National Grid would construct a natural gas liquefier, including the following facilities:

    • Electric-powered booster compressor;

    • pretreatment system;

    • gas regeneration heater; and

    • liquefaction train including heat exchangers cooled by a closed-loop nitrogen refrigeration cycle.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 25, 2018.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the applicable project docket number (CP16-121-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on eRegister. You must select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is considered a Comment on a Filing; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on General Search, and enter the docket number in the Docket Number field excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP16-121). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: June 25, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14225 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC18-12-000] Commission Information Collection Activity (FERC-566); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-566 (Annual Report of a Utility's 20 Largest Purchasers)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-566 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-0114, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-8528.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC18-12-000 by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-566 (Annual Report of a Utility's 20 Largest Purchasers).

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0114.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-566 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), mandates federal oversight and approval of certain electric corporate activities to ensure that neither public nor private interests are adversely affected. Accordingly, the FPA proscribes related information filing requirements to achieve this goal. Such filing requirements are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically in 18 CFR Section 131.31, and serve as the basis for the FERC-566.

    FERC-566 implements FPA requirements that each public utility annually publish a list of the 20 purchasers which purchased the largest annual amounts of electric energy sold by such public utility during any of the three previous calendar years. The public disclosure of this information provides the information necessary to determine whether an interlocked position is with any of the 20 largest purchasers of electric energy. Similar to the Form 561,1 the FPA identifies who must file the FERC-566 report and sets the filing deadline.

    1 FERC Form No. 561 (Annual Report of Interlocking Directorates), OMB Control No. 1902-0099.

    Type of Respondents: Public utilities.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:2 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    2 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-566 (Annual Report of a Utility's 20 Largest Purchasers) Number of respondents Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden and cost per
  • response 3
  • Total
  • annual burden
  • hours and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 300 1 300 4 hrs.; $306 1,200 hrs.; $91,800 $306

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    3 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $76.50 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The figure comes from the 2017 FERC average hourly cost (for wages and benefits) of $76.50 (and an average annual salary of $158,754). Commission staff is using the FERC average hourly cost because we consider any reporting completed in response to the FERC-566 to be compensated at rates similar to the work of FERC employees.

    Dated: June 26, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14226 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-118-000] Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the UGS-Crawford Meter Station Project

    On March 15, 2018, Rover Pipeline LLC filed an application in Docket No. CP18-118-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the UGS-Crawford Meter Station Project (Project), and would receive up to 35 million standard cubic feet per day of pipeline quality natural gas from an interconnect with the gathering pipeline facilities of Utica Gas Services, LLC.

    On March 28, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA: July 13, 2018.

    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline: October 11, 2018.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The Project would consist of one new meter and regulating station on agricultural land west of Highway 221 in Salem Township, Jefferson County, Ohio. The station would consist of various components including a horizontal filter separator, ultrasonic meter skid, flow control skid, gas quality and measurement buildings, satellite communications, and a condensate storage tank. The facility would be constructed on 3.64 acres of land, of which 0.9 acre would be fenced and maintained for operation.

    Background

    On May 1, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed UGS-Crawford Meter Station Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding impacts on multiple federally listed sensitive species. All substantive comments will be addressed in the EA.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-118), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: June 26, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14222 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-12-001] ATX Southwest, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 22, 2018, Ameren Services Company, for and on behalf of ATX Southwest, LLC, submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the order issued on June 1, 2018 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission).1

    1ATX Southwest, LLC, 163 FERC 61,175 (2018).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 13, 2018.

    Dated: June 25, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14223 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0392, FRL-9980-05-OLEM] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR) Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 1597.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0145) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0392, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: In 1995, EPA promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part 273 that govern the collection and management of widely-generated hazardous wastes known as “Universal Wastes”. Universal Wastes are generated in a variety of non-industrial settings, and are present in non-hazardous waste management systems. Examples of Universal Wastes include certain batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing lamps and thermostats. The part 273 regulations are designed to ensure facilities collect these wastes and properly manage them in an appropriate hazardous waste management system. EPA needs to collect notifications of Universal Waste management to obtain general information on these handlers and to facilitate enforcement of the part 273 regulations. EPA promulgated labeling and marking requirements and accumulation time limits to ensure that Universal Waste is being accumulated responsibly. EPA needs to collect information on illegal Universal Waste shipments to enforce compliance with applicable regulations. Finally, EPA requires tracking of Universal Waste shipments to help ensure that Universal Waste is being properly treated, recycled, or disposed.

    In 2001, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 266 that provide increased flexibility to facilities managing wastes commonly known as “Mixed Waste.” Mixed Wastes are low-level mixed waste (LLMW) and naturally occurring and/or accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM) containing hazardous waste. These wastes are also regulated by the Atomic Energy Act. As long as specified eligibility criteria and conditions are met, LLMW and NARM are exempt from the definition of hazardous waste as defined in Part 261. Although these wastes are exempt from RCRA manifest, transportation, and disposal requirements, facilities must still comply with the manifest, transportation, and disposal requirements under the NRC (or NRC-Agreement State) regulations. Section 266.345(a) requires that generators or treaters notify EPA or the Authorized State that they are claiming the Transportation and Disposal Conditional Exemption prior to the initial shipment of a waste to a LLRW disposal facility. This exemption notice provides a tool for RCRA program regulatory agencies to become aware of the generator's exemption claims. The information contained in the notification package provides the RCRA program regulatory agencies with a general understanding of the claimant. This information also allows the agencies to document the generator's exemption status and to plan inspections and review exemption-related records.

    And finally, in 1992, EPA finalized management standards for used oils destined for recycling. The Agency codified the used oil management standards at 40 CFR part 279. The regulations at 40 CFR part 279 establish, among other things, streamlined procedures for notification, testing, labeling, and recordkeeping. They also establish a flexible self-implementing approach for tracking off-site shipments that allow used oil handlers to use standard business practices (e.g., invoices, bill of lading). In addition, part 279 sets standards for the prevention and cleanup of releases to the environment during storage and transit. EPA believes these requirements will minimize potential mismanagement of used oils, while not discouraging recycling. Used oil transporters must comply with all applicable packaging, labeling, and placarding requirements of 49 CFR parts 173, 178, and 179. In addition, used oil transporters must report discharges of used oil according to existing 49 CFR part 171 and 33 CFR part 153 requirements.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Private Sector and State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 273), required to obtain or retain a benefit (40 CFR parts 266 and 279).

    Estimated number of respondents: 134,230.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 679,354 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $10,015,823 (per year), includes $1,873 annualized capital/startup costs and $10,013,950 operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14320 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0390, FRL-9980-04-OLEM] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 0820.14, OMB Control No. 2050-0035) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0390, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Knieser, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (mail code 5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-347-8769; fax number: 703-308-0514; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, Congress directed EPA to implement a comprehensive program for the safe management of hazardous waste. The core of the national waste management program is the regulation of hazardous waste from generation to transport to treatment and eventual disposal, or from “cradle to grave.” Section 3001(d) of RCRA requires EPA to develop standards for small quantity generators. Section 3002 of RCRA states, among other things, that EPA shall establish requirements for hazardous waste generators regarding recordkeeping practices. Section 3002 also requires EPA to establish standards on appropriate use of containers by generators. Finally, Section 3017 of RCRA specifies requirements for individuals exporting hazardous waste from the United States, including a notification of the intent to export, and an annual report summarizing the types, quantities, frequency, and ultimate destination of all exported hazardous waste.

    On November 28, 2016, EPA published the “Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule” (81 FR 85732), which implemented several specific changes to the hazardous waste generator program. These improvements include: (1) Revising different components of the hazardous waste regulatory program; (2) addressing gaps in the current regulations; (3) providing greater flexibility for hazardous waste generators to manage their hazardous waste in a cost-effective manner; (4) reorganizing the hazardous waste generator regulations to improve their usability among regulated facilities; and (5) making technical corrections and conforming changes to address inadvertent errors, remove obsolete programs, and improve the readability of the regulations. This renewal incorporates these improvements.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Private business or other for-profit.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 262 and 265).

    Estimated number of respondents: 67,288.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 253,519 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $14,674,934 (per year), includes $40,041 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14321 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0391, FRL-9980-03-OLEM] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR) Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 0959.16, OMB Control No. 2050-0033) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0391, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) creates a comprehensive program for the safe management of hazardous waste. Section 3004 of RCRA requires owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste to comply with standards established by EPA that are to protect the environment. Section 3005 provides for implementation of these standards under permits issued to owners and operators by EPA or authorized States. Section 3005 also allows owners and operators of facilities in existence when the regulations came into effect to comply with applicable notice requirements to operate until a permit is issued or denied. This statutory authorization to operate prior to permit determination is commonly known as “interim status.” Owners and operators of interim status facilities also must comply with standards set under Section 3004.

    This ICR examines the ground-water monitoring standards for permitted and interim status facilities at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, as specified. The ground-water monitoring requirements for regulated units follow a tiered approach whereby releases of hazardous contaminants are first detected (detection monitoring), then confirmed (compliance monitoring), and if necessary, are required to be cleaned up (corrective action). Each of these tiers requires collection and analysis of ground-water samples. Owners or operators that conduct ground-water monitoring are required to report information to the oversight agencies on releases of contaminants and to maintain records of ground-water monitoring data at their facilities. The goal of the ground-water monitoring program is to prevent and quickly detect releases of hazardous contaminants to groundwater, and to establish a program whereby any contamination is expeditiously cleaned up as necessary to protect human health and environment.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit; and State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA Sections 3004 and 3005).

    Estimated number of respondents: 881.

    Frequency of response: Quarterly, semi-annually, and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 117,027 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $22,424,224 (per year), includes $17,870,276 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14323 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2018-0130, FRL-9980-02-OLEM] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 1773.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0171) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2018-0130, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Hazardous waste combustors include: Hazardous waste incinerators, hazardous waste cement kilns, hazardous waste lightweight aggregate kilns, hazardous waste solid fuel boilers, hazardous waste liquid fuel boilers, and hazardous waste hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any physical or operational changes, notification of exceedances, notification of performance test and continuous monitoring system evaluation, notification of intent to comply, notification of compliance, notification if the owner or operator elects to comply with alternative requirements, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit as well as State, Local, or Tribal governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE).

    Estimated number of respondents: 192.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 142,381 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $19,945,848 (per year), includes $15,893,404 annualized labor and $4,052,444 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14322 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit Administration Board AGENCY:

    Farm Credit Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice, regular meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

    DATES:

    The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on July 12, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about attendance requests.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). Please send an email to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

    Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • June 14, 2018 B. New Business • Eligibility Criteria for Outside Directors—Proposed Rule Dated: June 29, 2018. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14389 Filed 6-29-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [DOCKET NO. 18-04] Falcone Global Solutions, LLC v. Maurice Ward Networks, Ltd. d/b/a Maurice Ward Group; Maurice Ward & Co., BV.; and Maurice Ward & Co. S.R.O.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by Falcone Global Solutions, LLC, hereinafter “Complainant,” against Maurice Ward Networks, Ltd. d/b/a Maurice Ward Group; Maurice Ward & Co., BV.; and Maurice Ward & Co. S.R.O., hereinafter “Respondents.” Complainant states that it is a licensed non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) operating in Atlanta, Georgia. Complainant states that Respondents are foreign limited liability companies that “. . . [provide] global freight forwarding, warehousing, logistics, and custom clearance services for [their] customers”. Complainant asserts that Maurice Ward & Co. S.R.O. is an FMC registered foreign-based unlicensed NVOCC.

    Complainant claims that the Respondents “. . . [acted] as a common carrier as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(6).” Complainant asserts this action arises from “. . . Respondents' unlawful withholding of 87 containers of Complainant's cargo in an attempt to extort Complainant into paying invalid invoices with inaccurate fees and charges that were disputed by Complainant.”

    Complainant specifically alleges that Respondents' actions violated the Shipping Act as they:

    a. “. . . failed to establish, observe and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices related to or connected with receiving, handling, storing and delivering [Complainant's] consigned cargo, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 41102(c)”;

    b. “. . . imposed and attempted to collect improper fees and charges not contained in a service agreement between the parties or published tariff, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 41104(2)”;

    c. “. . . retaliated against [Complainant] by resorting to unfair and unjustly discriminatory methods by withholding release of 87 containers after Falcone disputed the inaccurate fees and charges on Respondents' invoices, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 41104(3)”;

    d. “. . . engaged in unfair practices with respect to rates or charges under its tariff by invoicing [Complainant] for inaccurate and double-charged fees, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 41104(4)”; and

    e. “. . . unreasonably refused to deal or negotiate in good faith with [Complainant] in resolving the disputed invoices, and instead unlawfully withheld the 87 containers, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 41104(10).”

    Complainant seeks reparations in the amount of $798,300 and other relief. The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at www.fmc.gov/18-04/.

    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by June 27, 2019, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by December 10, 2019.

    Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14220 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the mandatory Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (FR Y-15; OMB No. 7100-0352). The revisions are effective as of the June 30, 2018, report date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Final Approval Under OMB Delegated Authority of the Extension for Three Years, With Revision, of the Following Information Collection

    Report title: Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report.

    Agency form number: FR Y-15.

    OMB control number: 7100-0352.

    Effective date: June 30, 2018.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Respondents: U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs), covered savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) of foreign banking organizations with $50 billion or more of total consolidated assets, and any BHC designated as a global systemically important bank holding company (GSIB) that does not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs.

    Estimated number of respondents: 41.

    Estimated average hours per response: 401 hours.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 65,764 hours.

    General description of report: The FR Y-15 quarterly report collects systemic risk data from U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs), covered savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs),1 and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any BHC identified as a global systemically important banking organization (GSIB) based on its method 1 score calculated as of December 31 of the previous calendar year.2 The Board uses the FR Y-15 data to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the systemic risk profile of institutions that are subject to enhanced prudential standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).3 In addition, the FR Y-15 is used to (1) facilitate the implementation of the GSIB surcharge rule,4 (2) identify other institutions that may present significant systemic risk, and (3) analyze the systemic risk implications of proposed mergers and acquisitions.

    1 Covered SLHCs are those which are not substantially engaged in insurance or commercial activities. See 12 CFR 217.2.

    2 See 12 CFR 217.402.

    3 12 U.S.C. 5365.

    4 A firm that is identified as a GSIB is required to hold additional capital to increase its resiliency in light of the greater threat it poses to the financial stability of the United States. The Board's rule on the GSIB surcharge establishes the criteria for identifying a GSIB and the methods that those firms use to calculate a risk-based capital surcharge, which is calibrated to each firm's overall systemic risk. See 81 FR 90952 (December 16, 2016).

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The mandatory FR Y-15 is authorized by sections 163 and 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5463 and 5365), the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3106 and 3108), the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1844), and the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a).

    Most of the data collected on the FR Y-15 is made public unless a specific request for confidentiality is submitted by the reporting entity, either on the FR Y-15 or on the form from which the data item is obtained.5 Such information will be accorded confidential treatment under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) if the submitter substantiates its assertion that disclosure would likely cause substantial competitive harm. In addition, items 1 through 4 of Schedule G of the FR Y-15, which contain granular information regarding the reporting entity's short-term funding, will be accorded confidential treatment under exemption 4 for observation dates that occur prior to the liquidity coverage ratio disclosure standard being implemented.6 To the extent confidential data collected under the FR Y-15 will be used for supervisory purposes, it may be exempt from disclosure under Exemption 8 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).

    5 A number of the items in the FR Y-15 are retrieved from the FR Y-9C, and certain items may be retrieved from the FFIEC 101 and FFIEC 009. Confidential treatment will also extend to any automatically-calculated items on the FR Y-15 that have been derived from confidential data items and that, if released, would reveal the underlying confidential data.

    6 The liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) disclosure requirement for companies subject to the transition period under 12 CFR 249.50(a) (i.e., institutions with $700 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 trillion or more in assets under custody) was implemented on April 1, 2017. Therefore, all Schedule G data for these firms is already available to the public. The LCR disclosure requirement for companies subject to the transition period under 12 CFR 249.50(b) (i.e., institutions with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in total on-balance sheet foreign exposure) was implemented on April 1, 2018. Therefore, all Schedule G data for these firms will be made available to the public starting with the June 30, 2018, as-of date. The LCR disclosure requirement for companies subject to 12 CFR 249, Subpart G will be implemented on October 1, 2018. As this will mark the full implementation of the LCR disclosure standard, items 1 through 4 of Schedule G for all other firms will be made available to the public starting with the December 31, 2018, as-of date.

    Current actions: On August 24, 2017, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 40154) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR Y-15. The Board proposed to amend the FR Y-15 to include Mexican pesos in total payments activity rather than as a memorandum item; add securities brokers to the definition of financial institutions; expressly include derivative transactions where a clearing member bank guarantees performance of a client to a central counterparty; and specify how certain cleared derivatives transactions are reported. The proposal was amended October 18, 2017, to extend the proposed implementation date from December 31, 2017, to March 31, 2018, and to extend the public comment period for the proposal for an additional 30 days (82 FR 49608). The comment period for the proposal expired on November 23, 2017.

    The Board received seven comments on the proposal. One commenter expressed general support of the proposal. Six comments focused on the Board's proposal to include in Schedule D, item 1 the notional amount of over-the-counter (OTC) derivative transactions where a clearing member bank guarantees the performance of a client to a central counterparty (CCP). The comments are discussed below. The comments did not address the other proposed changes in detail and either supported or did not object to the other proposed changes.

    Detailed Discussion of Public Comments Comments Related to the Complexity Indicator

    Commenters noted that derivatives are cleared using two models: The principal model, where the banking organization facilitates the clearing of derivatives by taking opposing positions with the client and the CCP; and the agency model, where a clearing member banking organization, acting as an agent, guarantees the performance of the client to a CCP. The current reporting instructions for derivative contracts cleared through a CCP in Schedule D, item 1 state that, when the reporting banking organization acts as a financial intermediary under the principal model, the notional amounts for each contract—that is, the transaction with the client and the transaction with the CCP—should be reported. In cases where a clearing member banking organization acts as an agent, the current instructions state that the bank should report the notional amount when the bank guarantees the performance of a CCP to a client. As clearing member banking organizations rarely guarantee the performance of a CCP to a client, the amount of derivatives reported under the agency model is low.

    The proposal would have revised the instructions to require reporting of derivative transactions where a clearing member bank guarantees the performance of a client to a CCP under the agency model, thereby increasing parity between the two clearing models.

    One commenter observed that shifts in global clearing activity since 2012 have led to widespread adoption of the agency model of clearing in lieu of the principal model, obviating the need to mitigate the differences in reporting between the models. Commenters also argued that the risk associated with client-cleared transactions would have been overstated under the proposal and that the risks associated with these transactions are already appropriately captured in total exposure (Schedule A, item 1(h)), intra-financial system assets (Schedule B, items 5(a) and 5(b)), and intra-financial system liabilities (Schedule B, items 11(a) and 11(b)). These commenters stated that banking organizations engaged in client clearing businesses focus only on the credit risk of their clients and the imposition of applicable credit limits. Commenters argued that this significantly reduces the complexity of the activity and, therefore, the client leg of these transactions should not be included in the complexity indicator.

    After considering the comments, the Board has decided not to adopt the proposed reporting of derivative transactions where a clearing member bank guarantees the performance of a client to a CCP in Schedule D, item 1. Although derivatives are often complex, the Board does not believe it is appropriate at this time to treat the client leg of a cleared transaction in the agency model as more complex than a simple credit exposure, and therefore does not believe it is currently necessary to include these exposures in the complexity indicator. Further, part of the motivation for including the client leg of the agency model was to make sure that, for a regulatory framework that encompasses multiple models of clearing, no one model receives significantly more or less representation with respect to the GSIB indicators. The proposal was intended in part to ensure that the agency model would be adequately included in the GSIB indicators compared to the principal model. However, the expansion in the availability and overall use of the agency model somewhat mitigates concerns about the relative treatment of client-cleared transactions between respondents, and the Board is thus not currently concerned that excluding the client leg from the GSIB indicators will result in a significant disparity among reporters. Because the two clearing models remain, however, the Board may need to address inequitable treatment of client-cleared transactions in the future if the principal model again becomes more common.

    Comments Related to the Interconnectedness Indicators

    Consistent with the proposed change to Schedule D, item 1 discussed above, the Board also proposed to revise the instructions to Schedule B, items 5(a) and 11(a) for reporting derivative contracts cleared under the agency model. The current instructions state that the bank should report the net positive or net negative fair value when the bank guarantees the performance of a CCP to a client. As noted, this rarely occurs, resulting in almost no reporting of derivatives under the agency model in these two items on Schedule B.

    Several commenters stated that requiring cleared derivative transactions to be reported where the bank guarantees the performance of a financial institution client could discourage derivative clearing activities, contrary to public policy goals, because client clearing of derivatives may reduce systemic risk. Additionally, these commenters argued that the proposed changes could result in the GSIB surcharge of several firms increasing, which, in turn, could lead these firms to increase clearing costs for derivative end-users.

    After considering the comments, the Board is not adopting its proposal with respect to reporting derivatives under the agency model on Schedule B in order to allow additional time to consider how to cover such activity in the context of interconnectedness. The Board will continue to consider whether agency clearing should be incorporated into the interconnectedness measures or elsewhere.

    Other Comments Received

    No comments were received regarding the inclusion of Mexican pesos in total payments activity or the addition of securities brokers to the definition of financial institution. Accordingly, the Board is adopting revisions to the FR Y-15 reporting form and instructions to include Mexican pesos in total payments activity on Schedule C and remove it from the Memorandum items, and to add securities brokers to the definition of financial institutions in the instructions for Schedule B. These changes are effective for the June 30, 2018, reporting date.

    Several commenters stated that the proposed changes to the reporting of OTC derivatives in Schedule D would make the FR Y-15 inconsistent with the Basel Committee GSIB assessment reporting instructions.7 In addition, certain commenters stated that the proposed revisions to Schedule B, items 5(a) and 11(a), and Schedule D, item 1, were inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Board is not adopting these proposed changes, making these arguments moot.8

    7 The international GSIB assessment reporting instructions for year-end 2017 are available at www.bis.org/bcbs/gsib/reporting_instructions.htm.

    8 Even if the argument regarding the APA were not moot, the Board would not have violated the APA if it decided to implement the proposed revisions to Schedule B, items 5(a) and 11(a), and Schedule D, item 1. The proposed revisions to the FR Y-15 constitute an interpretive rule or general statement of policy, and therefore may be adopted without the publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. Even if such publication were necessary to adopt the proposed revisions, this requirement was satisfied because the proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register for a 60-day comment period. After receiving initial feedback on the proposal, the comment period was extended for 30 days to solicit additional feedback. Moreover, redlined forms, instructions, and an OMB supporting statement were made available on the Board's public website. The materials afforded commenters the opportunity to provide specific feedback regarding the exact changes being proposed. Indeed, commenters provided significant feedback based on the proposal.

    One commenter noted that the definition of “financial institution” in the FR Y-15 is different from other regulatory reports and recommended aligning the varying definitions. In response, the Board acknowledges that its regulations and reporting sometimes use differing definitions for similar concepts and that this may require firms to track differences among the definitions. Firms should review the definition of “financial institution” in the instructions of the form on which they are reporting and should not look to similar definitions in other forms as dispositive for appropriate reporting on the FR Y-15.

    A commenter also asked for clarification about whether securities financing transactions follow the regulatory capital rule definition of repo-style transactions. As described in the General Instructions of Schedule A, several items involve securities financing transactions (i.e., repo-style transactions), which are transactions such as repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements, and securities lending and borrowing, where the value of the transactions depends on the market valuations and the transactions are often subject to margin agreements. For purposes of reporting on the FR Y-15, the intent is that securities financing transactions are synonymous with repo-style transactions under the regulatory capital rule. In a future update of the FR Y-15, the Board will work to replace the term “securities financing transactions” with “repo-style transactions” to better align the FR Y-15 language with the regulatory capital rule.

    In addition, a commenter asked for clarification regarding potential inconsistencies between similar items that are reported on different reporting forms. In particular, the commenter noted that the instructions for the FR Y-15, FFIEC 101 (Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework), and FR Y-14Q (Capital Assessments and Stress Testing) do not consistently allow for a reduction in fair value of sold credit protection. The Board will conduct a coordinated effort with the other banking agencies on changes to the FFIEC 101 and the FR Y-14 to ensure that the instructions appropriately clarify how any adjustments for sold credit protection should be reported.9

    9 Any changes to these reporting forms would have to be proposed in a future Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

    Further, a commenter asked for clarification regarding the reporting of holdings of equity investments in unconsolidated investment funds sponsored or administered by the respondent. Specifically, the commenter wanted to know whether such investments would be reported as equity securities in Schedule B, item 3(e). Per the general instructions for Schedule B, item 3, firms must include “securities issued by equity-accounted associates (i.e., associated companies and affiliates accounted for under the equity method of accounting) and special purpose entities (SPEs) that are not part of the consolidated entity for regulatory purposes.” Therefore, such equity investments would be included in item 3(e).

    A commenter also requested clarification on how collateral may reduce the exposure reported in the FR Y-15, Schedule B, items 5(a) and 11(a). For item 5(a), in cases where a qualifying master netting agreement is in place, a reporting bank may reduce its value of derivative assets by subtracting the net collateral position from the underlying obligation. In circumstances where the net collateral exceeds the payment obligation, the bank should report a fair value of zero for the netting set. Similarly, for item 11(a), in cases where a qualifying master netting agreement is in place, a reporting bank may reduce its value of derivative liabilities exposure by subtracting the net collateral position from the underlying obligation. In circumstances where the net collateral exceeds the payment obligation owed to the counterparty, the bank should report a fair value of zero for the netting set.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 28, 2018. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14304 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Notice, request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Interagency Guidance on Managing Compliance and Reputation Risks for Reverse Mortgage Products (FR 4029; OMB No. 7100-0330).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR 4029, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Website: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's website at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. For security reasons, the Board requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 452-3684. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and to submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

    Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

    The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.

    Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report:

    Report title: Interagency Guidance on Managing Compliance and Reputation Risks for Reverse Mortgage Products.

    Agency form number: FR 4029.

    OMB control number: 7100-0330.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Respondents: State member banks that originate proprietary reverse mortgages.

    Estimated number of respondents: Implementation of policies and procedures, 1 respondent; and Review and maintenance of policies and procedures, 15 respondents.

    Estimated average hours per response: Implementation of policies and procedures, 40 hours; and Review and maintenance of policies and procedures, 8 hours.

    Estimated annual burden hours: Implementation of policies and procedures, 40 hours; and Review and maintenance of policies and procedures, 120 hours.

    General description of report: Reverse mortgages are home-secured loans typically offered to elderly consumers. Financial institutions currently provide two types of reverse mortgage products: the lenders' own proprietary reverse mortgage products and reverse mortgages insured by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Reverse mortgage loans insured by the FHA are made pursuant to the guidelines and rules established by HUD's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program.1 HECM loans and proprietary reverse mortgages are also subject to consumer financial protection laws and regulations, e.g., the regulations that implement laws such as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).

    1 See 12 U.S.C. 1715z-20; 24 CFR part 206.

    In August 2010, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), on behalf of its member agencies,2 published a Federal Register notice adopting supervisory guidance titled “Reverse Mortgage Products: Guidance for Managing Compliance and Reputation Risks.” 3 The guidance is designed to help financial institutions with risk management and assist financial institutions' efforts to ensure that their reverse mortgage lending practices adequately address consumer compliance and reputation risks.

    2 The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

    3 75 FR 50801.

    The reverse mortgage guidance discusses the reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosures required by federal laws and regulations and also discusses consumer disclosures that financial institutions typically provide as a standard business practice. Certain portions of the guidance are “information collections” subject to the PRA's requirements.

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The information collection is authorized pursuant to section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 248 (state member banks); sections 25 and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 625 (Edge and Agreement corporations); section 5 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. 1844 (bank holding companies and, in conjunction with section 8 of the International Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. 3106, foreign banking organizations); section 7(c) of the International Banking Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. 3105(c) (branches and agencies of foreign banks); and section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act, 12 U.S.C. 1467a, (savings and loan holding companies). This guidance is voluntary.

    Because the documentation required by the guidance is maintained by each institution, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would only be implicated if the Federal Reserve's examiners retained a copy of this information as part of an examination or as part of its supervision of a financial institution. However, records obtained as a part of an examination or supervision of a financial institution are exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption (b)(8) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, the information may also be kept confidential under exemption 4 of the FOIA which protects commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 28, 2018. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14303 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. OP-1612] Announcement of Financial Sector Liabilities

    Section 622 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, implemented by the Board's Regulation XX, prohibits a merger or acquisition that would result in a financial company that controls more than 10 percent of the aggregate consolidated liabilities of all financial companies (“aggregate financial sector liabilities”). Specifically, an insured depository institution, a bank holding company, a savings and loan holding company, a foreign banking organization, any other company that controls an insured depository institution, and a nonbank financial company designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (each, a “financial company”) is prohibited from merging or consolidating with, acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of, or acquiring control of, another company if the resulting company's consolidated liabilities would exceed 10 percent of the aggregate financial sector liabilities.1

    1 12 U.S.C. 1852(a)(2), (b).

    Pursuant to Regulation XX, the Federal Reserve will publish the aggregate financial sector liabilities by July 1 of each year. Aggregate financial sector liabilities equals the average of the year-end financial sector liabilities figure (as of December 31) of each of the preceding two calendar years.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Healey, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202) 912-4611; Matthew Suntag, Counsel, (202) 452-3694; for the hearing impaired, TTY (202) 263-4869.

    Aggregate Financial Sector Liabilities

    Aggregate financial sector liabilities is equal to $20,283,121,945,000.2 This measure is in effect from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.

    2 This number reflects the average of the financial sector liabilities figure for the year ending December 31, 2016 ($20,079,196,276,000) and the year ending December 31, 2017 ($20,487,047,614,000).

    Calculation Methodology

    Aggregate financial sector liabilities equals the average of the year-end financial sector liabilities figure (as of December 31) of each of the preceding two calendar years. The year-end financial sector liabilities figure equals the sum of the total consolidated liabilities of all top-tier U.S. financial companies and the U.S. liabilities of all top-tier foreign financial companies, calculated using the applicable methodology for each financial company, as set forth in Regulation XX and summarized below.

    Consolidated liabilities of a U.S. financial company that was subject to consolidated risk-based capital rules as of December 31 of the year being measured, equal the difference between its risk-weighted assets (as adjusted upward to reflect amounts that are deducted from regulatory capital elements pursuant to the Federal banking agencies' risk-based capital rules) and total regulatory capital, as calculated under the applicable risk-based capital rules. Companies in this category include (with certain exceptions listed below) bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, and insured depository institutions. The Federal Reserve used information collected on the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) and the Bank Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) to calculate liabilities of these institutions.

    Consolidated liabilities of a U.S. financial company not subject to consolidated risk-based capital rules as of December 31 of the year being measured, equal liabilities calculated in accordance with applicable accounting standards. Companies in this category include nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board, bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies subject to the Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement, savings and loan holding companies substantially engaged in insurance underwriting or commercial activities, and U.S. companies that control insured depository institutions but are not bank holding companies or savings and loan holding companies. “Applicable accounting standards” is defined as GAAP, or such other accounting standard or method of estimation that the Board determines is appropriate.3 The Federal Reserve used information collected on the FR Y-9C, the Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Small Holding Companies (FR Y-9SP), and the Financial Company Report of Consolidated Liabilities (FR XX-1) to calculate liabilities of these institutions.

    3 A financial company may request to use an accounting standard or method of estimation other than GAAP if it does not calculate its total consolidated assets or liabilities under GAAP for any regulatory purpose (including compliance with applicable securities laws). 12 CFR 251.3(e). In previous years, the Board received and approved requests from eleven financial companies to use an accounting standard or method of estimation other than GAAP to calculate liabilities. Ten of the companies are insurance companies that report financial information under Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”), and one is a foreign company that controls a U.S. industrial loan company that reports financial information under International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). For the insurance companies, the Board approved a method of estimation that was based on line items from SAP-based reports, with adjustments to reflect certain differences in accounting treatment between GAAP and SAP. For the foreign company, the Board approved the use of IFRS. These companies continue to use the previously approved methods. The Board did not receive any new requests this year.

    Section 622 provides that the U.S. liabilities of a “foreign financial company” equal the risk-weighted assets and regulatory capital attributable to the company's “U.S. operations.” Under Regulation XX, liabilities of a foreign banking organization's U.S. operations are calculated using the risk-weighted asset methodology for subsidiaries subject to risk-based capital rules, plus the assets of all branches, agencies, and nonbank subsidiaries, calculated in accordance with applicable accounting standards. Liabilities attributable to the U.S. operations of a foreign financial company that is not a foreign banking organization are calculated in a similar manner to the method described for foreign banking organizations, but liabilities of a U.S. subsidiary not subject to risk-based capital rules are calculated based on the U.S. subsidiary's liabilities under applicable accounting standards. The Federal Reserve used information collected on the Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7Q), the FR Y-9C and the FR XX-1 to calculate liabilities of these institutions.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Director of Supervision and Regulation under delegated authority, June 27, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14241 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) (FR B; OMB No. 7100-0201).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report:

    Report title: Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity Act).

    Agency form number: FR B.

    OMB control number: 7100-0201.

    Frequency: Monthly; annually.

    Respondents: State member banks; subsidiaries of state member banks; subsidiaries of bank holding companies; U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than federal branches, federal agencies, and insured state branches of foreign banks); commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks; and organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601-604a; 611-631).

    Estimated number of respondents: Notifications, furnishing of credit information, record retention (applications, actions, and prescreened solicitations), information for monitoring purposes, and rules on providing appraisal reports (providing appraisal report), 958 respondents; Self-testing: Record retention—incentives, 92 respondents; Self-testing: Record retention—self-correction, 23 respondents; and Self-testing: Record retention—rules concerning requests for information (disclosure for optional self-test), 92 respondents.

    Estimated average hours per response: Notifications, 6 hours; Furnishing of credit information, 2.5 hours; Record retention (applications, actions, and prescreened solicitations), 8 hours; Information for monitoring purposes, 0.25 hours; Rules on providing appraisal reports (providing appraisal report), 3 hours; Self-testing: Record retention—incentives, 2 hours; Self-testing: Record retention—self-correction, 8 hours; and Self-testing: Record retention—rules concerning requests for information (disclosure for optional self-test), 3.5 hours.

    Estimated annual burden hours: Notifications, 68,976 hours; Furnishing of credit information, 28,740 hours; Record retention (applications, actions, and prescreened solicitations), 7,664 hours; Information for monitoring purposes, 2,874 hours; Rules on providing appraisal reports (providing appraisal report), 34,488 hours; Self-testing: Record retention—incentives, 184 hours; Self-testing: Record retention—self-correction, 184 hours; and Self-testing: Record retention—rules concerning requests for information (disclosure for optional self-test), 3,864 hours.

    General description of report: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was enacted in 1974 and is implemented by the CFPB's Regulation B for institutions the Board supervises.1 The ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract), or other specified bases (receipt of public assistance, or the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)). To aid in implementation of this prohibition, the statute and regulation subject creditors to various mandatory disclosure requirements, notification provisions informing applicants of action taken on the credit application, provision of appraisal reports in connection with mortgages, credit history reporting, monitoring rules, and recordkeeping requirements. These requirements are triggered by specific events and disclosures must be provided within the time periods established by the statute and regulation.

    1 15 U.S.C. 1691. The CFPB's Regulation B is located at 12 CFR part 1002.

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The CFPB is authorized to issue its Regulation B pursuant to its authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of ECOA (15 U.S.C. 1691b). The obligation to comply with the recordkeeping and disclosure requirements of CFPB's Regulation B is mandatory. Because the recordkeeping and disclosure requirements of the CFPB's Regulation B require creditors to retain their own records and to make certain disclosures to customers, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would only be implicated if the Board's examiners retained a copy of this information as part of an examination of a bank. Records obtained as a part of an examination or supervision of a bank are exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption (b)(8), for examination material (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, the records may also be exempt under FOIA exemption (b)(4) or (b)(6). Records would be exempt under (b)(4) if the records contained “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential” and the disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondents (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Records would be exempt under (b)(6) if the records contained personal information, the disclosure of which would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)).

    Current actions: On April 13, 2018, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 16098) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR B. The comment period for this notice expired on June 12, 2018. The Board received one comment letter that addressed matter outside the scope of this proposal.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 28, 2018.

    Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14305 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC-2018-0006; Docket Number NIOSH-306] Final National Occupational Research Agenda for Services AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    NIOSH announces the availability of the final National Occupational Research Agenda for Services.

    DATES:

    The final document was published on June 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The document may be obtained at the following link: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nora/sectors/serv/agenda.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Novicki, M.A., M.P.H, ([email protected]), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop E-20, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, phone (404) 498-2581 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 29, 2018, NIOSH published a request for public review in the Federal Register [83 FR 4058] of the draft version of the National Occupational Research Agenda for Services. All comments received were reviewed and addressed where appropriate.

    John J. Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14227 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10673] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' website address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10673 Medicare Advantage Qualifying Payment Arrangement Incentive (MAQI) Demonstration

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: New Collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Medicare Advantage Qualifying Payment Arrangement Incentive (MAQI) Demonstration; Use: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may test a demonstration, under Section 402 of the Social Security Amendments of 1968 (as amended), entitled the Medicare Advantage Qualifying Payment Arrangement Incentive (MAQI) Demonstration (“the Demonstration”). If it goes forward, the MAQI demonstration could test whether exempting, through the use of waiver authority, clinicians who participate to a sufficient degree in certain payment arrangements with Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) (combined with participation, if any, in Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs) with Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS)) from the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) reporting requirements and payment adjustment will increase or maintain participation in payment arrangements with MAOs similar to Advanced APMs and change the manner in which clinicians deliver care.

    Clinicians may currently participate in one of two paths of the Quality Payment Program (QPP): (1) MIPS, which adjusts Medicare payments based on combined performance on measures of quality, cost, improvement activities, and advancing care information, or (2) Advanced Alternative Payment Models with Medicare (Advanced APMs), under which eligible clinicians may earn an incentive payment for sufficient participation in certain payment arrangements with Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and other payers, and starting in the 2019 performance period, with other payers such as Medicare Advantage, commercial payers, and Medicaid managed care. To participate in the Advanced APM path of QPP for a given year, eligible clinicians must meet the criteria of Qualifying APM Participants (QPs); in addition to earning an APM incentive payment, QPs are excluded from the MIPS reporting requirements and payment adjustment.

    An eligible clinician that does not meet the criteria to be a QP for a given year will be subject to MIPS for that year unless the clinician meets certain other MIPS exclusion criteria, such as being newly enrolled in Medicare or meeting the low volume threshold for Medicare FFS patients. The MAQI Demonstration could allow participating clinicians to have the opportunity to be exempt from MIPS reporting and payment consequences for a given year if they participate to a sufficient degree in certain Qualifying Payment Arrangements with MAOs (and Advanced APMs with Medicare FFS) during the performance period for that year, without requiring them to be QPs or otherwise meet the MIPS exclusion criteria of QPP. Under a possible Demonstration, clinicians might not be required to have a minimum amount of participation in an Advanced APM with Medicare FFS in order to be exempt from MIPS reporting requirements and payment adjustments for a year, but if they did have participation in Advanced APMs with Medicare FFS, that participation could also be counted towards the thresholds that trigger the waiver from MIPS reporting and payment consequences. In addition, the Demonstration could permit consideration of participation in “Qualifying Payment Arrangements” with Medicare Advantage plans that meet the criteria to be Other Payer Advanced APMs a year before the All-Payer Combination Option is available.

    In the Calendar Year 2018 Quality Payment Program Final Rule, CMS noted its intention “to develop a demonstration project to test the effects of expanding incentives for eligible clinicians to participate in innovative alternative payment arrangements under Medicare Advantage that qualify as Advanced APMs, by allowing credit for participation in such Medicare Advantage arrangements prior to 2019 and incentivizing participation in such arrangements in 2018 through 2024.” (92 FR 53865).

    The first performance period for the Demonstration is tentatively planned for 2018 and the Demonstration would last up to five years. Clinicians who meet the definition of MIPS eligible clinician under QPP as defined under 42 CFR 414.1305 would be eligible to participate in the MAQI Demonstration. Currently, MIPS eligible clinicians include physicians (including doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathy, osteopathic practitioners, doctors of dental surgery, doctors of dental medicine, doctors of podiatric medicine, doctors of optometry, and chiropractors), physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists. If the definition of MIPS eligible clinician changes under future rulemaking, the Demonstration would use the updated definition to define Demonstration eligibility.

    Participation could last the duration of the Demonstration, unless participation is voluntarily or involuntarily terminated under the terms and conditions of the Demonstration. Participants would have the opportunity to submit the required documentation and be evaluated for MIPS waivers through the Demonstration each year.

    Should this demonstration move forward, and in order to conduct an evaluation and effectively implement the MAQI Demonstration, CMS would need to collect information from Demonstration participants on (a) payment arrangements with MAOs and (b) Medicare Advantage (MA) payments and patient counts. CMS would require a new collection of this information as this information is not already available through other sources and/or has not been previously approved for use under the MAQI Demonstration. The information collected in these forms would allow CMS to evaluate whether the payment arrangement that clinicians have with MAOs meet the Qualifying Payment Arrangement criteria, and determine whether a clinician's MAO and FFS APM patient population or payments meet demonstration thresholds. Both of these areas are also requirements for review and data collection under QPP (i.e. the Eligible Clinician-Initiated Other Payer Advanced APM Determination form and All-Payer QP Submission form), and therefore similar to forms have been prepared and reviewed under the QPP.

    Given these similarities in forms, burden estimates for the MAQI Demonstration PRA package were derived from burden analyses and formulation done in conjunction with the QPP forms; more specifically the estimated burden associated with the submission of payment arrangement information for Other Payer Advanced APM Determinations: Eligible Clinician-Initiated Process, and the estimated burden associated with the submission of data for All-Payer QP determinations. CMS estimates the total hour burden per respondent for the MAQI demonstration to be 15 hours, to match the hours listed in the equivalent QPP forms. Full detail of how these estimates were derived can be found in the forthcoming Calendar Year 2019 Proposed QPP rule.

    If Demonstration participants submitted information, but did not meet these conditions of the Demonstration, their participation in the Demonstration would not be terminated, but they would not receive the waivers from MIPS reporting requirements and payment adjustments. Therefore, unless they become QPs or are excluded from MIPS for other reasons, the participating clinicians would be subject to MIPS and would face the MIPS payment adjustments for the applicable year. We are requesting approval of 2 information collections associated with the MAQI Demonstration: (a) A Qualifying Payment Arrangement Submission Form and (b) a Threshold Data Submission Form. Form Number: CMS-10673 (OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector—Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 100,000; Total Annual Responses: 100,000; Total Annual Hours: 1,500,000. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact John Amoh at [email protected].)

    Dated: June 28, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14336 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA 2012-N-0129] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection in an application for a proposed biosimilar product and an application for a supplement for a proposed interchangeable product.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 4, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of September 4, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA 2012-N-0129 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications OMB Control Number 0910-0719—Extension

    The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and other statutes to create an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference product. Section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)), added by the BPCI Act, sets forth the requirements for an application for a proposed biosimilar product and an application or a supplement for a proposed interchangeable product. Section 351(k) defines biosimilarity to mean that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that “there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product (see section 351(i)(2) of the PHS Act). A 351(k) application must contain, among other things, information demonstrating that the biological product is biosimilar to a reference product based upon data derived from analytical studies, animal studies, and clinical studies, unless FDA determines, in its discretion, that certain studies are unnecessary in a 351(k) application (see section 351(k)(2) of the PHS Act). To meet the standard for interchangeability, an applicant must provide sufficient information to demonstrate biosimilarity and also to demonstrate that the biological product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, if the biological product is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch (see section 351(k)(4) of the PHS Act).

    Interchangeable products may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the prescribing healthcare provider (see section 351(i)(3) of the PHS Act) In estimating the information collection burden for 351(k) biosimilar product applications and interchangeable product applications or supplements, we reviewed the number of 351(k) applications FDA has received in fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, considered responses to a survey of biosimilar sponsors and applicants regarding projected future 351(k) submission volumes, as well as the collection of information regarding the general licensing provisions for biologics license applications under section 351(a) of the PHS Act submitted to OMB (approved under OMB control number 0910-0338).

    To submit an application seeking licensure of a proposed biosimilar product under sections 351(k)(2)(A)(i) and (iii) of the PHS Act, the estimated burden hours (FDA believes) would be approximately the same as noted under OMB control number 0910-0338 for a 351(a) application—860 hours. The burden estimates for seeking licensure of a proposed biosimilar product that meets the standards for interchangeability under sections 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4) would also be 860 hours per application. FDA believes these estimates are appropriate for 351(k) applications because the paperwork burden for a 351(k) application is expected to be comparable to the paperwork burden for a 351(a) application.

    In addition to the collection of information regarding the submission of a 351(k) application for a proposed biosimilar or interchangeable biological product, section 351(l) of the BPCI Act establishes procedures for identifying and resolving patent disputes involving applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act. The burden estimate for the patent notification provisions under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the BPCI Act are included in table 1 and are based on the estimated number of 351(k) applicants. Based on similar reporting requirements, FDA estimates this notification will take 2 hours.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 351(k) Applications
  • (42 U.S.C. 262(k))
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    351(k)(2)(A)(i) and 351(k)(2)(A)(iii) Biosimilar Product Applications 4 2.25 9 860 7,740 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4) Interchangeable Product Applications or Supplements 2 1 2 860 1,720 351(l)(6)(C) Patent Infringement Notifications 4 2.25 9 2 18 Total 9,478 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, the estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase in total hours and responses. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of submissions received over the last few years and additional interest in the biosimilars program.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14265 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2490] Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 7, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-1073. The docket will close on August 6, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by August 6, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 6, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Comments received on or before July 24, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2490 for “Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see the ADDRESSES section), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren D. Tesh, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA) 207356, amikacin liposome inhalation suspension, sponsored by Insmed, Inc., for the proposed indication of treatment of nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease caused by Mycobacterium avium complex in adults as part of a combination antibacterial drug regimen.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Dockets Management Staff (see the ADDRESSES section) on or before July 24, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before July 16, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by July 17, 2018.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at [email protected] or 301-796-4540.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lauren Tesh (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14240 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0369] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Regulations Under the Federal Import Milk Act AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0212. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733, PRAS[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Regulations Under the Federal Import Milk Act (FIMA)—21 CFR Part 1210 OMB Control Number 0910-0212—Extension

    Under FIMA (21 U.S.C. 141-149), milk or cream may be imported into the United States only by the holder of a valid import milk permit (21 U.S.C. 141). Before such permit is issued: (1) All cows from which import milk or cream is produced must be physically examined and found healthy; (2) if the milk or cream is imported raw, all such cows must pass a tuberculin test; (3) the dairy farm and each plant in which the milk or cream is processed or handled must be inspected and found to meet certain sanitary requirements; (4) bacterial counts of the milk at the time of importation must not exceed specified limits; and (5) the temperature of the milk or cream at time of importation must not exceed 50 °F (21 U.S.C. 142).

    Our regulations in part 1210 (21 CFR part 1210), implement the provisions of FIMA. Sections 1210.11 and 1210.14 require reports on the sanitary conditions of, respectively, dairy farms and plants producing milk and/or cream to be shipped to the United States. Section 1210.12 requires reports on the physical examination of herds, while § 1210.13 requires the reporting of tuberculin testing of the herds. In addition, the regulations in part 1210 require that dairy farmers and plants maintain pasteurization records (§ 1210.15) and that each container of milk or cream imported into the United States bear a tag with the product type, permit number, and shipper's name and address (§ 1210.22). Section 1210.20 requires that an application for a permit to ship or transport milk or cream into the United States be made by the actual shipper. Section 1210.23 allows permits to be granted based on certificates from accredited officials.

    In the Federal Register of April 2, 2018 (83 FR 13992), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR
  • Section
  • Form FDA No. Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total
  • hours
  • 1210.11 1996/Sanitary inspection of dairy farms 2 200 400 1.5 600 1210.12 1995/Physical examination of cows 1 1 1 0.5 (30 minutes) 0.5 1210.13 1994/Tuberculin test 1 1 1 0.5 (30 minutes) 0.5 1210.14 1997/Sanitary inspections of plants 2 1 2 2 4 1210.20 1993/Application for permit 2 1 2 0.5 (30 minutes) 1 1210.23 1815/Permits granted on certificates 2 1 2 0.5 (30 minutes) 1 Total 607 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR
  • Section
  • Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total annual
  • records
  • Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    1210.15 2 1 2 0.05 (3 minutes) 0.10 (6 minutes). 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Upon review of the information collection, we have retained the currently approved estimated burden. The estimated number of respondents and hours per response are based on our experience with the import milk permit program and the average number of import milk permit holders over the past 3 years. Assuming two respondents will submit approximately 200 Form FDA 1996 reports annually for a total of 600 responses, and that each response requires 1.5 hours, we estimate the total burden is 600 hours.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the discretion to allow Form FDA 1815, a duly certified statement signed by an accredited official of a foreign government, to be submitted in lieu of Forms FDA 1994 and 1995. To date, Form FDA 1815 has been submitted in lieu of these forms. Because we have not received any Forms FDA 1994 or 1995 in the last 3 years, we assume no more than one will be submitted annually. We also assume each submission requires 0.5 hour for a total of 0.5 burden hour annually.

    We estimate that two respondents will submit one Form FDA 1997 report annually, for a total of two responses. We estimate the reporting burden to be 2 hours per response, for a total burden of 4 hours.

    We estimate that two respondents will submit one Form FDA 1993 report annually, for a total of two responses. We estimate the reporting burden to be 0.5 hour per response, for a total burden of 1 hour.

    We estimate that two respondents will submit one Form FDA 1815 report annually, for a total of two responses. We estimate the reporting burden to be 0.5 hour per response, for a total burden of 1 hour.

    With regard to records maintenance, we estimate that approximately two recordkeepers will spend 0.05 hour annually maintaining the additional pasteurization records required by § 1210.15, for a total of 0.10 hour annually.

    No burden has been estimated for the tagging requirement in § 1210.22 because the information on the tag is either supplied by us (permit number) or is disclosed to third parties as a usual and customary part of the shipper's normal business activities (type of product, shipper's name and address). Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), the public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public is not subject to review by OMB under the PRA. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information are excluded from the burden estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary because they would occur in the normal course of business activities.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14266 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Neural Control of Mobility in Aging.

    Date: July 25, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C223, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 28, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14315 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Translational Research Program to Develop Novel Therapies and Devices for the Treatment of Visual System Disorders (R24).

    Date: July 25, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn, Bethesda 7301, Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jeanette M. Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute, Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Cooperative Agreement Applications II.

    Date: July 25, 2018.

    Time: 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jeanette M. Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 27, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14216 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Predictive Markers.

    Date: July 10, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Room 2C-212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Alicja L. Markowska, DSC, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9666, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 28, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14313 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council was renewed for an additional two-year period on June 27, 2018.

    It is determined that the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.

    Inquiries may be directed to Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or [email protected]

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14318 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 19, 2018, 08:00 a.m. to July 20, 2018, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2018, 83 FR Pg 29803.

    This meeting was changed from a 2-day meeting to a 1-day meeting. The meeting is now July 19, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14215 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; Medication Development for Alcohol Use Disorders (PAR 18-578 & RFA AA 18-009).

    Date: July 10, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5365 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 451-2067, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; SEP Review Member Conflict Applications.

    Date: July 10, 2018.

    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 pm.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Anna Ghambaryan, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Activities, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; SEP Review Member Conflict Applications.

    Date: July 13, 2018.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Anna Ghambaryan, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Activities, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 26, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14217 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Risk, Prevention, and Health Behavior Overflow.

    Date: July 17, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: John H. Newman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3222, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0628, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Vascular and Hematology AREA Application Review.

    Date: July 31, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Katherine M. Malinda, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0912, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; AREA: Immunology.

    Date: August 2, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Liying Guo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4016F, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0908, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 28, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14310 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Vascular and Hematology: Molecular and Cellular Hematology.

    Date: July 23, 2018.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Luis Espinoza, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0952, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Lymphangiogenesis SEP.

    Date: July 31, 2018.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Larry Pinkus, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4132, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1214, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 28, 2018. David D. Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14309 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Center for Inherited Disease Research Access Committee.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access Committee.

    Date: July 20, 2018.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3049, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Ste. 4076, MSC 9306, Bethesda, MD 20892-9306, 301-402-0838, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 27, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14311 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.

    Date: September 12-13, 2018.

    Closed: September 12, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31/6C, Conference Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: September 13, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31/6C, Conference Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: September 13, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: Report by the Director, NINDS; Report by the Director, Division of Extramural Activities; and Administrative and Program Developments.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31/6C, Conference Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Robert Finkelstein, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3309, MSC 9531, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9248.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into Federal buildings. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://www.ninds.nih.gov, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: June 27, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14317 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Oncology.

    Date: July 12-13, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Crowne Plaza Seattle-Downtown, 1113 6th Ave, Seattle, WA 98101.

    Contact Person: Reigh-Yi Lin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-6009, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy.

    Date: July 12, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Charles Selden, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 5187 MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3388, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Epilepsy and Ischemia.

    Date: July 24, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Seetha Bhagavan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-9838, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Biobehavioral Applications on Reward and Conditioning.

    Date: July 25, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Andrea B Kelly, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3182, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 455-1761, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel, PAR-17-086/7: Tobacco Use and HIV in Low and Middle Income Countries.

    Date: July 25, 2018.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Mark P Rubert, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5218, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1775, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Translational Research in Pediatric and Obstetric Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

    Date: July 26, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Dianne Hardy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6175, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1154, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel, PAR Panel: AIDS and Related Research.

    Date: July 27, 2018.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Kenneth A Roebuck, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5106, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1166, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel, Small Business: HIV/AIDS Innovative Research Applications.

    Date: July 27, 2018.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Mark P Rubert, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5218, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1775, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review, Special Emphasis Panel, Acute Neural Injury and Epilepsy.

    Date: July 30, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Seetha Bhagavan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-9838, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 26, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14213 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; AIDS Clinical Studies and Epidemiology Study Section.

    Date: July 31-August 1, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Dimitrios Nikolaos Vatakis, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3190, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7480, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-AG-18-026 From Association to Function in the Alzheimer's Disease Post-Genomics Era.

    Date: July 31, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Brian H. Scott, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review,6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7490, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Vascular and Hematology AREA Application Review.

    Date: July 31, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Natalia Komissarova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1206, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 27, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14214 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01).

    Date: July 18, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: National Institutes of Health 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Priti Mehrotra, Ph.D., Chief, Immunology Review Branch Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G40 National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 240-669-5066, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 27, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14218 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Second Stage Review.

    Date: July 20, 2018.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Room 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific Review Branch, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7700, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 28, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14314 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse And Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Initial Review Group Clinical, Treatment and Health Services Research Review Subcommittee.

    Date: October 15, 2018.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5365 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 451-2067, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: June 28, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14316 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2018-0190] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0097 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change; of the following collection of information: 1625-0097, Plan Approval and Records for Marine Engineering Systems—46 CFR Subchapter F. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0190] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0190], and must be received by August 2, 2018.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0097.

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (83 FR 14874, April 6, 2018) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

    Information Collection Request

    Title: Plan Approval and Records for Marine Engineering Systems—46 CFR Subchapter F.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0097.

    Summary: This collection of information requires an owner or builder of a commercial vessel to submit to the U.S. Coast Guard for review and approval, plans pertaining to marine engineering systems to ensure that the vessel will meet regulatory standards.

    Need: Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, the Coast Guard is authorized to prescribe vessel safety regulations including those related to marine engineering systems. Title 46 CFR Subchapter F prescribes those requirements. The rules provide the specifications, standards, and requirements for strength and adequacy of design, construction, installation, inspection, and choice of materials for machinery, boilers, pressure vessels, safety valves, and piping systems upon which safety of life is dependent.

    Forms: None.

    Respondents: Owners and builders of commercial vessels.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 5,512 hours to 5,793 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: June 26, 2018. James D. Roppel, Acting Chief, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14237 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2018-0191] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0034 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change; of the following collection of information: 1625-0034, Ships' Stores Certification for Hazardous Materials Aboard Ships. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0191] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0191], and must be received by August 2, 2018.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0034.

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (83 FR 14875, April 6, 2018) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

    Information Collection Request

    Title: Ships' Stores Certification for Hazardous Materials Aboard Ships.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0034.

    Summary: The information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure that personnel aboard ships are made aware of the proper usage and stowage instructions for certain hazardous materials. Provisions are made for waivers of products in special Department of Transportation (DOT) hazard classes.

    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations for the transportation, stowage, and use of ships' stores and supplies of a dangerous nature. Part 147 of 46 CFR prescribes the regulations for hazardous ships' stores.

    Forms: None.

    Respondents: Owners and operators of ships, and suppliers and manufacturers of hazardous materials used on ships.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 8 hours to 4 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: June 26, 2018. James D. Roppel, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14242 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2018-0189] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0101 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0101, Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain Tank Vessels Over 30 Years Old. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0189] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0189], and must be received by August 2, 2018.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulatio