Federal Register Vol. 83, No.140,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 140 (July 20, 2018)

Page Range34469-34752
FR Document

83_FR_140
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 34618 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 34601 - Bog Creek Road Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 34622 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 34513 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Southington Landfill Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 34698 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
83 FR 34506 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Determination of Attainment of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Jamestown, New York Marginal Nonattainment AreaPDF
83 FR 34508 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 34572 - National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Meeting, Public Teleconference and Public CommentPDF
83 FR 34646 - Notice of Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee VacanciesPDF
83 FR 34576 - Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent, Black Swan Restoration Reach Good Samaritan Superfund Site, Boulder County, ColoradoPDF
83 FR 34605 - New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34608 - New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34607 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34606 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34612 - Notice To Reopen the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group Call for NominationsPDF
83 FR 34537 - National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for FoodsPDF
83 FR 34555 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Commitment Form; Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34617 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34645 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West VirginiaPDF
83 FR 34552 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 34552 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 34645 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New JerseyPDF
83 FR 34645 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the State of TexasPDF
83 FR 34615 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
83 FR 34613 - Notice of Public Meetings for the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
83 FR 34499 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat PumpsPDF
83 FR 34560 - Application To Export Electric Energy; Manifold Energy Inc.PDF
83 FR 34559 - Solicitation of Nominations for Membership on the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 34555 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34561 - Application To Export Electric Energy; NS Power Energy Marketing IncorporatedPDF
83 FR 34498 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Public Meetings for the Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Test Procedures and Energy Conservation StandardsPDF
83 FR 34670 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 34664 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 34669 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 34649 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; HearingPDF
83 FR 34666 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 34548 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Expedited Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
83 FR 34542 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in PartPDF
83 FR 34554 - Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act CertificationPDF
83 FR 34553 - Procurement List; Addition and DeletionsPDF
83 FR 34544 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
83 FR 34595 - Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 34545 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
83 FR 34675 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
83 FR 34674 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
83 FR 34564 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 34568 - Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for the Costs of Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2017PDF
83 FR 34602 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Customs DeclarationPDF
83 FR 34570 - City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and PrescriptionsPDF
83 FR 34568 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 34568 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator StatusPDF
83 FR 34561 - Constellation Mystic Power, LLC; Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-DecisionalPDF
83 FR 34562 - Spire Storage West, LLC, Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.; Notice of ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 34567 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 34661 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 34672 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 34667 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 34536 - Request for Nominations of Members for the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, Specialty Crop Committee, and National Genetics Advisory CouncilPDF
83 FR 34677 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 34505 - New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces Containing Liquids: Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 34648 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; HearingPDF
83 FR 34678 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 34652 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 34651 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 34653 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 34614 - Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors Institution of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 34618 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 34680 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TIMELESS; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 34594 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34603 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Insufflation TubingPDF
83 FR 34647 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Air Evac EMS, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34647 - Notice of Statute of Limitations on Claims; Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 34679 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation ProjectsPDF
83 FR 34590 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 34586 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 34592 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 34585 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 34589 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 34583 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 34588 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 34581 - Submission for OMB Review; Combating Trafficking in PersonsPDF
83 FR 34576 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Mobile Air Conditioner Retrofitting Program (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 34577 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
83 FR 34580 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
83 FR 34579 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
83 FR 34578 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
83 FR 34619 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 34573 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Fish Program (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 34556 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34574 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 34613 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
83 FR 34596 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological ProductsPDF
83 FR 34616 - Notice of Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 34598 - Metered Dose Inhaler and Dry Powder Inhaler Drug Products-Quality Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry; Reopening of the Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 34635 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules Governing the Trading of Complex Qualified Contingent Cross and Complex Customer Cross OrdersPDF
83 FR 34621 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34630 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34632 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend MRX Rule 723PDF
83 FR 34625 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees To Add Establish Fees and Rebates for NQX Options and Make Several Clarifying ChangesPDF
83 FR 34639 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX Rules at Chapter VII, Section 6 Related to Market Maker Quotations, Section 14 Related to Lead Market Maker Quotations and Section 15 Related to Directed Market Maker QuotationsPDF
83 FR 34623 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Improvement Orders Entered Into the Price Improvement MechanismPDF
83 FR 34635 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE Rule 723PDF
83 FR 34619 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34638 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34469 - Definitions of Qualified Matching Contributions and Qualified Nonelective ContributionsPDF
83 FR 34561 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 34566 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 34539 - Malheur National Forest, Prairie City Ranger District; Oregon; Cliff Knox ProjectPDF
83 FR 34599 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance To Conduct Voluntary Customer/Partner Surveys (NLM)PDF
83 FR 34599 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 34600 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 34471 - Indemnification or Defense, or Providing Notice to the Department of Defense, Relating to a Third-Party Environmental ClaimPDF
83 FR 34609 - Announcement of Funding AwardsPDF
83 FR 34566 - Swan Lake North Hydro LLC; Notice of Modification of Procedural SchedulePDF
83 FR 34565 - Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 34563 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 34619 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 34565 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee, Members Committee, Board of Directors and Holistic Integrated Tariff Team MeetingsPDF
83 FR 34683 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
83 FR 34492 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2018 Sector Operations Plans and Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch EntitlementsPDF
83 FR 34681 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
83 FR 34682 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
83 FR 34551 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Survey To Collect Economic Data From Recreational Anglers Along the Atlantic CoastPDF
83 FR 34685 - Funding Opportunities: Capital Magnet Fund; 2018 Funding RoundPDF
83 FR 34578 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 34578 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 34593 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34559 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement for the Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado General Investigation Study, Adams and Denver County, ColoradoPDF
83 FR 34558 - Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Integrated Supply Project, Larimer and Weld Counties, ColoradoPDF
83 FR 34557 - Special Communication and Contact Control MeasuresPDF
83 FR 34582 - Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement; Site Acquisition and Campus Consolidation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH), Cincinnati, OhioPDF
83 FR 34574 - Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities and Finding of No Significant ImpactPDF
83 FR 34571 - Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment #4: Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source) and Recreational Opportunities and Finding of No Significant ImpactPDF
83 FR 34601 - Meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Advisory Council (SAMHSA NAC)PDF
83 FR 34520 - Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio ServicesPDF
83 FR 34478 - Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio ServicesPDF
83 FR 34702 - Whistleblower Program RulesPDF

Issue

83 140 Friday, July 20, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, Specialty Crop Committee, and National Genetics Advisory Council, 34536-34537 2018-15551
AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34556-34557 2018-15515 Army Army Department NOTICES Special Communication and Contact Control Measures, 34557-34558 2018-15425 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34555 2018-15581 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34583-34593 2018-15529 2018-15530 2018-15524 2018-15525 2018-15526 2018-15527 2018-15528 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Site Acquisition and Campus Consolidation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 34582-34583 2018-15410 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34593-34594 2018-15466 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office of Refugee Resettlement Requirements for Refugee Cash Assistance; and Refugee Medical Assistance, 34594-34595 2018-15537 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 34553-34555 2018-15570 2018-15571 Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Capital Magnet Fund; 2018 Funding Round, 34685-34698 2018-15473 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application Package for Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Commitment Form, 34555-34556 2018-15593 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

See

Engineers Corps

RULES Indemnification or Defense, or Providing Notice to the Department of Defense, Relating to a Third-Party Environmental Claim, 34471-34477 2018-15487 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Combating Trafficking in Persons, 34581-34582 2018-15523
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps, 34499-34505 2018-15584 Meetings: Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Working Group, 34498-34499 2018-15579 NOTICES Applications to Export Electric Energy: Manifold Energy Inc., 34560-34561 2018-15583 NS Power Energy Marketing Inc., 34561 2018-15580 Requests for Nominations: Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee, 34559-34560 2018-15582
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado General Investigation Study, Adams and Denver County, CO, 34559 2018-15429 Northern Integrated Supply Project, Larimer and Weld Counties, CO, 34558-34559 2018-15427 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New York; Determination of Attainment of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Jamestown, New York Marginal Nonattainment Area, 34506-34508 2018-15623 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site, 34513-34520 2018-15628 Deletion of the Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site, 34508-34513 2018-15622 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Mobile Air Conditioner Retrofitting Program, 34576-34577 2018-15522 National Fish Program (Renewal), 34573-34574 2018-15516 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Availability of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment No. 4: Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source) and Recreational Opportunities and Finding of No Significant Impact, 34571-34572 2018-15347 Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities and Finding of No Significant Impact, 34574-34576 2018-15348 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipt, 34574 2018-15514 Meetings: National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 34572-34573 2018-15621 Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent: Black Swan Restoration Reach Good Samaritan Superfund Site, Boulder County, CO, 34576 2018-15602 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Petitions for Exemption; Summaries: Air Evac EMS, Inc., 34647 2018-15533 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, 34478-34492 2018-14806 PROPOSED RULES Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, 34520-34535 2018-14807 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 34606-34608 2018-15596 2018-15597 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: New Hampshire, 34605-34606 2018-15599 2018-15600 New Jersey, 34608-34609 2018-15598 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, 34570-34571 2018-15560 Spire Storage West, LLC; Clear Creek Storage Company, LLC, 34562-34563 2018-15556 Swan Lake North Hydro LLC, 34566 2018-15485 Combined Filings, 34561-34564, 34566-34567 2018-15483 2018-15492 2018-15493 2018-15555 2018-15563 Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2017, 34568-34570 2018-15562 Designations of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional: Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, 34561 2018-15557 Effectiveness Of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status: Stella Wind Farm, LLC; Calpine Mid-Merit II, LLC; GenOn Holdco 10, LLC; et al., 34568 2018-15558 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, 34565 2018-15484 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 34568 2018-15559 Staff Attendance, 34565-34566 2018-15479 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Federal Agency Actions: Proposed Highway in California, 34647-34648 2018-15532 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 34674-34677 2018-15564 2018-15565 Diabetes Mellitus, 34651-34661, 34666-34667 2018-15542 2018-15543 2018-15574 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 34652-34653, 34664-34666, 34669-34671, 34678-34679 2018-15544 2018-15545 2018-15576 2018-15577 2018-15578 Hearing, 34648-34651 2018-15546 2018-15575 Vision, 34661-34664, 34667-34669, 34672-34674, 34677-34678 2018-15550 2018-15552 2018-15553 2018-15554 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34577-34581 2018-15518 2018-15519 2018-15520 2018-15521 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 34578 2018-15472 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 34578 2018-15471 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects, 34679-34680 2018-15531 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products, 34596-34598 2018-15512 Guidance: Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs, 34595-34596 2018-15568 Metered Dose Inhaler and Dry Powder Inhaler Drug Products—Quality Considerations, 34598-34599 2018-15508 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, 34537-34539 2018-15594 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Bog Creek Road Project; Reopening of Public Comment Period, 34601-34602 2018-15684 Malheur National Forest, Prairie City Ranger District; Oregon; Cliff Knox Project, 34539-34542 2018-15491 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Combating Trafficking in Persons, 34581-34582 2018-15523 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Funding Awards, 34609-34612 2018-15486 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group; Reopening, 34612 2018-15595
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Definitions of Qualified Matching Contributions and Qualified Nonelective Contributions, 34469-34471 2018-15495 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34698-34700 2018-15627 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, 34548-34551 2018-15573 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, 34542-34543 2018-15572 Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China, 34544-34545 2018-15569 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, 34545-34548 2018-15567 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, 34614-34615 2018-15541 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Air Act, 34615-34616 2018-15586 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council, 34613 2018-15585 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TIMELESS, 34680-34681 2018-15538 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34616-34617 2018-15511 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Combating Trafficking in Persons, 34581-34582 2018-15523 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance to Conduct Voluntary Customer/Partner Surveys, 34599-34600 2018-15490 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 34599 2018-15489 Meetings: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 34600-34601 2018-15488 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2018 Sector Operations Plans and Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements, 34492-34497 2018-15477 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Survey to Collect Economic Data from Recreational Anglers along the Atlantic Coast, 34551 2018-15474 Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 34552-34553 2018-15589 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 34552 2018-15590 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 34613-34614 2018-15513 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Plant Operations and Fire Protection, 34618 2018-15539 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 34618-34619 2018-15742 National Intelligence Office of the Director of National Intelligence NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34617-34618 2018-15592 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Special Permit Applications: Hazardous Materials, 34681-34684 2018-15475 2018-15476 2018-15478 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 34619 2018-15517 Postal Service Postal Service PROPOSED RULES New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces Containing Liquids; Extension of Comment Period, 34505-34506 2018-15548 NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 34619 2018-15482 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Whistleblower Program Rules, 34702-34752 2018-14411 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 34622 2018-15673 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 34635 2018-15507 Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., 34638-34639 2018-15497 Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 34621-34622 2018-15506 Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., 34630-34632 2018-15505 Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., 34619-34621 2018-15498 Nasdaq BX, Inc., 34639-34645 2018-15502 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 34623-34625 2018-15501 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 34625-34630, 34635-34638 2018-15499 2018-15503 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 34632-34635 2018-15504 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: New Jersey, 34645 2018-15588 Texas, 34645 2018-15587 West Virginia, 34645-34646 2018-15591 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council, 34601 2018-15246 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee Vacancies, 34646 2018-15604 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Customs Declaration, 34602-34603 2018-15561 Country of Origin Determinations: Certain Insufflation Tubing, 34603-34605 2018-15536 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Bog Creek Road Project; Reopening of Public Comment Period, 34601-34602 2018-15684 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 34702-34752 2018-14411 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.

83 140 Friday, July 20, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9835] RIN-1545-BN05 Definitions of Qualified Matching Contributions and Qualified Nonelective Contributions AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final regulations that amend the definitions of qualified matching contributions (QMACs) and qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs) under regulations regarding certain qualified retirement plans that contain cash or deferred arrangements under section 401(k) or that provide for matching contributions or employee contributions under section 401(m). Under these regulations, an employer contribution to a plan may be a QMAC or QNEC if it satisfies applicable nonforfeitability requirements and distribution limitations at the time it is allocated to a participant's account, but need not meet these requirements or limitations when it is contributed to the plan. These regulations affect participants in, beneficiaries of, employers maintaining, and administrators of tax-qualified plans that contain cash or deferred arrangements or provide for matching contributions or employee contributions.

DATES:

Effective date. These regulations are effective July 20, 2018.

Applicability date. These regulations apply to plan years beginning on or after July 20, 2018. However, taxpayers may apply these regulations to earlier periods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angelique Carrington at (202) 317-4148 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Section 401(k)(1) provides that a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan, a pre-ERISA money purchase plan, or a rural cooperative plan will not be considered as failing to satisfy the requirements of section 401(a) merely because the plan includes a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (CODA). To be considered a qualified CODA, a plan must satisfy several requirements, including: (i) Under section 401(k)(2)(B), amounts held by the plan's trust that are attributable to employer contributions made pursuant to an employee's election must satisfy certain distribution limitations; (ii) under section 401(k)(2)(C), an employee's right to such employer contributions must be nonforfeitable; and (iii) under section 401(k)(3), such employer contributions must satisfy certain nondiscrimination requirements.

Under section 401(k)(3)(D)(ii), the employer contributions taken into account for purposes of applying the nondiscrimination requirements may, under such rules as the Secretary may provide and at the election of the employer, include matching contributions within the meaning of section 401(m)(4)(A) that meet the distribution limitations and nonforfeitability requirements of section 401(k)(2)(B) and (C) (also referred to as qualified matching contributions or QMACs) and qualified nonelective contributions within the meaning of section 401(m)(4)(C) (QNECs). Under section 401(m)(4)(C), a QNEC is an employer contribution, other than a matching contribution, with respect to which the distribution limitations and nonforfeitability requirements of section 401(k)(2)(B) and (C) are met.

Under § 1.401(k)-1(b)(1)(ii), a CODA satisfies the applicable nondiscrimination requirements if it satisfies the actual deferral percentage (ADP) test of section 401(k)(3), described in § 1.401(k)-2. The ADP test limits the disparity permitted between the percentage of compensation made as employer contributions to the plan for a plan year on behalf of eligible highly compensated employees and the percentage of compensation made as employer contributions on behalf of eligible nonhighly compensated employees. If the ADP test limits are exceeded, the employer must take corrective action to ensure that the limits are met. In determining the amount of employer contributions made on behalf of an eligible employee, employers are allowed to take into account certain QMACs and QNECs made on behalf of the employee by the employer.

In lieu of applying the ADP test, an employer may choose to design its plan to satisfy an ADP safe harbor, including the ADP safe harbor provisions of section 401(k)(12), described in § 1.401(k)-3. Under § 1.401(k)-3, a plan satisfies the ADP safe harbor provisions of section 401(k)(12) if, among other things, it satisfies certain contribution requirements. With respect to the safe harbor under section 401(k)(12), an employer may choose to satisfy the contribution requirement by providing a certain level of QMACs or QNECs to eligible nonhighly compensated employees under the plan.

A defined contribution plan that provides for matching or employee after-tax contributions must satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements under section 401(m) with respect to those contributions for each plan year. Under § 1.401(m)-1(b)(1), the matching contributions and employee contributions under a plan satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements for a plan year if the plan satisfies the actual contribution percentage (ACP) test of section 401(m)(2) described in § 1.401(m)-2.

The ACP test limits the disparity permitted between the percentage of compensation made as matching contributions and after-tax employee contributions for or by eligible highly compensated employees under the plan and the percentage of compensation made as matching contributions and after-tax employee contributions for or by eligible nonhighly compensated employees under the plan. If the ACP test limits are exceeded, the employer must take corrective action to ensure that the limits are met. In determining the amount of employer contributions made on behalf of an eligible employee, employers are allowed to take into account certain QNECs made on behalf of the employee by the employer. Employers must also take into account QMACs made on behalf of the employee by the employer unless an exclusion applies (including an exclusion for QMACs that are taken into account under the ADP test).

If an employer designs its plan to satisfy the ADP safe harbor of section 401(k)(12), it may avoid performing the ACP test with respect to matching contributions under the plan, as long as the additional requirements of the ACP safe harbor of section 401(m)(11) are met.

As defined in § 1.401(k)-6, QMACs and QNECs must satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(c) and the distribution limitations 1 of § 1.401(k)-1(d) “when they are contributed to the plan.” Similarly, under the independent definitions in § 1.401(m)-5, QMACs and QNECs must satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(c) and the distribution limitations of § 1.401(k)-1(d) “at the time the contribution is made.” In general, contributions satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(c) if they are immediately nonforfeitable within the meaning of section 411, and contributions satisfy the distribution limitations of § 1.401(k)-1(d) if they may not be distributed before the employee's death, disability, severance from employment, attainment of age 591/2, or hardship, or upon the termination of the plan.

1 The existing definitions of QMACs and QNECs in §§ 1.401(k)-6 and 1.401(m)-5 refer to the distribution requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(d). Section 1.401(k)-1(d) is more appropriately characterized as providing distribution limitations (consistent with the heading of § 1.401(k)-1d)). Accordingly, this preamble refers to distribution limitations rather than distribution requirements, and, as noted in the Explanation of Provisions section of this preamble, the definitions of QMACs and QNECs in §§ 1.401(k)-6 and 1.401(m)-5 are amended in the final regulations to refer to distribution limitations.

Before 2017, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) received comments with respect to the definitions of QMACs and QNECs in §§ 1.401(k)-6 and 1.401(m)-5. In particular, commenters asserted that employer contributions should qualify as QMACs and QNECs as long as they satisfy applicable nonforfeitability requirements at the time they are allocated to participants' accounts, rather than when they are first contributed to the plan. Commenters pointed out that interpreting sections 401(k)(3)(D)(ii) and 401(m)(4)(C) to require satisfaction of applicable nonforfeitability requirements at the time amounts are first contributed to the plan would preclude plan sponsors with plans that permit the use of amounts in plan forfeiture accounts to offset future employer contributions under the plan from applying such amounts to fund QMACs and QNECs. This is because the amounts would have been allocated to the forfeiture accounts only after a participant incurred a forfeiture of benefits and, thus, generally would have been subject to a vesting schedule when they were first contributed to the plan. Commenters requested that QMAC and QNEC requirements not be interpreted to prevent the use of plan forfeitures to fund QMACs and QNECs. The commenters urged that the nonforfeitability requirements under § 1.401(k)-6 should apply when QMACs and QNECs are allocated to participants' accounts and not when the contributions are first made to the plan.

In considering the comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS took into account that the nonforfeitability requirements applicable to QMACs and QNECs are intended to ensure that QMACs and QNECS provide nonforfeitable benefits for the participants who receive them. In accordance with that purpose, the Treasury Department and the IRS concluded that it is sufficient to require that amounts allocated to participants' accounts as QMACs and QNECs be nonforfeitable at the time they are allocated to participants' accounts, rather than when such contributions are made to the plan.

Accordingly, on January 18, 2017, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-131643-15), which was published in the Federal Register (82 FR 5477). Under the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Treasury Department and the IRS proposed to amend § 1.401(k)-6 to provide that amounts used to fund QMACs and QNECs must be nonforfeitable and subject to distribution limitations in accordance with § 1.401(k)-1(c) and (d) when allocated to participants' accounts, and to no longer require that amounts used to fund QMACs and QNECs satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements and distribution limitations when they are first contributed to the plan. As a result, forfeitures would be permitted to be used to fund QMACs and QNECs. No public hearing on the notice of proposed rulemaking was requested or held. Several comments on the proposed rules were submitted, and, after consideration of all the comments, the proposed regulations are adopted without substantive modification.

This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1.

Explanation of Provisions

This document contains final regulations that amend the definitions of QMACs and QNECs to provide that employer contributions to a plan are QMACs or QNECs if they satisfy applicable nonforfeitability requirements and distribution limitations at the time they are allocated to participants' accounts. Accordingly, these regulations permit forfeitures of prior contributions to be used to fund QMACs and QNECs.

The Treasury Department and the IRS received five comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking that raised issues relating to the modification of the QMAC and QNEC definitions, including issues with respect to plan amendments and the pre-approved plan program, as described in Rev. Proc. 2015-36, 2015-27 I.R.B. 20, Part III of Rev. Proc. 2016-37, 2016-29 I.R.B. 136, and Rev. Proc. 2017-41, 2017-29 I.R.B. 92. The Treasury Department and the IRS determined that the comments relating to the pre-approved plan program are outside the scope of these regulations, which relate solely to the modification of the definitions of QMACs and QNECs. These comments have been shared with IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities, Employee Plans, which administers the pre-approved plan program.

The comments also included questions relating to the application of section 411(d)(6) in cases in which a plan sponsor seeks to amend its plan to apply the rules in this regulation. The application of section 411(d)(6) is generally outside the scope of these regulations. However, if a plan sponsor adopts a plan amendment to define QMACs and QNECs in a manner consistent with these final regulations and applies that amendment prospectively to future plan years, section 411(d)(6) would not be implicated. Moreover, in the common case of a plan that provides that forfeitures will be used to pay plan expenses incurred during a plan year and that any remaining forfeitures in the plan at the end of the plan year will be allocated pursuant to a specified formula among active participants who have completed a specified number of hours of service during the plan year, section 411(d)(6) would not prohibit a plan amendment adopted before the end of the plan year that permits the use of forfeitures to fund QMACs and QNECs (even if, at the time of the amendment, one or more participants had already completed the specified number of hours of service). This is because all conditions for receiving an allocation will not have been satisfied at the time of the amendment, since one of the conditions for receiving an allocation is that plan expenses at the end of the plan year are less than the amount of forfeitures. See § 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-1(d)(8) (features that are not section 411(d)(6) protected benefits include “[t]he allocation dates for contributions, forfeitures, and earnings, the time for making contributions (but not the conditions for receiving an allocation of contributions or forfeitures for a plan year after such conditions have been satisfied), and the valuation dates for account balances”).

These regulations are substantively the same as the proposed regulations. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the distribution requirements referred to in the existing definitions of QMACs and QNECs in §§ 1.401(k)-6 and 1.401(m)-5 are more appropriately characterized as distribution limitations (consistent with the heading of § 1.401(k)-1(d)), and, accordingly, these definitions have been amended to refer to distribution limitations.

Effective/Applicability Date

These regulations are effective on July 20, 2018.

These regulations apply to plan years beginning on or after July 20, 2018. However, taxpayers may apply these regulations to earlier periods.

Special Analyses

This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations. Because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, notices and other guidance cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov.

Drafting Information

The principal author of these regulations is Angelique Carrington, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Governmental Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in the development of these regulations.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

26 U.S.C. 401(m)(9) and 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.401(k)-1 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows:
§ 1.401(k)-1 Certain cash or deferred arrangements.

(g) * * *

(5) Applicability date for definitions of qualified matching contributions (QMACs) and qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs). The revisions to the second sentence in the definitions of QMACs and QNECs in § 1.401(k)-6 apply to plan years ending on or after July 20, 2018.

Par. 3. Section 1.401(k)-6 is amended by revising the second sentence in the definitions of Qualified matching contributions (QMACs) and Qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs) to read as follows:
§ 1.401(k)-6 Definitions.

Qualified matching contributions (QMACs). * * * Thus, the matching contributions must satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(c) and be subject to the distribution limitations of § 1.401(k)-1(d) when they are allocated to participants' accounts. * * *

Qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs). * * * Thus, the nonelective contributions must satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(c) and be subject to the distribution limitations of § 1.401(k)-1(d) when they are allocated to participants' accounts.

Par. 4. Section 1.401(m)-1 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
§ 1.401(m)-1 Employee contributions and matching contributions.

(d) * * *

(4) Effective date for definitions of qualified matching contributions (QMACs) and qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs). The revisions to the definitions of QMACs and QNECs in § 1.401(m)-5 apply to plan years ending on or after July 20, 2018.

Par. 5. Section 1.401(m)-5 is amended by revising the definitions of Qualified matching contributions (QMACs) and Qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs) to read as follows:
§ 1.401(m)-5 Definitions.

Qualified matching contributions (QMACs). Qualified matching contributions or QMACs means qualified matching contributions or QMACs as defined in § 1.401(k)-6.

Qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs). Qualified nonelective contributions or QNECs means qualified nonelective contributions or QNECs as defined in § 1.401(k)-6.

Kirsten Wielobob, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: July 13, 2018. David J. Kautter, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2018-15495 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 175 RIN 0790-AJ54 [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0108] Indemnification or Defense, or Providing Notice to the Department of Defense, Relating to a Third-Party Environmental Claim AGENCY:

Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The DoD is identifying the proper address and notification method for an entity making a request for indemnification or defense, or providing notice to DoD, of a third-party claim under section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, as amended (hereinafter “section 330”), or under section 1502(e) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, (hereinafter “section 1502(e)”). This rule also identifies the documentation required to demonstrate proof of any claim, loss, or damage for indemnification or defense or for providing notice to DoD of a third-party claim. This rule also provides the mailing address for such requests for indemnification or defense or notice to DoD of a third-party claim to be filed with DoD, Office of General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel for Environment, Energy, and Installations (DGC(EE&I)). This will allow for timely review and greater efficiency in screening requests for indemnification or defense by providing clarity to requesters.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on August 20, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Philip Sheuerman, 703-692-2287.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments and Responses

On December 7, 2016 (81 FR 88167-88173), the Department of Defense published a proposed rule titled “Indemnification or Defense, or Providing Notice to the Department of Defense, Relating to a Third-Party Environmental Claim.” The proposed rule had a 60-day public comment period, which ended on February 6, 2017. One commenter submitted comments which are addressed in 11 responses below.

Comment #1: One comment argues that the rule does not properly distinguish between the statute of limitations applicable to a request for indemnification and any limitations on when a request for defense may be made. The comment also suggests that more detail should be included as to what constitutes accrual of the action.

Response #1: The rule simply provides that the request for defense must be received by the DGC(EE&I) in sufficient time to allow the DoD to provide the requested defense (§ 175.6(b)). While the rule does identify the statutory limitation on making a request for indemnification, it does not identify a time limit for when a request for defense must be made. Since seeking defense is separate from making a request for indemnification (or providing notice of a third-party claim) and is entirely at the discretion of the requester, there is no direct connection between a request for indemnification and a request for defense. Section 330 describes accrual of action such that the rule does not address the matter further. As with many of the comments submitted, it is critical to distinguish among a request for indemnification, a request for defense, and submittal of notice of a third-party claim; these are three separate and distinct actions. (For purposes of these responses, it is understood that the DoD will act through the Department of Justice when appearing before the courts.) No change is made to the rule.

Comment #2: One comment asserts that the requirements relating to notice of a third-party claim are unwarranted changes to the statutory provisions of section 330 and that certain unwarranted consequences will occur if a recipient of a third-party claim does not provide the required 30-day notice (see response to comment #4 for change to 15 days) of receipt of the third-party claim. Among these asserted consequences is a denial of indemnification or defense.

Response #2: The rule provides a process to give effect to the provisions of section 330; in doing so, it does not expand or diminish the rights of the parties involved. The rule does not assign any consequences to not requesting defense; as noted in the answer to question #1, a request for defense is optional and requesting it is at the discretion of the recipient of a third-party claim. The only consequences occur when a recipient of a third-party claim fails to provide notice to the DGC(EE&I) of receipt of the claim in time for the United States to choose to intervene. Section 330(c) makes it clear that the consequence of not allowing the DoD to defend against a third-party claim is that a subsequent request for indemnification will be denied. This rule provides reasonable notice and process to avoid such an eventuality due to a potential requester for indemnification being ignorant of or ignoring the statutory rights of the DoD. The comment fails to recognize that section 330 authorizes the DoD, at the option of the DoD, to intervene and defend against a third-party claim. To give substance to this authority, the recipient of a third-party claim must provide reasonable notice to the DoD in order to allow DoD to act. Otherwise, the ability of the DoD to intervene and defend would be ineffectual. Failure to provide the notice does not automatically void any subsequent request for indemnification; it only affects a subsequent request for indemnification if it compromises the ability of the DoD to defend against the third-party claim. Such a determination is made within the discretion of the DGC(EE&I), based on the facts of the individual matter. To the extent that an assertion can be made that the rule modifies section 330, it would only be to the effect that the rule is more generous than section 330 because section 330 does not address when a failure to allow DoD to defend against a third-party claim does no harm to DoD. Section 330 simply provides that “the person may not be afforded indemnification” without further elucidation. No change is made to the rule.

Comment #3: One comment asserts that the rule is a unilateral amendment of existing real property transfer documents that provide for notice under section 330, and, as such, obscures the rights of the property recipient.

Response #3: This rule is entered into under the delegated authority of the Secretary of Defense relating to the implementation of section 330. It is separate and distinct from, and in addition to, any real property transfer document provisions that were not entered into under that authority. There is no evidence that a request for indemnification or defense cannot meet both sources of requirements. Because DoD is aware of this concern, it notes in the preamble to this rule that for those situations where notice is to be given in accordance with, e.g., deeds, to other locations such as a local base closure program office, the DoD will continue to accept those notices for purposes of meeting the statute of limitations for a period of 180 days after this rule becomes final. Subsequent to that date, compliance with this rule will constitute the only reliable means to ensure compliance with the requirements of section 330. No change is made to the rule.

Comment #4: One comment suggests that, while there are firm time limits imposed on the requester for indemnification or defense, there are no corresponding time limits imposed on the DoD.

Response #4: The only major time limit imposed on the requester relates to a notice of third-party claim. (The statute of limitations is statutory and is simply restated.) It is true as the comment notes that, in some situations, the 30-day limit on notices of a third-party claim may be too long. The DoD believes it best to set a firm limit rather than one that is variable for each situation and, therefore, unpredictable for the requester. The DoD does recognize, however, the legitimacy of the concern over the length of the period and has reduced it to 15 days. The DoD does not set a time limit on itself to respond to the request because of the complexities involved in gathering information from the DoD Component responsible for the former facility, the need to thoroughly and accurately assess the legal and factual issues, and the need for coordination with potentially several divisions within the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney's Offices. The rule is changed as noted above.

Comment #5: One comment notes that the requirement that each individual file a separate request for indemnification or defense could be onerous, particularly in the situation of a class action lawsuit.

Response #5: The rule requires a request for indemnification or notice of third-party claim from each individual requester. The requirement does not apply to third-party claimants. There can be numerous third-party claimants against the requester. But each requester must represent itself. The DoD cannot be expected to discern the individual legal interests of multiple parties to a request for indemnification or defense. No change is made to the rule.

Comment #6: One comment suggests that the requirement to provide notice of a third-party claim should allow more informal notice so as to expedite delivery of notice and promote the likelihood of the DoD being able to exercise its right to defend against such a claim.

Response #6: The DoD recognizes the benefits of earlier notification (and the possibility of some required records not being available on short notice) and has added a paragraph to § 175.5(g) that allows a requester to provide telephone notification, subject to subsequent written confirmation by the DGC(EE&I). Telephone numbers have been included in §§ 175.5(a) and 175.6(a). The inclusion of telephone numbers may also assist in delivery of packages by commercial delivery services. The rule is changed as noted above.

Comment #7: One comment suggests that § 175.5(d) indicates that, for example, a lender who does not own or control the site could seek indemnification or defense even though not eligible under section 330.

Response #7: While it is difficult to see how a lender who does not own or control the site would have an interest in seeking indemnification, let alone defense, section 330 does not appear to make such a distinction. The rule includes “lender” because “lender” is one of those entities eligible under section 330. No change is made to the rule.

Comment #8: One comment suggests that the definition of “requester” in § 175.3 does not fully consider the situation of a subrogee (the draft rule incorrectly uses “subrogee” when it should use “subrogor” to refer to the entity from which the subrogee is taking its rights and has been corrected accordingly). This is particularly the case with the requirements to submit a notice of a third-party claim.

Response #8: Since a request for indemnification can be made within two years of accrual of the action, it is entirely feasible for, e.g., an insurance company to make a request for indemnification as subrogee of its insured. However, it is established law that a subrogee can only exercise the rights the subrogor itself had. Consequently, if a subrogor did not comply with the requirements of this rule and, in doing so, compromised the ability of DoD to defend against the claim, the subrogor would have no right to indemnification and its subrogee, which can only take its rights from the subrogor, would likewise have no right to indemnification. No change is made to the rule except correcting the reference from “subrogee” to “subrogor”.

Comment #9: One comment suggests that the definition of “third-party claim” should discuss whether a citizen's suit under the environmental laws would qualify as a third-party claim.

Response #9: This question is a matter that has not been addressed by the courts and the DoD is not inclined to attempt to resolve it in this rule. No change is made to the rule.

Comment #10: One comment inquires as to whether the requirement of § 175.5(d)(4) includes all insurance policies such as for workers compensation, automobile, errors and omissions, and directors and officers.

Response #10: The experience of DoD is that it cannot rely on a requester to choose which policies or parts of policies should be submitted. Doing so does not ensure that DoD will receive all relevant documentation. If this requirement poses a significant burden on a requester, the requester should discuss the matter with the DGC(EE&I), knowing that any resulting delay will be charged against the requester. No change is made to the rule.

Comment #11: One comment suggests that § 174.15 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Addressing Impacts of Realignment, be rescinded.

Response #11: Section 174.15 contains restrictions on when reference may be made to section 330 in base closure real property disposal documents. This restriction has served the disposal process well by eliminating disputes over, e.g., deed language that frequently was inconsistent with the actual terms of section 330. The comment does, however, indicate that it would be useful to change this proposed rule by inserting a cross-reference to § 174.15 noting that nothing in this rule alters the provisions of § 174.15. That change is made in § 175.2 with the addition of a new paragraph (c).

Legal Authority

This part is finalized under 10 U.S.C. 113, 5 U.S.C. 301, section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484, October 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2371, as amended, and section 1502(e) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398, October 30, 2000, 1014 Stat. 1654A-350, as amended.

Background

Sections 330 and 1502(e) provide that, subject to certain exceptions set forth in the statutes, the Secretary of Defense shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify in full certain persons and entities that acquire ownership or control of, in the case of section 330, any military installation closed pursuant to a base closure law or, in the case of section 1502(e), certain portions of the former Naval Ammunition Support Detachment on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico (hereinafter “Detachment”), from and against any suit, claim, demand or action, liability, judgment, cost or other fee arising out of any claim for personal injury or property damage (including death, illness, or loss of or damage to property or economic loss) that results from, or is in any manner predicated upon, the release or threatened release of any hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant, or petroleum or petroleum derivative 1 as a result of DoD activities at any military installation (or portion thereof) that is closed pursuant to a base closure law or the Detachment. (Coverage of pollutants and contaminants was added to section 330 by an amendment contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, 1002.) They also provide that DoD has certain rights in defending third-party claims.

1 Section 1502(e) does not apply to petroleum or petroleum derivatives.

The authority to adjudicate requests for indemnification and process requests for defense under sections 330 or 1502(e) has been delegated from the Secretary of Defense to the DoD General Counsel and re-delegated by the General Counsel to the DGC(EE&I). Requests for indemnification or defense or notice to DoD of a third-party claim must be sent to the DGC(EE&I) to be considered.

The DoD recognizes that some real property transfer documents, such as deeds and agreements, entered into in past years provide that notification under sections 330 or 1502(e) be made to, e.g., the local BRAC program office. Prior to the publication of this final rule, DoD has honored such notifications made in conformance with those transfer documents. Effective 180 days after promulgation of this rule, while a requester may continue to provide notification in accordance with such transfer documents, a requester must also comply with the notice requirements of this rule in order to comply with the requirements of sections 330 or 1502(e), particularly with regard to when the statutes of limitation in sections 330(b)(1) and 1502(e)(2)(A) begin to run. Nothing in this rule should be construed as requiring amendment of any such transfer documents.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has interpreted the definition of a “claim for personal injury or property damages” under section 330 to include, under certain circumstances, notice from a governmental enforcement agency to conduct a cleanup. Indian Harbor Insurance Co. v. United States, 704 F.3d 949 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Because such notices may constitute a claim under section 330, a requester should carefully evaluate whether failing to provide notice to the Secretary would prevent the Secretary from settling or defending against a claim.

The timely and proper filing of a request for indemnification or defense enables the DGC(EE&I) to perform its adjudication function for requests, maintain oversight of the implementation of sections 330 and 1502(e), and secure the rights of requesters under sections 330 and 1502(e). Proper notice to DoD of a claim from a third-party is essential to allow DoD to exercise its right to defend against such a claim pursuant to sections 330(c) or 1502(e).

Under sections 330(c)(2) and 1502(e)(3)(B), the requester must allow DoD to defend the claim in order to be afforded indemnification for that claim. This regulation makes clear that failure to notify DoD immediately of receipt of any claim could prevent DoD from settling or defending that claim, and on that basis, DoD may deny indemnification. Failure to provide necessary documents and access will also prevent DoD from exercising its right to settle and defend the claim and, on that basis, DoD may deny indemnification.

In the context of a claim from a governmental enforcement agency or third party seeking to require a cleanup or response action, failure to notify DoD may prevent DoD from exercising its right to defend against the claim. If the requester undertakes a cleanup or response action itself prior to providing immediate notice to DoD, the requestor's actions may interfere with DoD's ability to defend against a claim, which might result in denial of indemnification.

This final rule does not affect claims that are made pursuant to other authorities such as under a real property covenant contained in a deed in accordance with section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).

DoD has received approximately 14 requests for indemnification since 2006. This represents an annual average of requests for indemnification of slightly more than one per year. DoD cannot fully estimate the cost of the current process upon requesters because the only times it has paid such costs are when a request for indemnification has been litigated and administrative costs paid as part of a settlement. That settlement cost, however, includes the cost of litigation, which is substantially greater than the cost of seeking an administrative settlement.

Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

E.O. 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. This rule has not been reviewed by OMB under the requirements of these Executive Orders.

B. Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires Federal agencies to consider “small entities” throughout the regulatory process. Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an initial screening analysis performance to determine whether small entities will be adversely affected by the regulation. No comments were received relating to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It has been certified that this final rule will not add to the current burden for small entities to report their activities based on a request for indemnification or defense under sections 330 or 1502(e).

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, authorizes the Director of OMB to review certain information collection requests by Federal agencies. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this final rule do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

E. Environmental Justice

Under E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 11, 1994)), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Federal agencies are required to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of Federal programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.

Sections 330 and 1502(e) are intended to reduce specified risks resulting from development of former military land by aiding and legally protecting the entities that take title to land on closed military installations for development purposes. Because this rule will equally affect, on a national basis, requests for indemnification associated with the development of land, a disparate impact on minority and low-income population areas is not expected.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Report Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Indian tribal governments and the private sector.

The DoD has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Indian tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Section 202 of the UMRA.

G. Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

It has been determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. This rule does not have substantial direct effects 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.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 175

Indemnification, Claim.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 175 is added to read as follows: PART 175—INDEMNIFICATION OR DEFENSE, OR PROVIDING NOTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, RELATING TO A THIRD-PARTY ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIM Sec. 175.1 Purpose. 175.2 Applicability. 175.3 Definitions. 175.4 Responsibilities. 175.5 Notice to DoD relating to a third-party claim. 175.6 Filing a request for indemnification or defense. Authority:

10 U.S.C. 113, 5 U.S.C. 301, section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484, October 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2371, as amended, and section 1502(e) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. 106-398, October 30, 2000, 1014 Stat. 1654A-350, as amended.

§ 175.1 Purpose.

This part describes the process for filing a request for indemnification or defense, or providing proper notice to DoD, of a third-party claim pursuant to section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484, October 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2371, as amended (hereafter “section 330”), or section 1502(e) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398, October 30, 2000, 1014 Stat. 1654A-350, as amended (hereafter “section 1502(e)”). This process identifies the minimum information that a request for indemnification or defense or notice to DoD of a third-party claim for indemnification must include, where that information must be sent, how to make such a request or provide such a notice, the time limits that apply to such a request or notice, and other requirements.

§ 175.2 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to—

(1) The Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense and the Military Departments.

(2) Any person or entity making a request for indemnification or defense, or providing notice to DoD, of a third-party claim pursuant to section 330 or section 1502(e).

(b) In the case of a property that is subject to an earlier agreement containing different notification requirements, the requirement for notice to the Deputy General Counsel in sections 175.5 and 175.6 are in addition to those notification requirements.

(c) Nothing in this part alters the provisions of § 174.15 of this title.

§ 175.3 Definitions.

Commercial delivery service. Federal Express or United Parcel Service, or other similar service that provides for delivery of packages directly from the sender to the recipient for a fee, but excluding the United States Postal Service (USPS).

Deputy General Counsel. The Deputy General Counsel (Environment, Energy, and Installations), Department of Defense.

Received. Actual physical receipt by the intended recipient.

Request. Any request for indemnification or defense made to the Department of Defense (DoD) by a requester pursuant to section 330 or section 1502(e).

Requester. A person or entity making a request pursuant to section 330 or section 1502(e). When the requester is acting by way of subrogation, the requester is subject to the same requirements and limitations as though it were the subrogor.

Section 330. Section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484, October 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2371, as amended.

Section 1502(e). Section 1502(e) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398, October 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654A-350. (This provision applies only to certain portions of the former Naval Ammunition Support Detachment on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico.)

Third-party claim. A claim from a person or entity (other than the requester) to a requester resulting from a suit, claim, demand or action, liability, judgment, cost or other fee, demanding, seeking, or otherwise requiring that the requester pay an amount, take an action, or incur a liability for alleged personal injury or property damage and such payment, action, or liability is eligible for indemnification or defense pursuant to section 330 or section 1502(e). A third-party claim may consist of a notice, letter, order, compliance advisory, compliance agreement, or similar direction from a governmental regulatory authority exercising its authority to regulate the release or threatened release of any hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant, or petroleum or petroleum derivative if the notice, letter, order, compliance advisory, compliance agreement, or similar notification imposes, directs, or demands requirements for environmental actions or asserts damages related thereto that are eligible for indemnification or defense pursuant to section 330 or section 1502(e).

§ 175.4 Responsibilities.

(a) The General Counsel of the Department of Defense has been delegated the authorities and responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense under section 330 and section 1502(e), with certain limitations as to re-delegation.

(b) The General Counsel has re-delegated the authority and responsibility to adjudicate requests for indemnification or defense and to process notices to DoD of a third-party claim under section 330 and section 1502(e) to the Deputy General Counsel or, when the position of Deputy General Counsel is vacant, the acting Deputy General Counsel. The authority to acknowledge receipt of a request has been delegated to an Associate General Counsel under the Deputy General Counsel.

§ 175.5 Notice to DoD relating to a third-party claim.

(a) Where to file a notice to DoD of a third-party claim. (1) Notice to DoD of receipt of a third-party claim, or intent to enter into, agree to, settle, or solicit such a claim, must be received by the Deputy General Counsel at the following address: Deputy General Counsel, Environment, Energy, and Installations, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600, (703-693-4895) or (703-692-2287).

(2) Delivering or otherwise filing a notice of a third-party claim with any other office or location will not constitute proper notice for purposes of this part. Requesters should be aware that all delivery services, and particularly that of the USPS, to the Pentagon can be significantly delayed for security purposes and they should plan accordingly in order to meet any required filing deadlines under this part; use of a commercial delivery service may reduce the delay.

(b) Individual notices. A notice to DoD of a third-party claim must be filed separately for each person or entity that is filing the notice. Notices may not be filed jointly for a group, a class, or for multiple persons or entities.

(c) Means of filing a notice of a third-party claim. A notice of a third-party claim must be submitted in writing by mail through the USPS or by a commercial delivery service. While the Deputy General Counsel will affirmatively acknowledge receipt of a notice of a third-party claim, it is recommended that a requester, whether using the USPS or a commercial delivery service, mail its notice by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or equivalent proof of delivery.

(d) Information to be included in a notice to DoD of a third-party claim. A notice to DoD of a third-party claim must include, at a minimum, the following information:

(1) A complete copy of the third-party claim, or, if not presented in writing, a complete summary of the claim, with the names of officers, employees, or agents with knowledge of any information that may be relevant to the claim or any potential defenses. The third-party claim may consist of a summons and complaint or, in the case of a third-party claim from a governmental regulatory authority, a notice, letter, order, compliance advisory, compliance agreement, or similar notification.

(2) A complete copy of all pertinent records, including any deed, sales agreement, bill of sale, lease, license, easement, right-of-way, or transfer document for the facility for which the third-party claim is made.

(3) If the requester is not the first transferee from DoD, a complete copy of all intervening deeds, sales agreements, bills of sale, leases, licenses, easements, rights-of-way, or other transfer documents between the original transfer from DoD and the transfer to the current owner. If the requester is a lender who has made a loan to a person or entity who owns, controls, or leases the facility for which the request for indemnification is made that is secured by said facility, complete copies of all promissory notes, mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments, or other documents evidencing such a loan by the requester.

(4) A complete copy of any insurance policies related to such facility.

(5) If the notice to DoD of a third-party claim is being made by a representative, agent, or attorney in fact or at law, proof of authority to make the notice on behalf of the requester.

(6) Evidence or proof of any claim, loss, or damage alleged to be suffered by the third-party claimant which the requester asserts is covered by section 330 or by section 1502(e).

(7) In the case where a requester intends to enter into, agree to, settle, or solicit a third-party claim, a description or copy of the proposed claim, settlement, or solicitation, as the case may be.

(8) To the extent that any environmental response action has been taken, the documentation supporting such response action and its costs included in the request for indemnification.

(9) To the extent that any environmental response action has been taken, a statement as to whether the remedial action is consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (part 300 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) or other applicable regulatory requirements.

(10) A complete copy of any claims made by the requester to any other entity related to the conditions on the property which are the subject of the claim, and any responses or defenses thereto or made to any third-party claims, including correspondence, litigation filings, consultant reports, and other information supporting a claim or defense.

(e) Entry, inspection, and samples. The requester must provide DoD a right of entry at reasonable times to any facility, establishment, place, or property under the requester's control which is the subject of or associated with the requester's notice of third-party claim and must allow DoD to inspect or obtain samples from that facility, establishment, place, or property.

(f) Additional information. The Deputy General Counsel will advise a requester in writing of any additional information that must be provided to defend against a claim. Failure to provide the additional information in a timely manner may result in denial of a request for indemnification or defense for lack of information to adjudicate the claim.

(g) When to file a notice to DoD of a third-party claim. (1) A requester must, within 15 days of receiving a third-party claim, file with DoD a notice of such claim in accordance with this part. Failure to timely file such a notice, if it in any way compromises the ability of DoD to defend against such a claim pursuant to section 330(c) or section 1502(e)(3), will result in denial of any subsequent request for indemnification or defense resulting from such a claim. Requesters who take action in compliance with any such third-party claim, or any part of such claim, without first providing DoD with a notice of such claim in accordance with this section do so at their own risk.

(2) A requester must, at least 30 days prior to the earlier of entering into, agreeing to, settling, or soliciting a third-party claim, file a notice to DoD of such intent in accordance with this part. Failure to file such a notice will compromise the ability of DoD to defend against such a claim pursuant to section 330(c) or section 1502(e)(3) and will result in denial of any subsequent request for indemnification or defense resulting from such a claim.

(3) A requester may, if it believes more immediate notice to DoD is desirable or less than all the information required by paragraph (d) of this section is immediately available, contact the Deputy General Counsel using the phone numbers in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Any such contact does not constitute compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section unless and until the Deputy General Counsel subsequently provides written confirmation that the notice constitutes such compliance. Such written confirmation may be provided by electronic means.

(h) No implication from DoD action. Any actions taken by DoD related to defending a claim do not constitute a decision by DoD that the requester is entitled to indemnification or defense.

(i) Notice also constituting a request for indemnification or defense. Notice of receipt of a third-party claim may also constitute a request for indemnification or defense if that notice complies with all applicable requirements for a request for indemnification or defense.

§ 175.6 Filing a request for indemnification or defense.

(a) Where to file a request for indemnification or defense. (1) In order to notify DoD in accordance with section 330(b)(1) or section 1502(e)(2)(A), a request for indemnification or defense pursuant to section 330 or section 1502(e) must be received by the Deputy General Counsel at the following address: Deputy General Counsel, Environment, Energy, and Installations, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600, (703-693-4895) or (703-692-2287).

(2) Delivering or otherwise filing a request for indemnification or defense with any other office or location will not constitute proper notice of a request for purposes of section 330(b)(1) or section 1502(e)(2)(A). Requesters should be aware that all delivery services, and particularly that of the USPS, to the Pentagon can be significantly delayed for security purposes and they should plan accordingly in order to meet any required filing deadlines under this part; use of a commercial delivery service may reduce the delay.

(b) When to file a request for indemnification or defense. A request for indemnification must be received by the Deputy General Counsel within two years after the claim giving rise to the request accrues. A request for defense must be received by the Deputy General Counsel in sufficient time to allow the United States to provide the requested defense.

(c) Means of filing a request for indemnification or defense. A request for indemnification or defense must be submitted in writing by mail through the USPS or by a commercial delivery service. While the Deputy General Counsel will affirmatively acknowledge receipt of a request for indemnification or defense, it is recommended that a requester, whether using the USPS or a commercial delivery service, mail its request by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or equivalent proof of delivery.

(d) Individual requests. A request for indemnification or defense must be filed separately for each person or entity that is making the request. Requests may not be filed jointly for a group, a class, or for multiple persons or entities.

(e) Information to be included in a request for indemnification or defense. A request for indemnification or defense must include, at a minimum, the following information:

(1) A complete copy of the third-party claim, or, if not presented in writing, a complete summary of the claim, with the names of officers, employees, or agents with knowledge of any information that may be relevant to the claim or any potential defenses.

(2) A complete copy of all pertinent records, including any deed, sales agreement, bill of sale, lease, license, easement, right-of-way, or transfer document for the facility for which the request for indemnification or defense is made.

(3) If the requester is not the first transferee from DoD, a complete copy of all intervening deeds, sales agreements, bills of sale, leases, licenses, easements, rights-of-way, or other transfer documents between the original transfer from DoD and the transfer to the current owner. If the requester is a lender who has made a loan to a person or entity who owns, controls, or leases the facility for which the request for indemnification is made that is secured by said facility, complete copies of all promissory notes, mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments, or other documents evidencing such a loan by the requester.

(4) A complete copy of any insurance policies related to such facility.

(5) If the request for indemnification or defense is being made by a representative, agent, or attorney in fact or at law, proof of authority to make the request on behalf of the requester.

(6) Evidence or proof of any claim, loss, or damage covered by section 330 or by section 1502(e).

(7) In the case of a request for defense, a copy of the documents, such as a summons and complaint, or enforcement order, representing the matter against which the United States is being asked to defend.

(8) To the extent that any environmental response action has been taken, the documentation supporting such response action and its costs included in the request for indemnification.

(9) To the extent that any environmental response action has been taken, a statement as to whether the remedial action is consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (part 300 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) or other applicable regulatory requirements.

(10) A complete copy of any claims made by the requester to any other entity related to the conditions on the property which are the subject of the claim, and any responses or defenses thereto or made to any third-party claims, including correspondence, litigation filings, consultant reports, and other information supporting a claim or defense.

(f) Entry, inspection, and samples. The requester must provide DoD a right of entry at reasonable times to any facility, establishment, place, or property under the requester's control which is the subject of or associated with the requester's request for indemnification or defense and must allow DoD to inspect or obtain samples from that facility, establishment, place, or property.

(g) Additional information. The Deputy General Counsel will advise a requester in writing of any additional information that must be provided to adjudicate the request for indemnification or defense. Failure to provide the additional information in a timely manner may result in denial of the request for indemnification or defense.

(h) Adjudication. The Deputy General Counsel will adjudicate a request for indemnification or defense and provide the requester with DoD's determination of the validity of the request. Such determination will be in writing and sent to the requester by certified or registered mail.

(i) Reconsideration. Any such determination will provide that the requester may ask for reconsideration of the determination. Such reconsideration shall be limited to an assertion by the requester of substantial new evidence or errors in calculation. The requester may seek such reconsideration by filing a request to that effect. A request for reconsideration must be received by the Deputy General Counsel within 30 days after receipt of the determination by the requester. Such a request must be sent to the same address as provided for in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and provide the substantial new evidence or identify the errors in calculation. Such reconsideration will not extend to determinations concerning the law, except as it may have been applied to the facts. A request for reconsideration will be acted on within 30 days from the time it is received. If a request for reconsideration is made, the six month period referred to in section 330(b)(1) and section 1502(e)(2)(A) will commence from the date the requester receives DoD's denial of the request for reconsideration.

(j) Finality of adjudication. An adjudication of a request for indemnification constitutes final administrative disposition of such a request, except in the case of a request for reconsideration under paragraph (i) of this section, in which case a denial of the request for reconsideration constitutes final administrative disposition of the request.

Dated: July 16, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-15487 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2, 25 and 30 [GN Docket No. 14-177; WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 18-73] Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts rules for specific millimeter wave bands above 24 GHz. A proposed rule document for the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (3rd FNPRM) related to the Final rule document for the Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (3rd R&O) is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES:

Effective August 20, 2018, except for the amendments to § 25.136, which contain information collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for those amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Schauble of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-0797 or [email protected], Michael Ha of the Office of Engineering and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-2099 or [email protected], or Jose Albuquerque of the International Bureau, Satellite Division, at 202-418-2288 or [email protected]. For information regarding the PRA information collection requirements contained in this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (3rd R&O), GN Docket No. 14-177, FCC 18-73, adopted on June 7, 2018 and released on June 8, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available on the Commission's website at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search function on the ECFS web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted in the Third Report and Order.

Congressional Review Act

The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis I. Introduction

1. The Commission continues its effort to make available millimeter wave (mmW) spectrum, at or above 24 GHz, for fifth-generation (5G) wireless, Internet of Things, and other advanced spectrum-based services. In the 3rd R&O, the Commission addresses pending issues regarding FSS sharing and operability in the 24 GHz band, as well as pending issues regarding performance requirements and mobile spectrum holdings policies for the mmW bands authorized for flexible use. With respect to the 37-37.6 GHz band (Lower 37 GHz band), the Commission resolves pending petitions for reconsideration, establish a band plan, and in the 3rd FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a more detailed framework to facilitate Federal and non-Federal use. In addition, the Commission proposes to make additional spectrum in the 42-42.5 GHz (42 GHz band) and 25.25-27.5 GHz band (26 GHz band) available for flexible wireless use, while recognizing the need to protect and provide continued opportunities for Federal use of this band. The Commission notes that it will consider other bands and issues raised in this proceeding in future Commission items.

2. The Commission's efforts in this proceeding to make mmW spectrum available for wireless uses is vital to ensuring continued American leadership in wireless broadband. That leadership represents a critical component of economic growth, job creation, public safety, and global competitiveness. The Commission will continue to take steps to facilitate access to additional low-band, mid-band, and high-band spectrum for the benefit of American consumers, including holding an auction of the 28 GHz band starting in November followed by an auction of the 24 GHz band.

II. Background

3. On November 22, 2017, the Commission released the 2nd R&O, 2nd FNPRM, Order on Recon, and MO&O in this proceeding. See 83 FR 37. In relevant parts, the 2nd R&O authorized the 24 GHz band and the 47.2-48.2 GHz band (47 GHz band) for flexible wireless use; it declined to set pre-auction limits on the amount of spectrum an entity may acquire at auction in the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands; and it revised the mmW spectrum threshold for reviewing proposed secondary market transactions to 1850 megahertz by including the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands. The 2nd FNPRM sought comment on five issues. First, the Commission proposed to license Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band on a co-primary basis under the provisions in Section 25.136(d) applicable to the 47 GHz band. Second, the Commission sought comment on adopting additional performance metrics tailored to Internet of Things (IoT)-type deployments. Third, the Commission proposed to eliminate the pre-auction limit of 1250 megahertz that the R&O had adopted for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands. Fourth, the Commission proposed to require that any equipment capable of operating anywhere within the 24 GHz band must be capable of operating across the entire 24 GHz band, on all frequencies in both band segments. Finally, the Commission invited commenters to submit new studies or data on bands under consideration by the Commission, as well as comments on additional bands the Commission should consider.

4. The Commission received 15 comments and 12 reply comments. A list of commenters, reply commenters, and ex parte filings is contained in the List of Commenters to the 2nd FNPRM. No petitions for reconsideration of the 2nd R&O were filed. SOM1101, LLC filed a comment addressing the issue of allowing satellite user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band. Comment of SOM1101 LLC (filed Jan. 23, 2018). In the MO&O, the Commission declined to authorize satellite user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band. Because SOM1101's comment neither acknowledges nor seeks reconsideration of the MO&O's decision, the Commission will not give further consideration to this issue.

III. Third Report and Order A. Performance Requirements—Geographic Area Metric

5. Background. In the R&O, the Commission moved away from a substantial service regime in the mmW bands by adopting a defined set of metrics for performance requirements for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS). UMFUS licensees relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service must show that they are providing reliable signal coverage and service to at least 40 percent of the population within the service area of the licensee, and that they are using facilities to provide service in that area either to customers or for internal use. Licensees relying on point-to-point service must demonstrate that they have four links operating and providing service, either to customers or for internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is greater than 268,000, a licensee relying on point-to-point service must demonstrate it has at least one link in operation and is providing service for each 67,000 population within the license area. Showings that rely on a combination of multiple types of service will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This reliance on fixed metrics was a change from the buildout rules formerly applicable to 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees, which used a substantial service standard. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on expanding this list of metrics by adopting a performance metric designed to accommodate IoT-type deployments. In the 2nd FNPRM, the Commission sought comment more specifically on a geographic area metric that might accommodate IoT or other services deployed along non-traditional lines, while still measuring a meaningful level of service in a proven way.

6. Discussion. The Commission adopts a geographic area metric for UMFUS licenses, to be included in the existing list of performance metrics from which licensees may choose, as an additional alternative to meeting the Commission's performance requirements. Consistent with the option on which the Commission sought comment in the 2nd FNPRM, licensees may fulfill the requirements of this metric either by demonstrating mobile or point-to-multipoint coverage of at least 25% of their license's geographic area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or receiving on the licensed spectrum in at least 25% of census tracts within the license area. The Commission believes the 25% level would maintain parity with the 40% population coverage metric. As with the Commission's previously-adopted metrics, equipment must be in use and actually providing service, either for private, internal use or to unaffiliated customers, in order to be counted. This metric, like the Commission's previously-adopted metrics, may be used by any UMFUS licensee, regardless of the type of service deployed.

7. The Commission emphasizes that this geographic area metric is an additional alternative for licensees, not a supplemental requirement. If a licensee deploying IoT systems finds that the Commission's existing mobile or fixed metrics better fit their needs, it is welcome to use either of those metrics instead. As the Commission has emphasized since the R&O, all licensees may choose the particular metric they wish to satisfy, and the adoption of this metric merely expands their list of choices. Without the adoption of this additional choice of metric, licensees would have only the mobile or fixed options through which to demonstrate their compliance with the Commission's performance requirements. While the Commission continues to support its previous conclusion that it is too soon to design a usage-based metric that will be technology- and use case-neutral, it believes it is important to provide some additional option for UMFUS licensees whose deployments may not track residential population, or that may not involve traditional higher-power fixed links, as will likely be the case for some IoT-type services. The Commission's adoption of a geographic area metric is responsive to the calls from commenters for greater flexibility. In the interest of providing licensees with as much flexibility and certainty as possible in advance of the Commission's contemplated auctions of UMFUS spectrum, the Commission does not believe it is appropriate to delay the adoption of an additional choice of metric to future rounds of this proceeding.

8. The objections raised by, and alternative suggestions offered by commenters, are not persuasive. With respect to calls for entirely different regimes, such as substantial service or site-based licensing, the Commission has already determined that geographic area licensing with the performance requirements that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order strikes the best balance between flexibility for licensees and accountability in ensuring efficient use of mmW spectrum. The Commission notes that it has also designated a total of fourteen gigahertz of unlicensed spectrum in the mmW bands, and that it seeks further comment on the sharing regime it has adopted for the lower 37 GHz band.

B. Operability in the 24 GHz Band

9. Background. The 24 GHz band consists of two band segments: The lower segment, from 24.25-24.45 GHz, and the upper segment, from 24.75-25.25 GHz. In the 2nd R&O, the Commission adopted UMFUS licensing and technical rules for the 24 GHz band. The Commission also proposed to adopt an operability requirement for the 24 GHz band. Under this requirement, any mobile or transportable equipment capable of operating in any portion of the 24 GHz band must be capable of operating at all frequencies within the 24 GHz band, in both band segments.

10. Discussion. The Commission adopts its proposal to require operability throughout the 24 GHz band. Any mobile or transportable equipment capable of operating on any frequency between 24.24-24.45 GHz or 24.75-25.25 GHz must be capable of operating on all frequencies in those ranges. This requirement will support competition by ensuring a robust device ecosystem throughout the band. Given the separation of the 24 GHz band into two different segments, the Commission believes an operability requirement is important to supporting development of the lower portion of the band.

11. The Commission reiterates that this operability requirement in no way dictates the use of any particular technology or air interface. The Commission also emphases that this operability requirement is specific to the 24 GHz band, and does not extend to other UMFUS bands. The 28 GHz band and the 37 and 39 GHz bands also have operability requirements, but those are separate and independent from the one the Commission adopts for the 24 GHz band. Devices are not required to operate across all UMFUS bands. While one commenter expresses concern about the ability to filter signals from the 24.45-24.75 GHz band, it ultimately supports the operability requirement, and it does not provide any technical analysis in support of its concern.

12. In addition, as the Commission noted in the 2nd R&O, ongoing international studies include analyses to determine IMT-2020 out-of-band emission limits necessary to protect passive sensors onboard weather satellites in the 23.6-24.0 GHz band. The Commission recognizes the need to protect these passive satellite operations that provide important data necessary for weather predictions and warnings. Given that this is a matter of interest to multiple stakeholders internationally and that the Commission cannot predict the outcome, it finds it inappropriate to adopt U.S.-only limits that may need to be modified at a later time. Once interference protection standards are agreed upon internationally the Commission will, if necessary, consider through notice and comment whether any modification of its current out-of-band limits may be needed. The Commission encourages non-Federal operators in the 24 GHz band to monitor these studies and to plan their systems, to the extent possible, to take into account the potential for additional future protection of passive sensors in the 23.6-24.0 GHz band.

C. 24 GHz FSS Sharing

13. Background. The U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations (U.S. Table) currently includes primary, non-Federal, Fixed, Mobile and Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) (Earth-to-space) allocations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band. Footnote NG535 to the U.S. Table provides feeder links in the Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) priority over other FSS uses in the 24.75-25.05 GHz band segment, and restricts FSS use of the 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment to feeder links for the BSS. In the 2nd R&O the Commission adopted a primary Fixed Service allocation in the 24.75-25.05 GHz band segment, added a primary Mobile Service allocation in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band segment, and authorized both mobile and fixed operations in those bands under the part 30 UMFUS rules. The Commission did not make changes to its current rules at that time, but decided instead to seek comment in the 2nd FNPRM in conjunction with a proposal to allow more flexible use of the band for FSS earth stations.

14. In the 2nd FNPRM, the Commission proposed to license FSS earth stations in 24.75-25.25 GHz band on a co-primary basis under the provisions contained in Section 25.136(d), which currently applies to the 47 GHz band, by adding the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to this rule section. This change would limit availability of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band for FSS to individually-licensed FSS earth stations that meet the same specific licensing requirements applicable to earth stations in the 47 GHz band. The Commission also sought comment on adding a U.S. Table footnote specifying the relative interference protection obligations of FSS and UMFUS stations in this band. In addition, the Commission proposed various conforming modifications to certain earth station application requirements. The Commission sought comment on these proposals and on possible actions needed to address the potential for aggregate interference from terrestrial users into satellite systems in the band.

15. To provide for more flexible FSS use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, the Commission proposed to eliminate footnote NG535, thereby making this band available for general FSS uplink operations without restricting these operations to, or affording priority for, the provision of feeder links for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. To further increase flexibility for all FSS uses in this new sharing regime, the Commission also proposed to eliminate the Petitions for Reconsideration of Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order addressed herein orbital-location restrictions for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations specified in Section 25.262(a), thus providing more flexibility to these BSS operations. Consistent with these proposals, the Commission proposed several other rule changes to part 25 of its rules to harmonize the treatment of BSS feeder links with other FSS transmissions. Specifically, the Commission proposed the following rule changes: (1) Modify Section 25.138 to extend applicability of the Ka-band off-axis EIRP density limits in paragraph (a) to the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, and then to eliminate the nearly identical BSS feeder link-specific earth station off-axis EIRP density limits for the 24.75-25.25 GHz band in Section 25.223(b); (2) add the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to the list of frequency bands in our general FSS earth station coordination rules in Section 25.220(a), thereby permitting us to eliminate the coordination provisions contained in Sections 25.223(c) and (d); (3) remove and reserve Section 25.223, because there would be no need for these provisions, which provide an alternative means of licensing BSS feeder links, and also eliminate cross references to Section 25.223 contained in Section 25.209(f); (4) eliminate Section 25.204(e)(4), which contains rain fade specifications specific to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link transmissions, and instead include the 24.75-25.25 GHz band in paragraph (e)(3), which contains nearly identical Ka-band FSS rain fade specifications; (5) modify the interference-showing requirements for FSS applicants in Section 25.140(a) to make clear its applicability to FSS (Earth-to-space) transmissions to 17/24 GHz BSS space stations; (6) add a new subparagraph (iv) to Section 25.140(a) requiring applicants for space stations receiving uplinks in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to certify, among other things, that the earth stations transmitting to such space stations will not exceed the off-axis EIRP density limits in Section 25.138(a); (7) modify the definitions of “routine processing or licensing” and “two-degree compliant space station” contained in Section 25.103; (8) eliminate the operational requirements associated with the Appendix F orbital-location constraints in Section 25.262 by deleting paragraphs (a) and (d), and modifying paragraphs (b) and (e); (9) modify Sections 25.140(b), (c) and (d) to reflect changes in the interference showing required by 17/24 GHz BSS applicants, which is currently defined in part by the applicant's orbital position relative to Appendix F locations; (10) delete Section 25.262(b) to eliminate an operational requirement made moot; (11) delete Appendix F specific requirements contained in Section 25.114(d)(17); (12) eliminate a reference in Section 25.114(d)(7) to a deleted subparagraph in Section 25.140(b); and (13) modify the cross-polarization isolation requirement in Section 25.210(i) to making clear that it applies only to 17/24 GHz BSS space-to-Earth transmissions, to provide for consistent treatment of 17/24 GHz feeder uplinks with other FSS transmissions in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band.

16. Discussion. After review of the record, the Commission modifies the FSS earth station licensing proposal set out in the 2nd FNPRM so as to better provide FSS with additional capacity for satellite services while permitting substantial terrestrial use of the band. As with the 28 GHz and 47 GHz bands, the Commission finds generally that allowing a limited number of FSS earth stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band would further the public interest, and therefore provide for sharing of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band by UMFUS and FSS earth stations, including BSS feeder link earth stations. Based on the record, the Commission adopts rules that incorporate certain sharing criteria applicable in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 47.2-48.2 GHz bands. Specifically, the Commission applies the permitted aggregate population limits within the specified earth station PFD contour on a per-county basis, similar to the requirement in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, rather than the per-PEA limits applicable to the 47.2-48.2 GHz band. Additionally, as in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band, the Commission adopts constraints on the number of permitted earth stations not only in the county but also in the UMFUS licensing area (PEA) in which the earth station is located. To reflect these requirements, the Commission adopts a new rule section 25.136(g), which its find includes sufficient defined restrictions on earth station operations consistent with CCA's request.

17. The Commission will not adopt any operational requirements addressing limits on aggregate interference into satellite receivers at this time, as it does not believe such limits are justified by the current record, and the Commission received no specific proposals for such a rule. The Commission retains the authority to monitor developments and intervene to prevent unacceptable interference to satellites if that becomes necessary, but there is no evidence to date that suggests that any such intervention will be necessary. The Commission will amend footnote NG65 to the U.S. Table to include the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to make clear the relative interference protection obligations between the co-primary services. The Commission rejects CTIA's argument that it should adopt a new footnote stating that certain shared frequency bands are identified predominantly for terrestrial mobile and fixed services on a primary basis. The Commission does not believe that this proposed footnote fulfills its intent to specify accurately the relative interference protection obligations of FSS and UMFUS stations in this band, and further, it would go beyond the scope of this rulemaking by including frequency bands apart from the 24.75-25.25 GHz band (i.e., the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands). The Commission also adopts the proposed conforming modifications to Sections 25.115(e) and 25.130(b), and delete the obsolete licensing requirements for the 25.05-25.25 GHz band specified in Section 25.203(l).

18. The Commission adopts its proposals to remove footnote NG535. In doing so, the Commission removes the restriction on FSS operations apart from BSS feeder links, in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment, and eliminate the priority of BSS feeder links relative to other FSS operations in the 24.75-25.05 GHz band. The Commission also eliminates the Appendix F orbital-location restrictions contained in Section 25.262(a), which should give 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link operators the same flexibility as other FSS operators in the band. FSS use beyond the provision of BSS feeder links is already permitted in the lower portion of the band, and the Commission believes that it will further spectrum efficiency to extend this same flexibility to other types of individually licensed FSS earth stations in the upper band segment. The Commission rejects T-Mobile's argument that the Commission should constrain satellite operators' use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band beyond limits placed on satellite operators in comparable UMFUS bands. Such a position is at variance with the Commission's stated objectives in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding to make available millimeter wave (mmW) bands for flexible wireless deployment while simultaneously adopting rules that will allow the mmW bands to be shared with other uses, including satellite, in bands where there are existing FSS allocations. The Commission also disagrees with AT&T that retention of subsection (a) in footnote NG535 is warranted, as it believes it would only serve to undermine its goals of increasing flexibility of use and spectrum efficiency. AT&T acknowledges that the Commission's two-degree spacing requirements are sufficient to protect BSS feeder links from other FSS operations, and it provides no justification for retaining BSS feeder link priority in the 24.75-25.05 GHz portion of the band.

19. The Commission received no opposition to its proposed rule changes to harmonize the treatment of FSS and BSS feeder link transmissions under its rules, nor any opposition on the associated conforming amendments. Accordingly, the Commission adopts these rule changes as elaborated above, for the reasons set forth in the 2nd FNPRM. The Commission will not however, include in the amended definition of “routine processing or licensing” in § 25.103 an exclusion for earth stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band as originally proposed in the 2nd FNPRM. Upon further consideration, this change is not necessary to accurately reflect our licensing procedures. In addition, as a consequence of eliminating the Appendix F orbital-location requirement in § 25.262(a), the Commission also deletes § 25.262(c)(2). This provision, which addresses cancelled or surrendered licenses relative specifically to Appendix F orbital locations, is moot. Once the rules become effective, these rule changes will ensure that all FSS transmissions in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, including BSS feeder link transmissions, are subject to the Commission's two-degree spacing requirements. The four-degree spacing regimen applicable to 17/24 GHz BSS downlink transmissions however, will be unaltered, which SIA notes is an important predicate for its support of proposed changes to the Commission's rules governing uplink band operations.

D. Lower 37 GHz Band Plan

20. Background. In the R&O, the Commission adopted rules to permit fixed and mobile terrestrial operation in the 37 GHz band. The Commission also adopted a licensing regime for the 37.6-38.6 GHz portion of the band (Upper 37 GHz Band), which would be licensed in five 200 megahertz blocks on a geographic area basis. Rather than adopting a particular licensing regime for the Lower 37 GHz Band, the Commission made it available for coordinated co-primary sharing between Federal and non-Federal users. The Commission explained that Federal and non-Federal users would access the Lower 37 GHz Band through a coordination mechanism, which it would more fully develop through government/industry collaboration.

21. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment, among other things, on the appropriate band plan for the Lower 37 GHz. The Commission proposed to establish a 100 megahertz minimum channel size. It also proposed to allow users to aggregate 100 megahertz channels into larger channel sizes up to the maximum of 600 megahertz where available. Starry and T-Mobile support the proposal to license 100 megahertz channels in the Lower 37 GHz band. No party opposed the proposal.

22. Discussion. The Commission affirms the Commission's decision to adopt a co-primary sharing approach for the Lower 37 GHz band and the Commission seeks additional comment on the details of that approach. Here, the Commission adopts the Commission's proposal to license the Lower 37 GHz Band as six 100 megahertz channels. This channelization will allow for a sufficient acquisition of spectrum by smaller users while still allowing for aggregation by larger entities. The Commission believes that 100 megahertz channels will be sufficient for a licensee to provide the type of high rate data services, and other innovative uses and applications, contemplated for this spectrum. These smaller channels offer an opportunity to provide low-barrier access to spectrum for new technologies and providers while also enhancing shared access methods and technologies between commercial and Federal users.

E. Mobile Spectrum Holdings

23. Background. The R&O established a pre-auction, bright-line limit of 1250 megahertz on the amount of mmW spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands (R&O bands) that an entity could acquire at auction. In the 2nd R&O, the Commission declined to adopt a similar pre-auction limit on the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands, primarily because preemptive limits on the amount of spectrum an entity might acquire could unnecessarily inhibit participation at auction and discourage the development of spectrum-intensive services. Moreover, the Commission found that mmW technology currently is at a nascent stage of development and that there was insufficient information to predict the amount of spectrum needed for future still-to-be-developed services. No petitions for reconsideration were filed in response to the Commission's decisions in the 2nd R&O. In the 2nd FNPRM, the Commission proposed to eliminate the pre-auction limit of 1250 megahertz that the R&O had adopted for the R&O bands. Further, in the absence of any pre-auction limits, the Commission sought comment regarding whether it should apply a post-auction case-by-case review on all mmW spectrum available at auction.

24. Discussion. The Commission adopts its proposal in the 2nd FNPRM to eliminate the pre-auction limit of 1250 megahertz for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. In the R&O, the Commission indicated that its consideration of whether to adopt a mobile spectrum holdings limit for the licensing of spectrum through competitive bidding—and, if so, what type of limit—would take into account several objectives, including: The promotion of competition in relevant markets; the acceleration of private sector deployment of advanced services; and generally managing the spectrum in the public interest. In reaching its decision to adopt a pre-auction spectrum aggregation limit for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands, the Commission observed, among other things, that mmW spectrum is likely to be a critical component in the development of 5G and that pre-auction limits could encourage the development of innovative services to the benefit of the American consumer. The Commission continues to recognize that mmW spectrum is an important resource for the deployment of 5G and other advanced wireless services, as evidenced by the steps it takes in this 3rd R&O, MO&O, and 3rd FNPRM to further promote this deployment. The Commission also notes that in addition to mmW spectrum, various providers have announced plans to develop 5G in other bands, such as 600 MHz and 2.5 GHz, and have indicated an interest in using 3.5 GHz and 3.7-4.2 GHz for 5G. Overall, the Commission observes that there are a variety of spectral paths to 5G deployment in the United States, and that accelerating this deployment, including through the use of mmW spectrum, is an increasingly important objective given the potential economic benefits.

25. Thus, while technological development in the mmW bands remains in a nascent stage, the Commission's balancing of objectives shifts towards facilitating rapid 5G deployment in the United States. In that context, and given the Commission's balancing of various statutory objectives, the Commission weighs more heavily the risk that bright-line, pre-auction limits may restrict unnecessarily the ability of entities to participate and acquire spectrum in a mmW band auction. This could, in turn, unnecessarily constrain providers in their paths towards 5G deployment on mmW bands, limit their incentives to invest in these new services, and delay the realization of related economic benefits. The Commission is not inclined to adopt such limits on auction participation absent a clear indication that they are necessary to address a specific competitive concern In the case of the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands, the Commission is not persuaded by commenters' generalized assertions that a bright-line, pre-auction limit in these bands is necessary to protect competition in the provision of wireless services, particularly in light of its decision below to adopt a post-auction case-by-case review of spectrum in the UMFUS bands. The Commission emphases that the Commission has adopted rules to facilitate flexible terrestrial wireless use of 4950 megahertz of mmW spectrum across five bands, which will be licensed in multiple blocks of different sizes and geographic areas, providing many spectrum opportunities for various types of auction bidders. In addition, given the similar technical characteristics and potential uses of the mmW spectrum for the R&O bands—relative to the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands—the Commission sees no reason to reach a different conclusion regarding a pre-auction limit for the R&O bands than it reached for the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands. Moreover, treating certain UMFUS bands differently from others for purposes of a pre-auction limit would be inconsistent with the Commission's policy of treating all five UMFUS bands the same for purposes of secondary market transactions. The Commission therefore concludes that entities bidding for licenses in the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands should not be subject to bright-line, pre-auction limits on the amount of spectrum they may acquire at an auction of these bands. Consistent with the Commission's rationale in the 2nd R&O, the Commission concludes that this approach will maximize the opportunities in these bands for putting this mmW spectrum to efficient use.

26. Although the Commission will not apply an ex ante bright-line limit to the acquisition of spectrum in the five UMFUS bands through auction, the Commission will conduct an ex post case-by-case review to the acquisition through auction of spectrum in the UMFUS bands. In particular, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to review applications for initial licenses filed post-auction on a case-by-case basis using the same 1850 megahertz threshold the Commission uses for reviewing applications for secondary market transactions. As noted above, the Commission continues to recognize that mmW spectrum is an important resource for the deployment of 5G and other advanced wireless services, as the Commission acknowledged in retaining the mmW spectrum threshold for secondary markets. Applying a post-auction case-by-case review will provide an opportunity to evaluate whether an applicant's post-auction spectrum holdings would result in excessive concertation of licenses, in a manner consistent with the Commission's obligations under Section 309(j)(3)(B). Moreover, the Commission finds that applying a case-by-case review to initial applications for spectrum won at auction is necessary to ensure that the public interest benefits of having a mmW spectrum threshold for reviewing proposed secondary market transactions are not rendered ineffective. In addition, unlike a bright-line pre-auction limit, a post-auction case-by-case review will provide flexibility to bidders and facilitate the assignment of licenses to those who value them the most. As is the case for the mmW spectrum threshold applied to secondary market transactions, the threshold the Commission will apply to review initial applications for spectrum won at auction merely identifies those markets that may warrant further competitive analysis.

27. The Commission intends to conduct the same type of case-by-case review that the Commission anticipated in 2001 when it eliminated the CMRS spectrum cap, and that it articulated in 2008 in the context of the 700 MHz auction (Auction 73), but which it discontinued in the 2014 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Order. Case-by-case review permits bidders to participate fully in a mmW spectrum auction, while still allowing the Commission to assess the impact on competition from the assignment of initial mmW spectrum licenses, and to take appropriate action to preserve or protect competition only where necessary. Thus, for example, the Commission may allow a winning auction bidder to exceed the threshold if it finds that this would not foreclose other competitors from acquiring similar mmW spectrum. Further, as was the case under the Commission's post-auction case-by-case review that previously was applied, in the event that a divestiture is required before issuing any new licenses, the winning bidder likely would have greater flexibility to choose which spectrum to divest among its existing mmW spectrum holdings or winning bids, in a manner that nevertheless would address competitive concerns.

28. In supporting such a case-by-case review, U.S. Cellular proposed a two-tiered public interest framework that relied on band-specific spectrum concentration limits. The Commission rejects their proposal for specific in-band limits for similar reasons as it articulated in the R&O and 2nd R&O, where it stated that, either at auction or in the secondary market, separate band-specific limits are not necessary. Further, the Commission disagree with commenters that allege that a post-auction case-by-case review creates uncertainty that is inconsistent with Section 309(j). The post-auction case-by-case review will be based on the standard articulated in the 2008 Union Telephone Order, and the Commission will apply this review to auctions of mmW bands going forward. Spectrum auctions were subject to this kind of review for a number of years before 2014, and the Commission finds that it is similarly appropriate with respect to the mmW spectrum. The Commission finds that such a case-by-case review provides parties with a clear and familiar standard that the Commission and Bureau have used, and continue to use, in reviewing proposed secondary market transactions currently. In that regard, the Commission finds that post-auction case-by-case review is likely to create sufficient bidder certainty consistent with Section 309(j)(3)(E) of the Communications Act, which emphasizes the need for clear bidding rules “to ensure that interested parties have a sufficient time to develop business plans, assess marketplace conditions, and evaluate the availability of equipment for the relevant services.” In addition, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the adoption of a post-auction case-by-case review for mmW spectrum is the best way to satisfy its obligation under another part of Section 309 to guard against the excessive concentration of licenses.

IV. Memorandum Opinion and Order A. Licensing Lower 37 GHz

29. Petitions for Reconsideration. CTIA, CCA, 5G Americas, TIA, and T-Mobile (Petitioners) filed Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) of the R&O asking the Commission to reconsider decisions it made regarding the 37 GHz band. First, CTIA, CCA, 5G Americas, and T-Mobile ask the Commission to reconsider its decision to adopt a Shared Access Licensing scheme for the lower band segment in which non-Federal users would be licensed by rule. CTIA, 5G Americas, CCA, and T-Mobile recommend that the Commission instead adopt exclusive area licensing in the 37-37.6 GHz band. Second, 5G Americas and TIA ask the Commission to reconsider its decision that Federal operations should have expansion rights in the Lower 37 GHz band.

30. Discussion. The Commission denies the petitions of CTIA, CCA, 5G Americas, TIA, and T-Mobile under Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules because the Commission has already considered and rejected the arguments raised by the petitioners in favor of exclusive area licensing. In their comments and reply comments to the NPRM, the petitioners urged the Commission to adopt an exclusive area licensing scheme for the 37-37.6 GHz band. In their petitions for reconsideration, they raise no new facts or arguments here. In the R&O, the Commission concluded that “[a]lthough there is support in the record to license the entire 37 GHz band by geographic area, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to license a portion of this band on a non-exclusive shared basis, and to license the remainder of the band by geographic area to give potential licensees additional opportunity to access large blocks of spectrum or to use 37 GHz spectrum in combination with, and similarly to, 39 GHz spectrum.” The Commission explained that “[a]llowing part of the band to be made available on a non-exclusive, shared basis will promote access to spectrum by a wide variety of entities, support innovative uses of the band, and help ensure that spectrum is widely utilized.” The Commission further explained that “[a]dopting geographic area licensing for the other portion of the band will expeditiously make spectrum available and allow common development of the 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands.” Thus, the Commission will not reconsider its decision to adopt a co-primary sharing scheme for the 37-37.6 GHz band and the Commission reaffirms its decision in the Report and Order.

31. The Commission rejects CTIA's argument that the Commission's action was arbitrary and capricious because the Commission did not “provide reasoning for adopting an untested sharing model that requires licensees to coordinate with Federal parties, the latter of which has proven to be highly successful for the AWS-1 and AWS-3 bands.” In the R&O, the Commission explained that the sharing approach it adopted best enables “the band to be used for new commercial uses while simultaneously allowing fixed and mobile Federal use to expand.” The Commission added that “[a]llowing part of the band to be made available on a non-exclusive, shared basis will promote access to spectrum by a wide variety of entities, support innovative uses of the band, and help ensure that spectrum is widely utilized.” The Commission further stated that the approach it adopted provided “satellite operators the certainty they need to be able to expand their operations into the 37 GHz band in the future. Nothing in the petitions supports the change in direction suggested by petitioners.

32. In the R&O, the Commission directed the Wireless Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology to collaborate with NTIA and Federal stakeholders, as well as industry stakeholders and other interested parties to further define the sharing framework.” Initial collaboration has identified the issues raised in the 3rd FNPRM adopted June 7, 2018. The 3rd FNPRM presents another opportunity to open a dialogue about how sharing can best be implemented and achieved in the Lower 37 GHz band prior to the adoption of final sharing rules. The Commission looks forward to continuing to work with NTIA, Federal stakeholders, and industry to complete development of the sharing mechanism.

B. FSS Allocation in 42-42.5 GHz

33. Background. In the R&O, the Commission declined to allocate the 42 GHz band for fixed satellite service (FSS) downlink operations. It concluded there was less reason to expand FSS operations into the 42 GHz band given that it was already granting FSS enhanced access to the 37.5-40 GHz band and because FSS has exclusive access to the 40.5-42 GHz band. Rather, the Commission saw greater value in making the band available exclusively for terrestrial use.

34. Various satellite interests sought reconsideration of that decision. ViaSat asserts that “the 42-42.5 GHz band segment could be used in connection with the downlink spectrum that currently is available for satellite use in the adjacent 37.5-42 GHz band segment to achieve increased satellite broadband network capabilities that will be needed to meet this exponentially expanding consumer demand.” ViaSat, SES, and O3b argue that providing satellite access to the 42 GHz band also comes with an established public interest benefit—helping to bridge the digital divide in rural America.

35. Discussion. The Commission declines to reconsider its decisions to not allocate the 42 GHz band for FSS use. The Commission's decision was part of an overall goal to have a balanced strategy for sharing between terrestrial and satellite services in V-band. Given the Commission's prior decisions to provide FSS with exclusive access to the 40-42 GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz bands—plus shared access to the 37.5-40 GHz and 28 GHz bands, the Commission see nothing arbitrary in reserving 500 megahertz of spectrum for exclusive terrestrial use. Moreover, the Commission notes that in the 3rd R&O above, the Commission provides for shared FSS use of the 24 GHz band. Satellite interests raise no new facts and merely reassert arguments they made previously regarding the need for the 42 GHz band to deploy broadband. They also have not demonstrated that the Commission has committed any error.

36. The MOBILE NOW Act does not require us to give further consideration to adding an FSS allocation in the 42 GHz band. While the Act asks that the Commission considers how this band may be used to provide “commercial wireless broadband service,” including licensed and/or unlicensed service, it also asks that the Commission include technical characteristics under which the band may be employed for “mobile or fixed terrestrial wireless operations, including any appropriate coexistence requirements.” By its express language limiting any proposed licensed or unlicensed services in the band to “mobile and fixed terrestrial operations,” the Commission finds that Congress excluded the alternative of permitting licensed satellite service in the band. Legislative history also indicates that Congress intended such mmW spectrum for “mobile or fixed terrestrial wireless operations, including for broadband” without any concomitant discussion of satellite service. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe the MOBILE NOW Act requires that it reconsider permitting satellite service in the 42 GHz band or to consider how this non-terrestrial service could share with any possible licensed and unlicensed terrestrial services on whose coexistence the Commission now seeks comment.

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

37. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 2nd FNPRM released in November 2017 in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 2nd FNPRM, including comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Third Report and Order

38. In the 3rd R&O, the Commission authorizes Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band for individually licensed earth stations. Under the current rules, Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS) feeder links have priority over other FSS uses in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band. Given the very light use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band for BSS feeder links, the existence of the Commission's earth station two-degree spacing rules that can protect BSS feeder links from other FSS earth stations in the band, and the power limits placed on BSS feeder link earth stations, there is no need to give BSS feeder link earth stations priority over other uses of the FSS for earth stations located within the United States, or to preclude other FSS earth stations from claiming protection from feeder link earth stations located within the United States.

39. The 3rd R&O also creates a buildout standard for UMFUS licensees based on geographic area coverage that would be an alternative to the current population coverage standard in the current rules. A performance metric based on geographic area coverage (or presence) would allow for networks that provide meaningful service but deploy along other lines than residential population. Such a metric could be useful for sensor-based networks, particularly for uses in rural areas. The Commission adopts the following metric as an option for UMFUS licensees to fulfill their buildout requirements: Geographic area coverage of 25% of the license area. The latter standard could accommodate deployments, such as sensor networks, that are not designed to provide mobile or point-to-multipoint area coverage, and for whom calculating “coverage of 25% of the area” would therefore not be a meaningful standard.

40. The 3rd R&O also adopts an operability requirement such that any device designed to operate within the 24 GHz bands must be capable of operating on all frequencies within those bands. This operability requirement will ensure that devices developed for the 24 GHz band operate throughout the band, making it easier for smaller businesses with fewer resources to find equipment that can operate across the entire band.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

41. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

42. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

43. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises 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 Bureau 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.

44. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the UMFUS and the Millimeter Wave Service where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. At present, there are approximately 66,680 common carrier fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this SBA category and the associated standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.

45. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission notes, however, that both the common carrier microwave fixed and the private operational microwave fixed licensee categories includes some large entities.

46. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” The category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.

47. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is comprised of establishments 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 Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 1442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1400 firms had gross annual receipts of under $25 million and 42 firms had gross annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by its actions can be considered small.

48. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has established a size standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of manufacturers in this industry is small.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

49. The Commission expects the rules adopted in the 3rd R&O will impose new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small entities as well as other applicants and licensees. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements in the 3rd R&O will apply to all entities in the same manner. The revisions the Commission adopts should benefit small entities by giving them more information, more flexibility, and more options for gaining access to wireless spectrum.

50. Small entities and other applicants for UMFUS licenses will be required to file license applications using the Commission's automated Universal Licensing System (ULS). ULS is an online electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful information tool, one that enables potential licensees to research applications, licenses, and antenna structures. It also keeps the public informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. Small entities, like all other entities who are UMFUS applicants, must submit long-form license applications must do so through ULS using Form 601, FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602, and other appropriate forms.

51. The Commission expects that the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the demands described above will require small businesses as well as other entities that intend to utilize these new UMFUS licenses to use professional, accounting, engineering or survey services in order to meet these requirements. As described below, several steps have been taken that will alleviate the burdens of the requirements on small businesses.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

52. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (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 or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small entities.

53. The Commission does not believe that its adopted changes will have a significant economic impact on small entities. As noted above, the various construction and performance requirements and their associated showings will be the same for small and large businesses that license the UMFUS bands. To the extent applying the rules equally to all entities results in the cost of complying with these burdens being relatively greater for smaller businesses than for large ones, these costs are necessary to effectuate the purpose of the Communications Act, namely to further the efficient use of spectrum and to prevent spectrum warehousing. Likewise compliance with the Commission's service and technical rules and coordination requirements are necessary for the furtherance of its goals of protecting the public while also providing interference free services. Moreover, while small and large businesses must equally comply with these rules and requirements, the Commission has taken the steps described below to help alleviate the burden on small businesses that seek to comply with these requirements.

54. The proposals to facilitate satellite service in the 24 GHz band should also assist small satellite businesses by providing them with additional flexibility to locate their earth stations without causing interference to or receiving interference from UMFUS licensees.

G. Report to Congress

55. The Commission will send a copy of the 3rd R&O, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the 3rd R&O, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 3rd R&O, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

VI. Ordering Clauses

56. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310, section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and § 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411, that the Third Report and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order is hereby adopted.

57. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth in the Final Rules.

58. It is further ordered that the provisions and requirements of this Third Report and Order and the rules adopted herein will become effective August 20, 2018, except for rules and requirements which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and will become effective after the Commission publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.

59. It is further ordered that the petitions for reconsideration listed in the Petitions for Reconsideration of Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order are granted to the extent indicated and are otherwise denied.

60. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Third Report and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final, Supplemental Final, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

61. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 25 and 30

Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission, Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2, 25, and 30 as follows:

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations is amended as follows: a. Page 54 is revised. b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG65 is revised and footnote NG535 is removed.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. BILLING CODE 6712-01-P ER20JY18.004 ER20JY18.005 BILLING CODE 6712-01-C Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes

NG65 In the bands 24.75-25.25 GHz and 47.2-48.2 GHz, stations in the fixed and mobile services may not claim protection from individually licensed earth stations authorized pursuant to 47 CFR 25.136. However, nothing in this footnote shall limit the right of UMFUS licensees to operate in conformance with the technical rules contained in 47 CFR part 30. The Commission reserves the right to monitor developments and to undertake further action concerning interference between UMFUS and FSS, including aggregate interference to satellite receivers, if appropriate.

PART 25—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows: Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

4. Amend § 25.103 by revising the definitions of “Routine processing or licensing” and “Two-degree-compliant space station” to read as follows:
§ 25.103 Definitions.

Routine processing or licensing. Expedited processing of unopposed applications for earth stations in the FSS communicating with GSO space stations, that satisfy the criteria in §§ 25.138(a), 25.211(d), 25.212(c), 25.212(d), 25.212(e), 25.212(f), or 25.218, include all required information, are consistent with all Commission rules, and do not raise any policy issues. Some, but not all, routine earth station applications are eligible for an autogrant procedure under § 25.115(a)(3).

Two-degree-compliant space station. A GSO FSS space station operating in the conventional or extended C-bands, the conventional or extended Ku-bands, the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, or the conventional Ka-band within the limits on downlink EIRP density or PFD specified in § 25.140(a)(3) and communicating only with earth stations operating in conformance with routine uplink parameters specified in §§ 25.138(a), 25.211(d), 25.212(c), (d), or (f), §§ 25.218, 25.221(a)(1) or (a)(3), or § 25.222(a)(1) or (a)(3), § 25.226(a)(1) or (a)(3), or § 25.227(a)(1) or (a)(3).

5. Amend § 25.114 by revising paragraph (d)(7) and removing and reserving paragraph (d)(17) to read as follows:
§ 25.114 Applications for space station authorizations.

(d) * * *

(7) Applicants for authorizations for space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service, including applicants proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service, must also include the information specified in § 25.140(a). Applicants for authorizations for space stations in the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service must also include the information specified in § 25.140(b);

(17) [Reserved]

6. Amend § 25.115 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (g)(1)(vii) to read as follows:
§ 25.115 Applications for earth station authorizations.

(e) * * *

(1) An application for a GSO FSS earth station license in the 17.8-19.4 GHz, 19.6-20.2 GHz, 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-29.1 GHz, or 29.25-30 GHz bands not filed on FCC Form 312EZ pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be filed on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, and must include any information required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this section or by § 25.130.

(g) * * *

(1) * * *

(vii) The relevant off-axis EIRP density envelopes in §§ 25.138, 25.218, 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, or § 25.227 must be superimposed on plots submitted pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.

7. Amend § 25.136 by adding new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 25.136 Earth Stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz and 47.2-48.2 GHz bands.

(g) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, earth stations in that bands shall be limited to individually licensed earth stations. An applicant for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band must meet one of the following criteria to be authorized to operate without providing any additional interference protection to stations in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service:

(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license(s) for the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m2/MHz;

(2) The earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was authorized prior to August 20, 2018; or

(3) The application for the earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was filed prior to August 20, 2018; or

(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:

(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band within the county where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in either paragraphs (g)(1) (g)(2), (g)(3) or (g)(4) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band within the Partial Economic Area where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (g)(1) (g)(2), (g)(3) or (g)(4) of this section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth station;

(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m2/MHz, together with the similar area of any other earth station operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band authorized pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section, does not cover, in the aggregate, more than the amount of population of the county within which the earth station is located as noted below:

Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(4)(ii) Population within the county where earth station is located Maximum permitted aggregate
  • population within −77.6 dBm/m2/MHz PFD contour of earth stations
  • Greater than 450,000 0.1 percent of population in county. Between 6,000 and 450,000 450 people. Fewer than 6,000 7.5 percent of population in county.

    (iii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m2/MHz does not contain any major event venue, urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port. In addition, the area mentioned in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section shall not cross any of the following types of roads, as defined in functional classification guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Administration pursuant to 23 CFR 470.105(b): Interstate, Other Freeways and Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty Executive Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map contains information on the classification of roads. For purposes of this rule, an urban area shall be an Adjusted Urban Area as defined in section 101(a)(37) of Title 21 of the United States Code.

    (iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees within the area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m2/MHz with respect to existing facilities constructed and in operation by the UMFUS licensee. In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the applicable processes contained in § 101.103(d) of this chapter. (f) If an earth station applicant or licensee in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz and/or 47.2-48.2 GHz bands enters into an agreement with an UMFUS licensee, their operations shall be governed by that agreement, except to the extent that the agreement is inconsistent with the Commission's rules or the Communications Act.

    8. Amend § 25.138 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) introductory text, and paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
    § 25.138 Licensing requirements for GSO FSS earth stations in the conventional Ka-band and the 24.75-25.25 GHz band.

    (a) Applications for earth station licenses in the GSO FSS in the conventional Ka-band or the 24.75-25.25 GHz band that indicate that the following requirements will be met and include the information required by relevant provisions in §§ 25.115 and 25.130 may be routinely processed:

    (6) The pfd at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a space station operating in the conventional Ka-band, for all conditions including clear sky, and for all methods of modulation, shall not exceed a level of −118 dBW/m2/MHz, in addition to the limits specified in § 25.208(d).

    9. Amend § 25.140 by: a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3) introductory text, and (a)(3)(iv) through (v); b. Adding paragraph (a)(3)(vi); c. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, and (b)(3) through (5); d. Removing paragraph (b)(6); e. Removing and reserving paragraph (c); and f. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text.

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 25.140 Further requirements for license applications for GSO space station operation in the FSS and the 17/24 GHz BSS.

    (a) * * *

    (2) In addition to the information required by § 25.114, an applicant for GSO FSS space station operation, including applicants proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS, that will be located at an orbital location less than two degrees from the assigned location of an authorized co-frequency GSO space station, must either certify that the proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator of the co-frequency space station or submit an interference analysis demonstrating the compatibility of the proposed system with the co-frequency space station. Such an analysis must include, for each type of radio frequency carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis. (See Appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, FCC 83-184, and the following public notices, copies of which are available in the Commission's EDOCS database, available at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs: DA 03-3863 and DA 04-1708.) The provisions in this paragraph do not apply to proposed analog video operation, which is subject to the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    (3) In addition to the information required by § 25.114, an applicant for a GSO FSS space station, including applicants proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS, must provide the following for operation other than analog video operation:

    (iv) With respect to proposed operation in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space), a certification that the proposed uplink operation will not exceed the applicable EIRP density envelopes in § 25.138(a) and that the associated space station will not generate a power flux density at the Earth's surface in excess of the applicable limits in this part, unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink FSS operation is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within six degrees of the orbital location and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

    (v) With respect to proposed operation in the 4500-4800 MHz (space-to-Earth), 6725-7025 MHz (Earth-to-space), 10.70-10.95 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.20-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth), and/or 12.75-13.25 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands, a statement that the proposed operation will take into account the applicable requirements of Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, see § 25.108) and a demonstration that it is compatible with other U.S. ITU filings under Appendix 30B.

    (vi) With respect to proposed operation in other FSS bands, an interference analysis demonstrating compatibility with any previously authorized co-frequency space station at a location two degrees away or a certification that the proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator(s) of the previously authorized space station(s). If there is no previously authorized space station at a location two degrees away, the applicant must submit an interference analysis demonstrating compatibility with a hypothetical co-frequency space station two degrees away with the same receiving and transmitting characteristics as the proposed space station.

    (b) Each applicant for a license to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must provide the following information, in addition to that required by § 25.114:

    (3) An applicant for a license to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must certify that the downlink power flux density on the Earth's surface will not exceed the values specified in § 25.208(c) and/or (w), or must provide the certification specified in § 25.114(d)(15)(ii).

    (4) An applicant for a license to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to be located less than four degrees from a previously licensed or proposed space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, must either certify that the proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator of the co-frequency space station or provide an interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph (a) of this section, except that the applicant must demonstrate that its proposed network will not cause more interference to the adjacent space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band operating in compliance with the technical requirements of this part, than if the applicant were locate at an orbital separation of four degrees from the previously licensed or proposed space station.

    (5) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the link budget for any satellite in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth) must take into account longitudinal stationkeeping tolerances. Any applicant for a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that has reached a coordination agreement with an operator of another space station to allow that operator to exceed the pfd levels specified in § 25.208(c) or § 25.208(w), must use those higher pfd levels for the purpose of this showing.

    (c) [Reserved]

    (d) An operator of a GSO FSS space station in the conventional or extended C-bands, conventional or extended Ku-bands, 24.75-25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space), or conventional Ka-band may notify the Commission of its non-routine transmission levels and be relieved of the obligation to coordinate such levels with later applicants and petitioners.

    § 25.203 [Amended]
    10. Amend § 25.203 by removing and reserving paragraph (l). 11. Amend § 25.204 by removing paragraph (e)(4) and revising paragraphs (e) introductory text, (e)(1) and (3) to read as follows:
    § 25.204 Power limits for earth stations.

    (e) To the extent specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section, earth stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service may employ uplink adaptive power control or other methods of fade compensation to facilitate transmission of uplinks at power levels required for desired link performance while minimizing interference between networks.

    (1) Except when paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(3) of this section apply, transmissions from FSS earth stations in frequencies above 10 GHz may exceed the uplink EIRP and EIRP density limits specified in the station authorization under conditions of uplink fading due to precipitation by an amount not to exceed 1 dB above the actual amount of monitored excess attenuation over clear sky propagation conditions. EIRP levels must be returned to normal as soon as the attenuating weather pattern subsides.

    (3) FSS earth stations transmitting to geostationary space stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and/or 29.25-30.0 GHz bands may employ uplink adaptive power control or other methods of fade compensation. For stations employing uplink power control, the values in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (4) of § 25.138 may be exceeded by up to 20 dB under conditions of uplink fading due to precipitation. The amount of such increase in excess of the actual amount of monitored excess attenuation over clear sky propagation conditions must not exceed 1.5 dB or 15 percent of the actual amount of monitored excess attenuation in dB, whichever is larger, with a confidence level of 90 percent except over transient periods accounting for no more than 0.5 percent of the time during which the excess is no more than 4.0 dB.

    12. Amend § 25.209 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 25.209 Earth station antenna performance standards.

    (f) A GSO FSS earth station with an antenna that does not conform to the applicable standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will be authorized only if the applicant demonstrates that the antenna will not cause unacceptable interference. This demonstration must comply with the requirements in §§ 25.138, 25.218, 25.220, 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, or § 25.227, as appropriate.

    13. Amend § 25.210 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 25.210 Technical requirements for space stations.

    (i) 17/24 GHz BSS space station antennas transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must be designed to provide a cross-polarization isolation such that the ratio of the on axis co-polar gain to the cross-polar gain of the antenna in the assigned frequency band is at least 25 dB within its primary coverage area.

    14. Amend § 25.220 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 25.220 Non-routine transmit/receive earth station operations.

    (a) The requirements in this section apply to applications for, and operation of, earth stations transmitting in the conventional or extended C-bands, the conventional or extended Ku-bands, the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, or the conventional Ka-band that do not qualify for routine licensing under relevant criteria in §§ 25.138, 25.211, 25.212, 25.218, 25.221(a)(1) or (a)(3), § 25.222(a)(1) or (a)(3), § 25.226(a)(1) or (a)(3), or § 25.227(a)(1) or (a)(3).

    § 25.223 [Removed and Reserved]
    15. Remove and reserve § 25.223. 16. Revise § 25.262 to read as follows:
    § 25.262 Licensing and domestic coordination requirements for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations.

    (a) An applicant may be authorized to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at levels up to the maximum power flux density limits defined in § 25.208(c) and/or § 25.208(w), without coordinating its power flux density levels with adjacent licensed or permitted operators, only if there is no licensed space station, or prior-filed application for a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at a location less than four degrees from the orbital location at which the applicant proposes to operate.

    (b) Any U.S. licensee or permittee authorized to transmit in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that does not comply with the power flux-density limits set forth in § 25.208(c) and/or § 25.208(w) shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future co-frequency licensees and permittees of a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band under the following circumstances:

    (1) If the operator's space-to-Earth power flux-density levels exceed the power flux-density limits set forth in § 25.208(c) and/or § 25.208(w) by 3 dB or less, the operator shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future operators proposing a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in compliance with power flux-density limits set forth in § 25.208(c) and/or § 25.208(w) and located within ±6 degrees of the operator's 17/24 GHz BSS space station.

    (2) If the operator's space-to-Earth power flux-density levels exceed the power flux-density limits set forth in § 25.208(c) and/or § 25.208(w) by more than 3 dB, the operator shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future operators proposing a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in compliance with power flux-density limits set forth in § 25.208(c) and/or § 25.208(w) and located within ±10 degrees of the operator's space station.

    (3) If no good faith agreement can be reached, the operator of the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that does not comply with § 25.208(c) and/or § 25.208(w) shall reduce its space-to-Earth power flux-density levels to be compliant with those specified in § 25.208(c) and/or § 25.208(w).

    (c) Any U.S. licensee or permittee using a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that is required to provide information in its application pursuant to § 25.140(b)(4) must accept any increased interference that may result from adjacent space stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that are operating in compliance with the rules for such space stations specified in §§ 25.140(b), 25.202(a)(9) and (e)-(g), 25.208(c) and (w), 25.210(i)-(j), 25.224, 25.262, 25.264(h), and 25.273(a)(3)).

    (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of this, licensees and permittees will be allowed to apply for a license or authorization for a replacement satellite that will be operated at the same power level and interference protection as the satellite to be replaced.

    PART 30—UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE 17. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.

    18. Amend § 30.104 by revising the section heading, redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (c) through (f), adding new paragraph (b), and revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
    § 30.104 Performance requirements.

    (b) In the alternative, a licensee may make its buildout showing on the basis of geographic area coverage. To satisfy the requirements of using this metric, licensees relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service must show that they are providing reliable signal coverage and service to at least 25% of the geographic area of the license. The geographic area of the license shall be determined by the total land area of the county or counties covered by the license. Licensees relying on fixed point-to-point links or other, low-power point-to-point connections must show that they have deployed at least one transmitter or receiver in at least 25% of the census tracts within the license area. All equipment relied upon in the showing, whatever type of service or connection it provides, must be operational and providing service, either to customers or for internal use, as of the date of the filing.

    (c) Showings that rely on a combination of multiple types of service will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Licensees may not combine population-based showings with geographic area-based showings.

    (e) Failure to meet this requirement will result in automatic cancellation of the license. In bands licensed on a Partial Economic Area basis, licensees will have the option of partitioning a license on a county basis in order to reduce the population or land area within the license area to a level where the licensee's buildout would meet one of the applicable performance metrics.

    (f) Existing 24 GHz, 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees shall be required to make a showing pursuant to this section by June 1, 2024.

    19. Revise § 30.208 to read as follows:
    § 30.208 Operability.

    Mobile and transportable stations that operate on any portion of frequencies within the 27.5-28.35 GHz or the 37-40 GHz bands must be capable of operating on all frequencies within those particular bands. Mobile and transportable stations that operate on any portion of either the 24.25-24.45 GHz or 24.75-25.25 GHz bands must be capable of operating on all frequencies within both of those bands.

    [FR Doc. 2018-14806 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 180220196-8196-01] RIN 0648-XG051 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2018 Sector Operations Plans and Allocation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This interim final rule determines the quota overages that Northeast Fishery Sector IX is responsible for paying back, allocates annual catch entitlements to Northeast Fishery Sectors VII and IX for the 2018 fishing year, approves a new lease-only operations plan for Northeast Fishery Sector IX, and approves a substantive amendment to Northeast Fishery Sector VII operations plan. Approval of the operations plans and allocation of annual catch entitlements is necessary for the sectors to operate. This action is intended to ensure that these sectors are allocated accurate annual catch entitlements that account for past catch overages, and that the sectors' operations plans can achieve the conservation and management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.

    DATES:

    Effective July 20, 2018 through April 30, 2019. Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0069, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0069, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Rulemaking for NEFS 7 and NEFS 9.”

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of each sector's operations plan and contract, as well as the programmatic environmental assessment for sectors operations in fishing years 2015 to 2020, are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO): Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents are also accessible via the GARFO website: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Liz Sullivan, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 282-8493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    To help achieve the fishing mortality and conservation objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), each sector is allocated annual catch entitlements (ACE) and must ensure that these ACEs are not exceeded. The Regional Administrator must approve sector operations plans in order for sectors to operate and be allocated ACE for specific groundfish stocks. A sector's operations plan includes a detailed plan for monitoring and reporting catch and the specific management rules sector participants will abide by in order to avoid exceeding the sector's allocation, as well as a plan for how the sector will operate if an ACE is exceeded. The operations plan also includes internal sector enforcement measures for operations plan breaches and remedies, such as a penalty schedule for operations plan non-compliance or other actions that would jeopardize the sector's continued approval. Penalties under the plan range from a written warning or fine to expulsion from the sector.

    On March 30, 2017, Carlos Rafael pleaded guilty to all counts in United States v. Carlos Rafael (No. 16-CR10124-WGY). Mr. Rafael is the owner of Carlos Seafood (a Federally permitted dealer) and a fleet of Federally permitted groundfish vessels that are enrolled in Northeast Fishery Sector IX (NEFS 9). Mr. Rafael admitted to falsely reporting catch information on dealer catch reports and vessel trip reports from 2012 through 2015. All of the vessels involved in the misreporting operated under the sector operations plan for NEFS 9 during the period of known misreporting, were enrolled in NEFS 9 for fishing year 2017, and are now enrolled in Northeast Fishery Sector VII (NEFS 7) for fishing year 2018.

    On September 25, 2017, Mr. Rafael was sentenced to serve 46 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. During his supervised release, he is barred from working in the fishing industry. The Court also ordered Mr. Rafael to pay a fine of $200,000 and forfeited Mr. Rafael's interests in four fishing vessels used in the criminal violations, including all fishing permits that NMFS issued to the four vessels.

    As a result of Mr. Rafael's violations, NEFS 9 was operating without having accurately accounted for its available ACE. Further, the violations revealed a failure of adequate sector oversight and accounting. On November 22, 2017, we published an interim final rule to withdraw approval of the Fishing Years 2017 and 2018 Sector Operations Plan for NEFS 9 (82 FR 55522). This withdrawal was a necessary administrative action because NEFS 9 and its participants failed to uphold the requirements of the sector operations plan and adequately respond to Mr. Rafael's violations. Without accurate catch and ACE accounting, effective monitoring, or internal governance, we determined that continuation of the sector would undermine conservation and management objectives of the FMP. With the disapproval of the sector's operation plan, the members of NEFS 9 are not allowed to fish for groundfish, and the sector cannot transfer quota to or from other sectors.

    On February 22, 2018, the NEFS 9 Board of Directors submitted a new sector operations plan for review and approval. The operations plan would allow the sector to operate as a “lease-only” sector. As a lease-only sector, NEFS 9 vessels could not actively fish for groundfish, but the sector would be allowed to transfer groundfish quota to and from other sectors. NEFS 9 vessels could continue to fish for other species not managed under the Northeast Multispecies FMP for which they have permits, such as scallops, summer flounder, and squid.

    On March 26, 2018, NEFS 7 and NEFS 9 submitted rosters for the 2018 fishing year, indicating that 55 of the 60 permits previously enrolled into NEFS 9 would move into NEFS 7. Only three permits remain in NEFS 9. Consistent with sector eligibility requirements these permits are issued to at least three different persons, none of whom have any common ownership interests in the permits, vessels, or businesses associated with the permits issued the other two or more persons in the sector. NEFS 7's submitted roster included new members enrolled with the condition that all permits owned by Mr. Rafael would be inactive and unable to fish in the groundfish fishery unless and until the permit was sold to an independent third party. In order to implement and enforce this condition, the sector requested that, until such a sale occurred, we withhold the letters of authorization (LOA). LOAs are issued to all vessel owners or operators participating in a sector and authorize participation in sector operations. Because this permit condition is a substantive change to the operations plan, it requires rulemaking.

    On May 1, 2018, we allocated groundfish quota to all sectors except NEFS 7 and NEFS 9. In that rule, we provided a summary of the NEFS 7 and 9 roster changes, but we did not make a determination regarding allocations to those two sectors (83 FR 18965; May 1, 2018). Before making this determination, we needed more information about, and time to evaluate how, NEFS 7 and NEFS 9 would operate and account for the past overages, and notified the public that these issues would be included in a separate rulemaking.

    NEFS 9 Overages Due to Misreported Catch

    When we withdrew approval of NEFS 9 in November 2017, the interim final rule stated that initial allocations made to the sector at the start of the 2017 fishing year were likely artificially high, and that it was possible that the sector's 2017 catch might have already exceeded what should have been allocated. Based on analysis to assess the stock-level apportionment of the misreported catch discovered in the criminal case, NEFS 9 ended the 2016 fishing year with quota overages for witch flounder, American plaice, Georges Bank (GB) cod, and Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine (CC/GOM) yellowtail flounder (Tables 1 and 2). We allocated ACE to NEFS 9 for fishing year 2017 without any adjustments, because, at that time, we had not yet determined the overages caused by the misreported catch. Because NEFS 9 was not permitted to harvest groundfish after the sector operations plan was withdrawn in November, the sector was prevented from creating further overages, and unfished 2017 ACE reduced or eliminated the quota overages determined from admissions in the criminal case. After accounting for NEFS 9's available 2017 ACE after operations were suspended, we determined that NEFS 9 ended the 2017 fishing year with a single overage of 72,224 lb (32.8 mt) of witch flounder. This interim final rule announces the NEFS 9 fishing year 2017 balances for the stocks affected by the criminal case, as shown in Tables 1 and 2: Witch flounder, American plaice, GB cod, GOM cod, GB yellowtail flounder, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder, and CC/GOM yellowtail flounder.

    Table 1—Summary of NEFS 9 Balances (lb) at End of Fishing Years 2016 and 2017 Stock Balance at
  • end of
  • fishing year
  • 2016
  • Balance at
  • end of
  • fishing year
  • 2017
  • Witch flounder −218,682 −72,224 American plaice −115,789 12,867 Eastern GB cod 1,378 38,366 Western GB cod −14,582 56,258 GOM cod 1,176 18,322 GB yellowtail flounder 130,589 88,674 SNE/MA yellowtail flounder 31,238 44,053 CC/GOM yellowtail flounder −23,229 40,866 * Negative number indicates an overage.
    Table 2—Summary of NEFS 9 Balances (mt) at End of Fishing Years 2016 and 2017 Stock Balance at
  • end of
  • fishing year
  • 2016
  • Balance at
  • end of
  • fishing year
  • 2017
  • Witch flounder −99 −33 American plaice −53 6 Eastern GB cod 1 17 Western GB cod −7 26 GOM cod 1 8 GB yellowtail flounder 59 40 SNE/MA yellowtail flounder 14 20 CC/GOM yellowtail flounder −11 19 * Negative number indicates an overage.

    To calculate the overages, we applied the misreported catch to the appropriate fishing year, as if we had known about the catch during or immediately following the end of each fishing year. If the misreported catch caused an overage in a particular fishing year, we deducted the overage from the sector's allocation for the next fishing year. If the sector carried over quota into a fishing year that it should not have, we removed the carryover that would not have been available had we known about the additional catch. Misreported catch occurred in fishing years 2012-2015. We applied the resulting overages from 2015 to 2016 allocations and from 2016 to 2017 allocations. As stated earlier, NEFS 9 ended the 2016 fishing year with multiple overages. Because we withdrew approval of the sector's operations plan, and NEFS 9 vessels have not been able to fish for groundfish since November 20, 2017, NEFS 9 ended fishing year 2017 with an overage for witch flounder only.

    Catch Apportionment Calculations

    As part of calculating the overages, we first correctly apportioned the misreported catch that was presented in the criminal case at a species level, broken down by calendar year. This required distributing the misreported catch into the appropriate fishing year, based on the landing date for trips associated with the misreported catch. Witch flounder and American plaice are unit stocks, and therefore, no further analysis was required. However, cod and yellowtail flounder are subdivided into management stock units. For cod, the sub-units are GOM and GB; GB is further divided into eastern and western GB. For yellowtail flounder, the sub-units are CC/GOM, GB, and SNE/MA. Allocating the misreported catch to stock area requires estimating the stock areas where the misreported catch was likely to have been caught.

    To apportion the misreported catch to the appropriate stock areas, we used data from the vessel monitoring systems (VMS) used by the vessels that were named in the criminal case to identify the most likely stock area from which that catch originated. We scaled the VMS effort by annual average catch-per-hour from observed groundfish trips by all sector vessels using trawl gear, to account for the different catch rate in different stock areas. The correctly apportioned catch by time and area was then applied to the allocated ACEs for the years in question to determine the overage amounts.

    Sector Allocations for Fishing Year 2018 for NEFS 7 and NEFS 9

    As stated above, on May 1, 2018, we allocated groundfish quota to all sectors except NEFS 7 and NEFS 9 and did not make a determination regarding allocating to those two sectors (83 FR 18965; May 1, 2018). This rule allocates groundfish quota to NEFS 7 and to NEFS 9, based on the final sector enrollment submitted by the sectors and the fishing year 2018 specifications approved through Framework 57 (83 FR 18985; May 1, 2018). These allocations use updated rosters and are slightly different from the rule that proposed allocations for all sectors (83 FR 12706; March 23, 2018), which used the fishing year 2017 sector rosters as a basis to estimate fishing year 2018 sector allocations.

    Consistent with how ACE is allocated to all other sectors, we calculate the sector's allocation for each stock by summing its members' potential sector contributions (PSC) for a stock and then multiplying that total percentage by the available commercial sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL) for that stock. Table 3 shows the projected total PSC for each sector by stock for fishing year 2018. Table 4 shows an estimate of the allocations that each sector is allocated, in pounds and metric tons, respectively, for fishing year 2018.

    Table 3—Cumulative PSC (Percentage) for NEFS 7 and NEFS 9 by Stock for Fishing Year 2018 Species NEFS 7 NEFS 9 GB Cod 13.20690936349290 0.0362859749871986 GOM Cod 3.01910742037318 0.0000000000000000 GB Haddock 11.2685073680510 0.0259765497865176 GOM Haddock 7.40318927053197 0.0000000000000000 GB Yellowtail Flounder 25.51455362936140 0.0275501100708375 SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 8.53317090461840 0.0000000000000000 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 10.56678059758250 0.0118856525483093 Plaice 9.61237900717373 0.0013210183240834 Witch Flounder 9.33559754356342 0.0000000000000000 GB Winter Flounder 33.29143002089540 0.0883620482300341 GOM Winter Flounder 2.94812548603488 0.0000000000000000 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 17.56207969721130 0.0107895691382281 Redfish 9.05128922223861 0.0000000000000000 White Hake 6.37760020543757 0.0000000000000000 Pollock 6.34572003847383 0.0007489254483443 Table 4—Estimated ACE for NEFS 7 and NEFS 9 (in mt and 1,000 lb) by Stock for Fishing Year 2018 Species NEFS 7 Sector ACE
  • (mt)
  • Sector ACE
  • (1,000 lb)
  • NEFS 9 Sector ACE
  • (mt)
  • Sector ACE
  • (1,000 lb)
  • GB Cod East 34 75 0 0 GB Cod West 124 273 0 1 GOM Cod 11 24 0 0 GB Haddock East 1,758 3,875 4 9 GB Haddock West 3,274 7,219 8 17 GOM Haddock 647 1,426 0 0 GB Yellowtail Flounder 43 95 0 0 SNE/MA Yellowtail Flounder 4 8 0 0 CC/GOM Yellowtail Flounder 42 93 0 0 Plaice 152 335 0 0 Witch Flounder 77 171 0 0 GB Winter Flounder 243 536 1 1 GOM Winter Flounder 11 23 0 0 SNE/MA Winter Flounder 91 201 0 0 Redfish 973 2,146 0 0 White Hake 174 385 0 0 Pollock 2,373 5,232 0 1

    Based on regulations at § 648.87(b)(1)(iii), should an ACE allocated to a sector be exceeded in a given fishing year, the sector's ACE shall be reduced by the overage on a pound-for-pound basis during the following fishing year. If a sector has an overage, but disbands in the year following the overage, the overage follows the permits to the new sector(s) or to the common pool. If the sector does not disband, but does not have sufficient ACE to pay back the overage, the sector's ACE for that stock is set to zero until the sector can acquire sufficient ACE to cover the remaining overage.

    Therefore, if NEFS 9 has remaining overages from fishing year 2017, following any transfers conducted during a 2-week transfer window after all year-end catch accounting is complete (see section on NEFS 9 Operations Plan for more detail), NEFS 9's 2018 ACE would be reduced by the overage on a pound-for-pound basis. However, because the permits enrolled in NEFS 9 for 2018 have zero PSC for witch flounder, the sector would be allocated zero pounds of witch flounder. Therefore, if the sector has a remaining overage from fishing year 2017, it would begin fishing year 2018 with a negative balance of witch flounder. The Board of NEFS 7 has agreed that if the NEFS 9 overage cannot be reconciled during the post-year transfer window, NEFS 7 will transfer sufficient 2018 witch flounder ACE to NEFS 9 to cover the remaining overage. This commitment is included in the amendment to the NEFS 7 operations plan, as described later in this preamble.

    NEFS 9 Sector Operations Plan

    In this interim final rule, we are approving NEFS 9's sector operations plan and contract to operate as a lease-only sector. When the Regional Administrator withdrew approval of the NEFS 9 operations plan in November 2017, we cited accurate reporting, internal accountability, and organizational integrity as core principles of the sector system that were lacking in NEFS 9, as evidenced by the systematic and long-term sector and vessel misreporting. The operations plan was withdrawn, in part, because it did not contain measures that would provide accurate information or ensure compliance with the operations plan to prevent and address future misreporting or ACE overages. Restricting the sector to only being able to participate in the groundfish fishery through ACE transfers with other sectors addresses our concerns about the sector's ability to harvest groundfish and monitor and report that activity, consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP. As a lease-only sector, NEFS 9 vessels cannot actively fish for groundfish, but the sector is allowed to transfer groundfish quota to and from other sectors, which will facilitate the sector's accounting for its ACE and overages. Based on this, we have determined that the lease-only sector operations plan and contract is consistent with the FMP's goals and objectives, and meets sector requirements outlined in the regulations at § 648.87.

    The lease-only operations plan is a change from the previous operations plan for NEFS 9, for which the Regional Administrator withdrew approval. However, it is similar to the currently approved operations plan for NEFS 4, which also operates as a lease-only sector. An approved lease-only operations plan provides NEFS 9 with the ability to pay back the quota overage incurred by misreported catch. Without a new operations plan, NEFS 9 has no mechanism for reconciling the overages for which it is responsible. In April 2018, we consulted with the New England Fishery Management Council regarding NEFS 9, and the Council passed a motion to recommend that NMFS authorize the NEFS 9 lease-only operations plan to ensure the repayment of the NEFS 9 overage, as well as amend the NEFS 7 operations plan as needed and appropriately allocate to the sectors.

    Because this interim final rule approves a lease-only sector operations plan for NEFS 9, the sector has the ability to eliminate the overage by transferring quota in from other sectors. We will allow NEFS 9 to transfer fishing year 2017 ACE for 2 weeks upon our completion of year-end catch accounting for all sectors to reduce or eliminate any fishing year 2017 overages. As provided by the regulations, this window of post-year transfers is opened annually. During this time, sectors are only allowed to transfer in quota to reconcile an overage. Quota for stocks that do not have an overage may not be transferred.

    NEFS 7 Amendment to Operations Plan

    In this interim final rule, we are approving an amendment to the NEFS 7 sector operations plan. As described above, on March 26, 2018, NEFS 7 submitted a roster for the 2018 fishing year, indicating that 55 of the 60 permits previously enrolled into NEFS 9 would move into NEFS 7, in addition to one vessel from NEFS 8. No vessels that had been enrolled in NEFS 7 for the 2017 fishing year remained in NEFS 7 for 2018. All 56 vessels enrolled in NEFS 7 for 2018 are listed as inactive. The NEFS 7 Board of Directors voted, as part of its process to allow vessels to enroll in the sector, to add a permit condition requiring all permits in which Mr. Rafael has an ownership interest to remain inactive and unable to fish in the groundfish fishery unless and until the permit is sold to an independent third party. By approving this permit condition as part of the NEFS 7 operations plan (along with the quota allocations described earlier), NEFS 7 is able to transfer ACE to and from other sectors in the 2018 fishing year, but vessels owned by Mr. Rafael cannot actively fish for groundfish.

    All of the vessels that are enrolled in NEFS 7 and in which Mr. Rafael has no ownership interest are currently listed as inactive members of the sector. To become active, the sector Board would have to vote to allow a vessel to harvest sector ACE, consistent with normal sector operations, and notify NMFS of the vessel change in status. In contrast to the vessels owned by Mr. Rafael, these vessels do not need to be sold in order to be active in the groundfish fishery.

    To facilitate and enforce the requirement for a vessel owned by Mr. Rafael to be sold to an independent third party before it could become active, the Board initially requested that we withhold LOAs for those permits until a permit is sold to an independent third party, the new member requests in writing that the Board reconsider non-active status, and the NEFS 7 Board grants active status to the new member. However, current regulations at § 648.87(c)(2) state that, if a sector is approved, the Regional Administrator shall issue an LOA to each vessel operator and/or vessel owner participating in the sector, authorizing participation in the sector operations. The regulations allow the Regional Administrator to include requirements and conditions necessary to ensure effective administration and compliance with the sector's operations plan and the sector allocation. Therefore, the NEFS 7 amendment includes clarification that we will issue LOAs to vessels indicating that they are inactive. If the required steps are taken for a vessel to become active, we will issue a new LOA authorizing participation in the groundfish fishery.

    NEFS 7's initial proposal did not identify the factors by which the Board would determine the new owner is independent of Mr. Rafael. Historically, NMFS uses several factors to determine whether a transfer or sale of a permit appears to be between separate legal entities. These include, but are not limited to: Whether the transfer appears to be an “arm's length” transaction to an independent person or entity in which the current owner, subsidiary, partner, officer, director, trustee, shareholder or any of their family members does not have any financial interest or any control; whether the transferor/seller derive any financial benefits from the operations of the vessel after it is transferred; whether the transferor/seller exercises any control over the activities or operation of the vessel after it is transferred; and whether there are any common shareholders, partners, or investors with significant overlapping ownership interests in both the transferor/seller and the transferee/buyer. The NEFS 7 Board of Directors has incorporated these factors into the amendment to the NEFS 7 operations plan as conditions for Board approval of new owners to provide sufficient Board oversight controls and avoid confusion regarding whether a sale meets the requirement of being an independent third party.

    As stated earlier in this preamble, the Board of NEFS 7 has committed that if the NEFS 9 overage cannot be reconciled during the 2017 post-year transfer window, NEFS 7 will transfer sufficient 2018 witch flounder ACE to NEFS 9 to cover the overage, and this is included in the amendment to the NEFS 7 operations plan.

    The NEFS 7 operations plan amendment addresses the operational issues that required withdrawal of the prior NEFS 9 operations plan. Approval of an operations plan that provides for paying back all of the overages incurred by vessels in NEFS 9 ensures that the sector is operating properly within the sector system and within all ACE that is properly allocated. The vertical integration between Mr. Rafael's vessels, his seafood dealership, and sector governance that facilitated the falsification of landing records would no longer exist with new independent vessel owners.

    These changes to the operations plan meet the goals and objectives of the FMP and the sector system. We will evaluate any changes made to NEFS 7 and 9 membership and vessel ownership, using the criteria detailed above, to ensure the sector's operations remain consistent with its operations plan and the goals and objectives of the FMP. Additional substantive changes to the NEFS 7 operations plan that are requested, or determined to be necessary, would be addressed in a future rulemaking.

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that this interim final rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

    This interim final rule is exempt from the procedures of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

    This interim final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds good cause to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on approval of the NEFS 9 lease-only operations plan, and approval of the amendment to the NEFS 7 operations plan because it would be contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the AA finds there is good cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3), to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the allocation of annual catch entitlements (ACE) for fishing year 2018 to NEFS 7 and 9, approval of the NEFS 9 lease-only operations plan, and approval of the amendment to the NEFS 7 operations plan so that the purpose of this rule is not undermined.

    Approving the NEFS 9 lease-only operations plan relieves the prohibition against operating and provides a mechanism for NEFS 9 to reconcile its witch flounder overage through the 2017 year-end transfer window and address its quota overage for witch flounder. Any overage remaining after this transfer window must be reconciled via an ACE transfer from NEFS 7, in order for NEFS 7 to remain in compliance with the operations plan amendment approved by this rule. As a result, implementing these measures immediately ensures that proper catch and ACE accounting occur. This is fundamental to achieving the goals and objectives of the FMP.

    We previously proposed and accepted comment on allocating groundfish quota to NEFS 7 and 9 (83 FR 12706; March 23, 2018). Additionally, before taking this action, we consulted with the New England Council at its April 2018 meeting, at which the Council recommended that we approve the sectors' operations plan requests. This consultation provided the Council and interested members of the public an opportunity to comment on NEFS 7's and 9's potential operations plan changes and an additional opportunity to comment on the allocation of quota to both sectors. At this meeting, the Council recommended that we ensure the repayment of the NEFS 9 overage, approve the NEFS 9 lease-only operations plan, amend the NEFS 7 operations plan as needed, and appropriately allocate to the sectors. The Council also explained the importance of making quota available to the fishery at-large. Some stocks, such as Georges Bank winter flounder, have a significant seasonal component, and therefore there is additional benefit to making this quota available to the fishery as a whole as soon as possible.

    The ACEs being allocated to NEFS 7 and 9 represent between 3 percent and 33 percent of the total quota for each allocated stock. Continuing to withhold this amount of quota from the fishery significantly hampers the ability of the fishery as a whole to operate. This quota is particularly important due to recent stock assessments that resulted in reduced overall quotas for several stocks, including Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder (75-percent reduction), Gulf of Maine winter flounder (45-percent reduction), and white hake (20-percent reduction). Further delaying allocations to NEFS 7 and NEFS 9 significantly reduces the quota for these stocks available for transfer to other sectors engaged in fishing. This reduces catch of these as target stocks and also impacts catch of more abundant stocks like haddock and pollock, which catch these limiting stocks as bycatch. This, together with the benefit of ensuring that all quota overages that resulted from Mr. Rafael's criminal misreporting are reconciled, outweigh the benefits of allowing for additional public comment prior to effectiveness, beyond that which we already received on the March 23, 2018, proposed rule (83 FR 12706) and through consultation with the Council.

    This interim final rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15477 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 140 Friday, July 20, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Public Meetings for the Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Test Procedures and Energy Conservation Standards AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notification of public meetings and webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) announces public meetings for the variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps (VRF multi-split systems) working group. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    DOE will hold a public meeting on August 23, 2018 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on August 24, 2018 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meetings will also be broadcast as a webinar.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please see the Public Participation section of this notice for additional information on attending the public meeting, including webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies (EE-5B), 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 287-1692. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 10th 2018, the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) met and passed the recommendation to form a VRF multi-split systems working group to meet and discuss and, if possible, reach a consensus on proposed federal test procedures and standards for VRF multi-split systems. On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a working group for VRF multi-split systems to negotiate a notice of proposed rulemaking for test procedures and energy conservations standards. The notice also solicited nominations for membership to the working group. 83 FR 15514. This notice announces the first two meetings for this working group.

    DOE will host a public meeting on August 23, 2018 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on August 24, 2018 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., in Washington, DC.

    The purpose of these meetings will be to provide an overview of the ASRAC negotiation process, establish ground rules, and establish a schedule for future meetings. The meeting will also include discussions and review of the VRF multi-split market and test procedure.

    Public Participation Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this document. If you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify the ASRAC staff at [email protected].

    Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed.

    DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through security.

    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific States and U.S. territories. DHS maintains an updated website identifying the State and territory driver's licenses that currently are acceptable for entry into DOE facilities at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. A driver's license from a State or territory identified as not compliant by DHS will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by States and territories as identified on the DHS website (Enhanced licenses issued by these States and territories are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government-issued Photo-ID card.

    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

    Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

    Conduct of Public Meeting

    ASRAC's Designated Federal Officer will preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. A transcript of the public meeting will be included on DOE's website: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-standards-and-rulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter. Public comment and statements will be allowed prior to the close of the meeting.

    Docket

    The docket is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003, including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publically available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15579 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020] Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is initiating a data collection process through this request for information (“RFI”) to consider whether to amend DOE's test procedure for single package vertical air conditioners (“SPVACs”) and single package vertical heat pumps (“SPVHPs”), collectively referred to as single package vertical units (“SPVUs”). To inform interested parties and to facilitate the process, DOE has gathered data, identifying several issues associated with the currently applicable test procedure on which DOE is interested in receiving comment. The issues outlined in this document mainly concern: Incorporation by reference of the applicable industry standard; efficiency metrics; clarification of test methods; and any additional topics that may inform DOE's decisions in a future test procedure rulemaking, including methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the procedure's accuracy. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any of subject within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this RFI).

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]. Include docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020 in the subject line of the message.

    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Test Procedure RFI for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document.

    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].

    Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: [email protected].

    For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority and Background B. Rulemaking History II. Request for Information A. Scope and Definitions B. Test Procedure 1. Test Set-Up 2. Airflow and External Static Pressure 3. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method 4. Air Temperature Measurements C. Energy Efficiency Descriptor D. Other Test Procedure Topics III. Submission of Comments I. Introduction

    SPVACs and SPVHPs are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy efficiency standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) DOE's test procedure for SPVACs and SPVHPs is prescribed in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), appendix A to subpart F of part 431. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test procedures for SPVACs and SPVHPs, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.

    A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part C 2 of the Act, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes the SPVACs and SPVHPs (referred to collectively as single package vertical units (“SPVUs”)) that are the subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))

    1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015), Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

    2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))

    The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b))

    As discussed, SPVUs are a category of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. EPCA requires that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings” (ASHRAE Standard 90.1). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must update its test procedure to be consistent with the amended test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))

    EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment including SPVUs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish a proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA.

    B. Rulemaking History

    DOE's current test procedures for SPVUs with a cooling capacity less than 760,000 Btu/h are set forth at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A (“Appendix A”). The test procedure currently incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI Standard 390-2003 (“ANSI/AHRI 390-2003”), “Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,” (omitting section 6.4) and includes additional provisions in paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96. ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 is the SPVU test standard referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR 431.96 provides the method for an optional break-in period. Paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 provides specifications for addressing key information typically found in the installation and operation manuals. DOE established its test procedure for SPVUs in a final rule for commercial heating, air conditioning, and water heating equipment published on May 16, 2012. 77 FR 28928.

    II. Request for Information

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended test procedures for SPVUs may be warranted. Specifically, DOE is requesting comment on any opportunities to streamline and simplify testing requirements for SPVUs.

    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this process that may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Pursuant to that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to SPVUs consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

    A. Scope and Definitions

    DOE defines an SPVAC as air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that: (1) Is factory-assembled as a single package that: (i) Has major components that are arranged vertically; (ii) is an encased combination of cooling and optional heating components; and (iii) is intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (2) is powered by a single-or 3-phase current; (3) may contain 1 or more separate indoor grilles, outdoor louvers, various ventilation options, indoor free air discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and (4) has heating components that may include electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas, but may not include reverse cycle refrigeration as a heating means. 10 CFR 431.92. Additionally, DOE defines an SPVHP as a single package vertical air conditioner that: (1) Uses reverse cycle refrigeration as its primary heat source; and (2) may include secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas. Id.

    B. Test Procedure 1. Test Set-Up

    ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 provides different test provisions, such as minimum external static pressure (“ESP”), based on whether the model is ducted or non-ducted. However, whether an SPVU is ducted may be more a characteristic of installation than the equipment itself. A given SPVU model could potentially be installed either with or without a duct. DOE's preliminary research has not revealed that SPVUs have physical characteristics that clearly distinguish them as ducted or non-ducted models, and DOE has identified several models that advertise the capability for use in both ducted and non-ducted installations. ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not specify how to determine whether an SPVU model is to be tested using the ducted or non-ducted provisions.

    Issue 1: DOE requests comment on what, if any, equipment characteristics can be used to determine whether SPVU models would be installed (and hence should be tested) as ducted or non-ducted models. DOE also requests comments on whether individual SPVU models that are sold for both ducted and non-ducted applications are currently tested using both ducted and non-ducted standard rating conditions.

    Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 requires that for SPVUs with an outdoor-side fan drive that is non-adjustable, standard ratings shall be determined at the outdoor-side airflow rate inherent to the equipment when operated with all of the resistance elements associated with inlets, louvers, and any ductwork and attachments considered by the manufacturer as normal installation practice. However, it is not clear from DOE's initial review of manufacturer literature which resistance elements should be used during the test to be consistent with what manufacturers consider as “normal installation practice.” For externally-mounted SPVUs, provisions for transferring outdoor air through an external wall are not necessary, but it may be possible that alternative “resistance elements” could be offered as options (i.e., louvers instead of grills). In addition, for internally-mounted SPVUs, there may be multiple options for the specific geometry for external wall pass-through, as well as the option for louvers instead of grills.

    Issue 2: DOE requests comments on the variations in outdoor air-side attachments (e.g., grills, louvers, wall sleeve) that could affect performance during testing. DOE seeks comment on what, if any, provisions should be considered for addition to the test procedure to standardize outdoor air flow for both externally and internally mounted SPVUs, including considerations regarding grills or louvers, geometry of wall pass-through sleeves, and a representative wall thickness.

    ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not provide any specific guidance on setting and verifying the refrigerant charge of a unit. In a test procedure final rule for central air conditioners (CACs) published on June 8, 2016 (“June 2016 CAC TP final rule”), DOE established a comprehensive approach for refrigerant charging that improves test reproducibility. 81 FR 36992, 37030-37031. The approach indicates which set of installation instructions to use for charging, explains what to do if there are no instructions, specifies that target values of parameters are the centers of the ranges allowed by installation instructions, and specifies tolerances for the measured values. The approach also requires that refrigerant line pressure gauges be installed for single-package units, unless otherwise specified in manufacturer instructions. Id. These methods provide general refrigerant charging instructions and guidelines that DOE believes should be applied to air conditioners and heat pumps across a range of capacities, including commercial equipment such as SPVUs.

    Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt an approach for charging requirements for SPVUs similar or identical to the approach adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final rule. DOE seeks comments regarding which parts of the approach should or should not be considered for adoption, and for what reasons those provisions might or might not be suitable for application to SPVUs. DOE is also interested in receiving data that demonstrate how sensitive the performance of a SPVU is relative to changes in the various charge indicators used for different charging methods, specifically the method based on sub-cooling.

    Section 5.2.1 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003, requires that, for units rated with 208/230 dual nameplate voltages, the test be performed at 230 V. For all other dual nameplate voltage units, the test standard requires that the test be performed at both voltages or at the lower voltage if only a single rating is to be published. DOE understands that voltage can affect the measured efficiency of air conditioners and may, therefore, consider adding provisions to its test procedure that specify at which nameplate voltage to conduct the test for dual nameplate voltage units.

    Issue 4: DOE requests data and information demonstrating the effect of voltage on air conditioning equipment (including, but not limited to, SPVUs). Specifically, DOE seeks comment on whether there is a consistent relationship between voltage and efficiency, and if so, whether testing at a lower voltage will typically result in a higher or lower tested efficiency. Further, DOE requests feedback on whether certain voltages within common dual nameplate voltage ratings (e.g., 208/230 V) are more representative of typical field installation.

    Section 5.2.2.a of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 requires that non-filtered ducted equipment be tested at the minimum ESP specified in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 plus an additional 0.08 in H2O of ESP. However, ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not define “non-filtered equipment.” It is possible that an SPVU may be designed so as not to be installed with a filter. For SPVUs designed to be installed with a filter, a filter may not be shipped with the unit (i.e., the filter would not be present during the test, requiring an increase in the minimum ESP to account for the pressure drop of the filter if one were present, as it is expected to be in the field).

    Issue 5: DOE requests comments on whether there are any SPVUs that are not designed to be installed with a filter. Further, DOE requests comment on what the typical effectiveness (i.e., minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) rating) is of filters provided or installed with SPVUs, which will impact the pressure drop across the filter. Finally, DOE requests comment on whether non-ducted SPVUs intended for installation with a filter are ever tested without a filter installed, and, if so, how such testing has accounted for the filter pressure drop to better represent actual performance.

    2. Airflow and External Static Pressure

    Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 specifies the minimum ESP required for testing ducted SPVUs based on capacity range. DOE is considering whether the minimum ESP levels in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 are representative of field operation for ducted SPVUs.

    Issue 6: DOE seeks comments on whether the minimum ESP requirements in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 are representative of field operation for ducted SPVUs, and if not, comment and data on what representative minimum ESP levels would be.

    ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not specify tolerances on achieving the rated airflow and/or the minimum ESP during testing. The performance of any air conditioner or heat pump can be affected by variations in airflow and ESP. Consequently, rated performance could vary from field performance if airflow and ESP during testing are different than that intended for field operation. How to control an SPVU to achieve a specified airflow at a specified ESP and how closely an SPVU can achieve the specified airflow and ESP depends on the type of fan drive system. There are two common types used in SPVUs: One is multi-speed drive, which provides discrete airflow settings (or motor speeds), each typically associated with certain functions and operating conditions (e.g., high or low static operation); the other is variable-speed drive, which can be adjusted continuously within a range of speeds. The type of fan drive system is determined by the type of fan motor (e.g., multi-speed motor, variable-speed motor), the type of drives (e.g., direct-drive, belt-drive), and whether there is any external control (e.g., variable-frequency drive). When a multi-speed drive system is required to meet the specified ESP, a certain deviation in airflow is expected because of limited speed options; whereas, for variable-speed drive systems, a smaller deviation is expected because of the capability to be adjusted continuously.

    To address the tolerances for variable-speed fan drive systems, which are common in air-cooled commercial unitary air-conditioners (“ACUACs”) with capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, DOE established a requirement for ACUACs that the full-load indoor airflow rate must be within ±3 percent of the certified airflow. Section 6 of Appendix A. In addition, the tolerance for ESP for testing ACUACs in DOE's current test procedure is −0.00/+0.05 in H2O (see section 3 of Appendix A, which incorporates by reference Table 5 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, “2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment” (“ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007”)). In contrast, in DOE's test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps (“CAC/HPs”), the method for setting indoor air volume rate for ducted units without variable-speed constant-air-volume-rate indoor fans is a multi-step process that addresses the discrete-step fan speed control of these units. In this method, (a) the air volume rate during testing may not be higher than the certified air volume rate, but may be up to 10 percent less, and (b) the ESP during testing may not be lower than the minimum specified ESP, but may be higher than the minimum if this is required to avoid having the air volume rate overshoot its certified value. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, section 3.1.4.2.a.

    Issue 7: DOE seeks more information on the different types of indoor air fan drive systems that are used for SPVUs. For example, are fans with multi-speed motors provided with variable-frequency drive or belt drives with variable-pitch sheaves to allow continuous variation of fan speed? Are direct-drive fans provided with variable-speed motors for which the installer can only select limited speeds?

    Issue 8: DOE seeks information on how closely the rated airflow and specified ESP are achieved in laboratory testing of SPVUs. For indoor fans that are adjustable in discrete steps, is the specified ESP typically exceeded in order to match the certified airflow? Additionally, DOE seeks comments on whether the tolerances for setting airflow of ACUACs or of CACs would be appropriate for all SPVUs or if separate tolerances should be provided based on fan motor type. If neither of the tolerances would be appropriate, DOE requests information or data on what tolerances would be appropriate for airflow and ESP.

    ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not distinguish between cooling and heating airflow rates required for testing. For SPVHPs with multiple-speed or variable-speed indoor fans, the indoor airflow rate in heating operation could be different from that in cooling operation. Different airflow rates may be used for heating and cooling operation because of different indoor comfort needs in the heating season, and there may be a minimum heating airflow rate for electrical resistance heating safety that exceeds the cooling airflow rate. For ACUAC heat pumps, DOE's current test procedure requires that indoor airflow and ESP first be set up within required tolerances for the full-load cooling test condition, by adjusting both the unit under test and the test facility's airflow-measuring apparatus (see Section 6(i) of Appendix A). The DOE test procedure further requires that, unless the unit is designed to operate at different airflow rates for cooling and heating modes, the airflow-measuring apparatus (but not the unit under test) be adjusted to achieve an airflow in heating mode equal to the cooling full-load airflow rate within the specified tolerance, without regard to changes in ESP (see Section 6(ii), Appendix A).

    Issue 9: DOE requests comments on whether there are SPVHPs for which the heating airflow rate is designed to be different from the cooling airflow rate. If so, DOE seeks comments on whether provisions similar to those required for ACUACs would be appropriate for determining airflow rate and minimum ESP for heating mode tests for SPVHPs.

    3. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method

    ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-1988, “Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment” (“ANSI/AHRI 37-1988”) for methods of testing SPVUs. Section 7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 specifies that for equipment with cooling capacity less than 135,000 Btu/h, primary and secondary capacity measurements are required. Specifically, the indoor air enthalpy method must be used as the primary method for capacity measurement, and Table 3 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 specifies the applicable options for selecting a secondary method. Section 10.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 then requires that the two test methods agree within 6 percent. DOE understands that the outdoor air enthalpy test method is commonly used as a secondary test method for determining capacity for SPVUs. The outdoor air enthalpy method requires the use of an air-side test apparatus that is connected to the unit under test. Due to concerns about the impact of the air-side test apparatus on performance as compared to performance in the field without the air-side test apparatus connected, section 8.5 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 (which is referenced by ANSI/AHRI 390-2003) specifies testing with and without the air-side test apparatus connected. First, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 requires a one-hour preliminary test be conducted without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected. Then, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 specifies a one-hour test be conducted with the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected, which will serve as the official test. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 requires agreement between evaporating and condensing temperatures between the two tests for a valid test. In a test procedure final rule for CACs/HPs, DOE amended its requirements when using the outdoor air enthalpy method as the secondary test method for capacity measurement for CAC/HPs. 82 FR 1426, 1508-1509 (Jan. 5, 2017). Specifically, DOE's amended test procedure requires that a 30-minute official test be conducted without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected, then a 30-minute test with the air-side test apparatus be conducted, the results of which are compared to the official, no air-side apparatus test. DOE is considering whether similar changes (i.e., requiring that the official test be conducted without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected) would be appropriate for the test procedure for SPVUs. DOE expects that such a change would make the test more representative of field use and would improve the repeatability of the test.

    Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on whether modifications to the requirements for using the outdoor air enthalpy method as the secondary method for testing SPVUs (similar to those made for CAC/HPs) would be appropriate, including that the official test be conducted without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected.

    4. Air Temperature Measurements

    Outdoor air temperature and humidity are key parameters that affect SPVU performance, and for this reason, ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 requires accurate outdoor air condition measurements. However, DOE is considering whether the method set forth in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 would benefit from additional specification as to outdoor air temperature measurement. For air-cooled and evaporatively cooled commercial unitary air conditioners, Appendix C of AHRI Standard 340/360-2015, “2015 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,” (“AHRI 340/360-2015”) provides details on entering outdoor air temperature measurement, including air sampling tree and aspirating psychrometer requirements. DOE is considering whether similar requirements should be adopted for testing SPVUs. However, DOE notes that in such case, some of the requirements may have to be revised for application to SPVUs. For example, the requirement in section C3 of Appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2015 that “multiple individual reading thermocouples be installed around the unit air discharge perimeter so that they are below the plane of condenser fan exhaust and just above the top of the condenser coil” may not be appropriate for SPVUs, because the units typically exhaust outdoor air horizontally, instead of vertically as is the case for ACUACs.

    While Appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2015 provides detailed requirements for measurement of entering outdoor air temperature, it provides no such requirements for measurement of entering indoor air temperature, leaving indoor air temperature, or leaving outdoor air temperature. These parameters have a significant impact on performance of an SPVU as measured by the indoor air enthalpy method and the outdoor air enthalpy method. Therefore, DOE is also considering whether the requirements contained in Appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2015 would be appropriate for measurement of these parameters for testing SPVUs.

    Issue 11: DOE seeks comments regarding which, if any, requirements for outdoor air temperature measurement in Appendix C of AHRI Standard 340/360-2015 may or may not be appropriate for testing SPVUs. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether any requirements in Appendix C of AHRI Standard 340/360-2015 would be appropriate for measurement of indoor air entering and leaving temperatures, as well as outdoor air entering and leaving temperatures.

    C. Energy Efficiency Descriptor

    EPCA requires that test procedures produce test results that reflect efficiency of equipment during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE prescribes energy efficiency ratio (EER) as the cooling mode metric and coefficient of performance (COP) as the heating mode metric for SPVUs. 10 CFR 431.96. Correspondingly, ASHRAE 90.1-2016 only includes minimum efficiency levels in terms of the full-load metrics of EER and COP for SPVUs. In contrast, ASHRAE 90.1-2016 includes minimum cooling mode efficiency levels for CUACs and for variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps in terms of both the full-load metric EER and the integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER), which integrates the performance of the equipment when operating at part-load. IEER provides an indication of seasonal performance by integrating test results from four different load points with varying outdoor conditions and load levels (lower load for cooler conditions) in order to represent the equipment's average efficiency throughout the cooling season. ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 includes a part-load metric, integrated part-load value (IPLV) that integrates unit performance at each capacity step provided by the refrigeration system. However, the IPLV tests are all conducted at constant outdoor air conditions of 80 °F dry bulb temperature and 67 °F wet bulb temperature. DOE notes that some manufacturers make representations of part-load performance of SPVUs in product literature using IPLV, indicating a potential value in ratings that integrate performance of part-load operation. However, DOE also notes that IPLV was once used for rating CUACs but has since been removed from AHRI 340/360 in favor of IEER.

    Issue 12: DOE requests comments on whether DOE should consider adopting for SPVUs a cooling-mode metric that integrates part-load performance to better represent full-season efficiency. If so, DOE requests comment on whether a part-load metric such as IEER or the current IPLV would be appropriate for SPVUs, and which of these would better represent actual performance.

    DOE is aware that the energy use of field-installed fans will vary based on the use of the fan for various functions (e.g., economizing, ventilation, filtration, and auxiliary heat). Consequently, DOE is investigating whether changes to the SPVU test procedure are needed to properly characterize a representative average use cycle, including changes to more accurately represent fan energy use in field applications. DOE also seeks comment on any anticipated burdens associated with such potential changes to the SPVUs test procedure. DOE also requests information as to the extent that accounting for the energy use of fans in commercial equipment such as SPVUs would be additive of other existing accountings of fan energy use. DOE also seeks information as to whether accounting for the energy use of fan operation in SPVUs would alter measured efficiency, and if so, to what extent.

    Issue 13: DOE seeks information, including any available data, on how frequently SPVU supply fans are operated when there is no demand for heating or cooling (i.e., for fresh air ventilation or air circulation/filtration), and what the typical operating schedules or duty cycles are for this function. Additionally, DOE requests data or information regarding how frequently auxiliary heating is installed with SPVUs and whether its operation is dependent on the supply fan of the SPVU. DOE requests data or information regarding how frequently the systems are used with economizers, how the economizers are integrated with the systems, and what control logic is typically used on the economizers. DOE further seeks comment as to whether or what portion of such fan operation is part of a “representative average use cycle.” DOE also seeks information as to whether accounting for the energy use of fan operation in SPVUs would alter measured efficiency, and if so, to what extent.

    Issue 14: Assuming DOE has authority to address fans embedded in other commercial equipment such as SPVUs (a conclusion the agency has not yet reached), DOE is interested in receiving comment and other information on this topic. DOE requests comment on whether any of the issues considered in this section would result in double regulation of the energy use of fans in SPVUs, and if so, how.

    SPVHPs generally include a defrost cycle to periodically defrost the outdoor coil when operating in outdoor ambient conditions in which frost collects on it during heating operation. Based on preliminary DOE review of product literature, the time between defrost cycles can be between 30-90 minutes, and defrost cycle duration may be roughly 10 minutes. During the defrost cycle, the SPVHP is consuming energy but not providing heat, unless it also energizes auxiliary heat during defrost. DOE's test procedure for SPVUs is based on testing in outdoor air conditions for which defrost is not necessary (i.e., 47 °F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature). Hence, any differences in defrost cycle performance between different SPVHP models is not reflected in the heating mode metric, COP. DOE's test procedure for CACs/HPs includes measurement of average delivered heat and total energy use, including for defrost cycles, during operation in outdoor conditions for which frost forms on the outdoor coil. In contrast, DOE's test procedures for commercial heat pumps do not include consideration of defrost.

    Issue 15: DOE seeks information regarding the types of buildings most commonly served by SPVHPs and the annual heating and cooling loads for such buildings, including information or data for SPVHP cooling and heating seasonal energy use therein. DOE also seeks information on the impact on heating mode efficiency associated with the defrost cycle for SPVHPs, including impacts associated with the potential use of resistance heating during defrost.

    D. Other Test Procedure Topics

    In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedure for SPVUs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that would improve the repeatability, reproducibility, and consumer representativeness of the test procedures. DOE also requests information that would help DOE create a procedure that would limit manufacturer test burden through streamlining or simplifying testing requirements. Comments regarding the repeatability and reproducibility are also welcome. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry based or other appropriate test procedure, without modification.

    DOE also requests feedback on any potential amendments to the existing test procedure that could be considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses. Regarding the Federal test method, DOE seeks comment on the degree to which the DOE test procedure should consider and be harmonized with the most recent relevant industry standards for SPVUs and whether there are any changes to the Federal test method that would provide additional benefits to the public. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without modification. As discussed, the Federal test procedure for SPVUs currently incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 (omitting section 6.4) and includes additional provisions to provide the method for an optional break-in period and to provide specifications for addressing key information typically found in the installation and operation manuals. Section 6.4 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 specifies the maximum deviation of published efficiency ratings from measured test results; therefore, this section is omitted from DOE's current test procedure because it conflicts with DOE's certification, compliance, and enforcement regulations at 10 CFR part 429.

    Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether the existing test procedure limits a manufacturer's ability to provide additional features to consumers of SPVUs. DOE particularly seeks information on how the test procedures could be amended to reduce the cost of new or additional features and make it more likely that such features are included on SPVUs.

    III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by September 4, 2018, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of an amended test procedure for SPVACs and SPVHPs. These comments and information will aid in the development of a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for SPVACs and SPVHPs if DOE determines that an amended test procedure may be appropriate for this equipment.

    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at [email protected].

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15584 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces Containing Liquids: Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Postal Service  TM .

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 9, 2018, the United States Postal Service (USPS®) published a Federal Register proposed rule titled, “New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces Containing Liquids.” The USPS has received several requests to extend the comment period for this proposed rule and is, accordingly, extending the comment period scheduled to close on August 8, 2018, until September 30, 2018.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to [email protected], with a subject line of “New Standards for Liquids.” Faxed comments are not accepted.

    You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at USPS Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor North, Washington, DC 20260. These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Direct questions to Wm. Kevin Gunther at [email protected] or phone at (202) 268-7208, or Michelle Lassiter at [email protected] or phone at (202) 268-2914.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document extends the public comment period for the proposed rule entitled “New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces Containing Liquids,” published in the Federal Register On July 9, 2018. USPS is extending the comment period to ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on the proposal. USPS is proposing this rule under the authorities listed in the July 9th document. Further information on this proposal may be found in the USPS notice published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2018 (83 FR 31712).

    USPS solicits comments on all aspects of the proposal and specifically on recommendations that reflect industry best practices for shipping liquids.

    Ruth Stevenson, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15548 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0422; FRL-9981-04—Region 2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Determination of Attainment of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Jamestown, New York Marginal Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make a determination that the Jamestown, New York Marginal Nonattainment Area (Jamestown Area or Area) has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that shows the Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for both the 2012-2014 and 2015-2017 monitoring periods. This action does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. The Jamestown Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Jamestown Area meets the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan. This action is being taken under the CAA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0422 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA 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:

    Kirk J. Wieber, (212) 637-3381, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three years) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).1 The 2008 ozone NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated as nonattainment any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data. The Jamestown Area (specifically, Chautauqua County) was designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.333.

    1 For a detailed explanation of the calculation of the 3-year 8-hour average, see 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    Marginal areas designated in the May 21, 2012 rule are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable deadline of July 20, 2015. See 40 CFR 51.903. On May 4, 2016, EPA determined that complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data from the 2012-2014 monitoring period indicated that the Jamestown Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by that attainment date. See 81 FR 26697.

    Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (40 CFR 51.918), if EPA also issues a determination (as it is proposing to do here) that an area is attaining the relevant standard through a rulemaking that includes public notice and comment (known informally as a Clean Data Determination), the requirements for a State to submit certain required planning SIPs related to attainment of the eight-hour NAAQS, such as attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress plans and contingency measures, shall be suspended. EPA's action only suspends the requirements to submit the SIP revisions discussed above.2

    2 For more information on the EPA's Clean Data Policy, see https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/redesignation-and-clean-data-policy-cdp for documents such as the Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (May 10, 1995).

    This suspension remains in effect until such time, if ever, that EPA (i) redesignates the area to attainment, at which time those requirements no longer apply, or (ii) subsequently determines that the area has violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements are suspended, if the State provides these submissions to EPA for review and approval at any time, EPA is not precluded from acting upon them. The determination of attainment is not equivalent to a redesignation under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Jamestown Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan.

    Additionally, the determination of attainment is separate from, and does not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or requirements for the Jamestown Area based on any new or revised ozone NAAQS, and it remains in effect regardless of whether EPA designates this Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised ozone NAAQS.

    II. EPA's Evaluation

    For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured ambient air monitoring data. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. This 3-year average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm at each monitor within the area, then the area is attaining the NAAQS. Also, the data meets the regulatory completeness requirement when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90 percent (%), and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in appendix P of 40 CFR part 50. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS).

    EPA has reviewed the complete, quality-assured, and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data for the monitoring periods for both 2012-2014 and 2015-2017 for the Jamestown Area. For both monitoring periods, the design values for the Jamestown monitor in Chautauqua County are less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and the monitor meets the data completeness requirements (see Table 1). Based on the 2012-2014 data from the AQS database and consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has concluded that this Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, complete, quality-assured, and certified data through the 2017 ozone season demonstrate that the area continues to attain the standard.

    Table 1—Jamestown Area 2008 8-Hour Ozone Design Values County Site ID 2012-2014
  • Design value
  • (ppm)
  • 2012-2014
  • Average
  • percent data
  • completeness
  • 2015-2017
  • Design value
  • (ppm)
  • 2015-2017
  • Average
  • percent data
  • completeness
  • Chautauqua 36-013-0006 0.071 97 0.068 96

    The data in Table 1 are available in EPA's AQS database. The AQS report with this data is available in the docket for this rulemaking under docket number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0422 and available online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0422.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Jamestown Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This proposed determination (informally known as a Clean Data Determination) is based upon complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the Jamestown Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 and 2015-2017 monitoring periods. Complete and quality assured and certified data for these periods demonstrate that the area continues to attain the standard during both time periods. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, if EPA's determination that this area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard is made final, it would suspend the requirements under CAA section 182(b)(1) for submission of a reasonable further progress plan and ozone attainment demonstration. In addition, such a final determination would mean the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) concerning submission of contingency measures and any other planning SIP relating to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the Jamestown Area continues to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Although these requirements would be suspended, EPA would not be precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if submitted to EPA for review and approval.

    Finalizing this determination would not constitute a redesignation of the Jamestown Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3). This proposed determination of attainment also does not involve approving any maintenance plan for the Jamestown Area and does not determine that the Jamestown Area has met all the requirements for redesignation under the CAA, including that the attainment be due to permanent and enforceable measures. Therefore, the designation status of the Jamestown Area will remain nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA takes final rulemaking action to determine that such Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make an attainment determination based on air quality data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements and would not impose any additional requirements. 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 3, 2018. Peter D. Lopez, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15623 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9981-00—Region 1] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site (Site) located in South Hope, Maine, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Maine, through the Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, monitoring and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA 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.

    Email: [email protected] or [email protected].

    Mail:

    Terrence Connelly, U.S. EPA, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR 07-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912 ZaNetta Purnell, U.S. EPA, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR 01-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912

    Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    U.S. EPA Region 1, Superfund Records Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-918-1440, Monday- Friday: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday—Closed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terrence Connelly, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Mail Code OSSR 07-1, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912, (617) 918-1373, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion I. Introduction

    EPA Region 1 announces its intent to delete the Union Chemical Co., Inc Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts Five-Year Reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such Five-Year Reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.

    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate;

    (4) The State of Maine, through its Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, the Bangor Daily News. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repository identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the Site information repository listed above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    The Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site, CERCLIS ID: MED042143883, is located in South Hope, Knox County, Maine, on the south side of Route 17 in a rural residential area. The Site is bounded by Quiggle Brook, a southerly flowing stream, on the east and southeast, by undeveloped forested land to the south and southwest and a vacant residential lot to the west.

    Union Chemical Company began operations in 1967, as a paint stripping and solvent manufacturing business. Initially, patented solvents were manufactured and utilized on the premises, and distributed nationally. The Company expanded operations to include the recycling of used stripping compounds and solvents from other businesses. Operations were further expanded in 1982 to include a full-scale, fluidized-bed incinerator to treat waste solvents and other compounds. Operations ceased in 1985.

    The risk assessment conducted during EPA's Remedial Investigation indicated that there would be unacceptable carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks from future ingestion of the groundwater at the Site due to concentrations of contaminants.

    On June 24, 1988, EPA proposed the Site for listing on the NPL and on October 4, 1989, listing on the NPL was finalized. The Federal Register citations for these notices are FR Vol. 53, No. 122, 23978-23986 and FR Vol. 54, No. 191, 41015-41025, respectively.

    MEDEP closed the hazardous waste treatment operations at the Site in June 1984. At that time approximately 2,000-2,500 55-gallon drums and 30 liquid storage tanks were present at the Site. These drums, their contents, and the contents of the storage tanks were removed by EPA and MEDEP by the end of November 1984.

    At present, contamination remains in the groundwater at the Site that EPA, with consent from MEDEP, determined in 2013 to be technically impracticable to restore. In 2017, a Declaration of Environmental Covenant, which among other things, prohibits the use of groundwater, was recorded in the chain of title for the properties comprising the Site. This deed restriction limits how the Site can be redeveloped.

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The scope of the Remedial Investigation was comprehensive, evaluating the nature and extent of contamination in the facility's buildings and underlying soils, unsaturated and saturated soils on the rest of the property, in groundwater in the overburden soils and in bedrock, and in surface water. Additionally, the Remedial Investigation collected soil samples from nearby properties to identify potential airborne contamination which may have occurred as a result of Union Chemical Company's past operation of the Site's hazardous waste incinerator.

    The Feasibility Study screened seven on-site soil remedial alternatives, six alternatives for groundwater and surface water, five alternatives for the facilities, and two alternatives for off-site soils. All but one on-site soil alternative was retained for detailed analysis. The on-site soil alternatives analyzed in detail included No-Action; Limited Action; Site Capping; Soil Excavation and Low-Temperature Thermal Aeration Treatment; In-Situ Soil Aeration; and Soil Excavation and High-Temperature Thermal Treatment. The groundwater and surface water alternatives analyzed in detail included No-Action; Limited Action; Groundwater Extraction with On-Site Treatment and Discharge to Quiggle Brook; Vacuum-Enhanced Groundwater Extraction with On-Site Treatment and Discharge to Quiggle Brook; Groundwater Extraction with On-Site Treatment and Reinjection; and Vacuum-Enhanced Groundwater Extraction with On-Site Treatment and Reinjection. The five alternatives for the facilities included No-Action; Limited Action; Facilities Decontamination only; Facilities Decontamination and Demolition; and Facilities Demolition and Disposal without Decontamination. The two off-site soil alternatives were No Action and Limited Action.

    Selected Remedy

    In the 1990 Record of Decision (ROD) EPA selected a remedy that specified decontamination and demolition of facilities with off-site disposal of debris; soil excavation with on-site low-temperature thermal aeration; vacuum-enhanced groundwater extraction, on-site treatment, and discharge of treated groundwater to Quiggle Brook with institutional controls; and limited action for off-site soils.

    The Remedial Investigation identified eight Remedial Action Objectives:

    1. Prevent further leaching and migration into the groundwater of contaminants in the soils on the Site, by removal and treatment of contaminants above specific concentrations throughout the Site.

    2. Provide rapid restoration of the contaminated groundwater throughout the Site, to concentrations that will protect current and future users, as well as natural resources (i.e., wildlife) that come into contact with the contaminants contained within the groundwater.

    3. Protect off-site groundwater and surface waters (particularly Quiggle Brook) by preventing further migration of the contaminated on-site groundwater.

    4. Prevent ingestion or absorption of contaminants (particularly dioxins) contained within the incinerator equipment remaining on the Site.

    5. Prevent inhalation of friable asbestos from the Still Building.

    6. Remove all existing structures located on the Site to allow for the cleanup of contaminated soils found throughout the Site.

    7. Remove all other contaminated materials from the facilities so that the Site will be suitable for all potential future uses.

    8. Further evaluate and, if necessary, minimize and/or mitigate any potential risks to public health and the environment from potential soil impacts due to contaminants which were previously emitted from the Union Chemical Company incinerator.

    In 1992, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with certain Settling Defendants to conduct Remedial Design and Remedial Action at the Site under EPA oversight.

    The remedy selected in the 1990 ROD was modified in 1994, 1997, and 2001 by three Explanations of Significant Differences (ESD) and in 2013 by a ROD Amendment. In June 1994 EPA approved a request from the Settling Defendants to change the soil cleanup technology from low-temperature thermal aeration to soil vapor extraction (SVE) with hot air injection. In addition to the change in technology, EPA also set a deadline of five years for achieving the soil cleanup standards.

    EPA issued a second ESD for the Site in September 1997 that modified the remedy for off-site soils. The 1997 ESD changed the length of time specified in the ROD for meteorological data collection from five years to three years, thus moving forward the timeframe for collection of off-site soil samples to determine whether the operations of the Union Chemical Company incinerator resulted in deposition of contaminants off-site.

    A third ESD was issued in September 2001 that documented a change in the technical approach for treatment of contaminated groundwater and changed the location for discharge of treated groundwater. Three innovative in situ addition treatment technologies, (i.e., potassium and sodium permanganate, concentrated hydrogen peroxide, and molasses and sodium lactate) were injected into groundwater in specific portions of the Site to treat contaminated groundwater. With fewer extraction wells needed to control contaminant migration, discharge of treated water changed from surface water discharge to reinjection into the ground upgradient of the extraction wells.

    In November 2013, EPA issued a ROD Amendment in which it waived groundwater cleanup levels due to technical impracticability. The ROD Amendment was necessary because (1) the original groundwater remedy had reached the limits of its effectiveness, (2) the three innovative in situ technologies had proven unsuccessful in attaining the groundwater cleanup standards, and (3) an evaluation of cleanup alternatives indicated that no technology was available for achieving groundwater cleanup standards in a reasonable timeframe due to Site-specific hydrogeological and contaminant conditions. The ROD Amendment also adjusted institutional control requirements for the Site.

    Response Actions

    In October 1993 EPA approved the Facilities Remedial Design, and the decontamination and demolition of facilities and off-site disposal of debris was completed in the spring of 1994.

    Beginning in 1994 and continuing into 1996, on-site meteorological data was collected to support the off-site soils component of the ROD. In October 1996 EPA and the Settling Defendants performed joint off-site soil investigation and in September 1997 EPA issued an ESD documenting no further action was necessary for the off-site soils.

    In April 1995 EPA approved the SVE and groundwater Remedial Design. Construction included 28 SVE wells, 94 hot air injection points, 33 groundwater extraction wells, and the integrated treatment system and was completed in December 1995. Both systems began operation in January 1996. In April 1997 EPA and MEDEP performed a final inspection for both systems and declared that the remedy was operational and functional.

    The rate of mass removal of VOCs decreased dramatically between 1996 and 1999 using the groundwater extraction system, indicating that the extraction system was becoming less efficient due to the Site-specific hydrogeologic and chemical limitations. EPA and MEDEP approved the Settling Defendants' request to employ innovative in situ technologies to enhance the reduction of contaminant concentrations. The first technology involved the injection of permanganate. As a strong oxidizer, the permanganate was expected to accelerate the destruction of dissolved chlorinated VOCs. A potassium permanganate pilot study was completed in October 1997. Based on the results of that study, potassium and sodium permanganate were used on an expanded basis in the summers of 1998, 1999, and 2000 in an attempt to achieve further reductions in VOC concentrations.

    The second in situ approach was carried out in June 2000 with the injection of 5% hydrogen peroxide solution into injection well P-17. This well was selected as it is in the central area of the source area where the highest VOC concentrations had been detected. Due to the low capacity of P-17 and concerns about the integrity of the mixing tank, EPA decided to discharge the remaining solution to several additional wells located immediately adjacent to well P-17. Comparison of baseline sampling results to four-week post addition results revealed VOC concentrations rebounded to their baseline levels, indicating that the VOC reductions initially achieved were short-term and not sustained.

    Given the relative short half-lives of permanganate and hydrogen peroxide, carbon sources in the form of molasses and sodium lactate were added in August and November 2001 to create a reducing environment to enhance degradation of chlorinated ethane compounds by reductive dechlorination. Lactate addition was carried out again in August 2002.

    Cleanup Levels

    After EPA and MEDEP approval in March 1998, the Settling Defendants' operation of the SVE system and hot air injection was discontinued to allow the soils to return to equilibrium prior to the closure-sampling program. Closure sampling was completed in the fall of 1998. Statistical analysis of the data by three groups working independently indicated that the soils had been cleaned up to below the ROD-specified cleanup levels.

    Post-ROD groundwater and surface water monitoring began in the summer of 1992. The monitoring well network includes wells in the source area, in areas with the highest groundwater concentrations, and perimeter wells, near the downgradient boundaries of previously detectable concentrations. The monitoring leading up to the 2007 Five-Year Review did not show any concentration increases in the perimeter wells, indicating that the plume had not expanded since the extraction system was deactivated in 2000. Subsequent monitoring has confirmed that the plume has stabilized, yet remains above the ROD-established performance standards. Consequently, EPA issued the ROD Amendment in 2013 that included a Technical Impracticability waiver recognizing groundwater performance standards would not be attained in a reasonable timeframe because of Site geology, hydrology, and characteristics of the contaminants. Long-term groundwater monitoring will continue to be performed to ensure that the plume is stable and not migrating out of a designated Technical Impracticability Zone, which reaches the Site property boundaries except for the upgradient northwest corner of the Site.

    Operation and Maintenance

    The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities associated with the Site have been periodically updated as the on-site soil component was completed and again when active groundwater restoration ceased. O&M activities now consist of annual inspections, long-term monitoring of groundwater and surface water every other year, and ongoing decommissioning of the treatment building and redundant monitoring wells. These activities are outlined in bi-annual work plans that are submitted and implemented after EPA and MEDEP review and approval.

    Following acceptance of the soil closure sampling results, unused wells and piping were decommissioned in accordance with the O&M Plan.

    The extraction system has been deactivated. The effluent discharge line from the treatment building was flushed out, then disconnected below the ground surface and grouted. The external piping from the groundwater extraction wells was removed, and groups of extraction wells were decommissioned in 2005, 2006, and 2010.

    The 1990 ROD and 2013 ROD Amendment required the implementation of institutional controls for the Site Property and nearby properties to protect human health and the environment. On August 2, 2017, MEDEP recorded a Declaration of Environmental Covenant in the chain of title for the two lots comprising the Site (collectively, Site Property) at the Knox County Registry of Deeds (Volume 5192, Page 306). Pursuant to Maine's Uniform Environmental Covenants Act, MEDEP, as the receiver of the Site Property pursuant to a 1986 court order, granted the property rights under the Declaration of Environmental Covenant to itself, and will also serve as the holder of these property interests. EPA has third party rights of enforcement under the instrument. Among other things, the Declaration of Environmental Covenant: (1) Prohibits the extraction of groundwater; (2) prohibits the destruction, obstruction, tampering, or disruption of wells; (3) prohibits the discharge or injection of liquids to the subsurface; (4) prohibits the accumulation, storage, or stockpiling of wastes, as defined in Maine Solid Waste Management Rules, Chapter 400, and operation of a junkyard or automotive scrapyard, as defined in 30 M.R.S. § 3752; (5) requires a sub-slab vapor barrier and ventilation system or a sub-slab depressurization system for any constructed buildings, and (6) provides for EPA and MEDEP access to the Site Property.

    In addition to institutional controls for the Site Property, the 1990 ROD also identified a number of institutional controls that could be taken for properties beyond the Site Property. These controls included a restriction on the use of groundwater from existing bedrock wells that are hydraulically connected to the Site, specifically the well on Town of Hope's Tax Map 8 Lot 45, and advisory controls (e.g., well advisories) on surrounding properties.

    The Settling Defendants entered into a Lease and Indenture Agreement with the owners of Map 8 Lot 45 on May 18, 1992 and the State of Maine, acting by and through MEDEP. This agreement prohibited the use of the bedrock well in perpetuity unless released by the Settling Defendants and MEDEP.

    The 2013 ROD Amendment also calls for environmental deed restrictions or other mechanisms to limit the use of properties adjacent to the Site, as deemed necessary by EPA based on new information including but not limited to the development (or installation of drinking water wells) on properties adjacent to the Site or movement of the leading edge of either plume. To date, EPA has not determined that it is necessary to implement other land use restrictions on the properties adjacent to the Site.

    With the recording of the Declaration of Environmental Covenant, the criteria for EPA's Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Government Performance and Results Act Measure were complete, and EPA Region 1 signed the Superfund Property Reuse Evaluation Checklist for Reporting on August 17, 2017.

    Five-Year Review

    EPA conducts Five-Year Reviews of the Site because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. These reviews are statutory and four have been completed with the most recent one completed in September 2017.

    The 2017 Five-Year Review concluded the remedy currently protects human health and the environment because MEDEP is the court-appointed receiver of the Site Property and as such, use of the Site Property is controlled by MEDEP, there is no evidence of current exposure, institutional controls are in place, access to the Site is assured, and long-term monitoring continues. The 2017 Five-Year Review identified one issue, the potential presence of the chemicals perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and 1,4-dioxane, and recommended they be included in an upcoming monitoring event to determine if these compounds are associated with the Site.

    Pursuant to that Five-Year Review recommendation, on October 23, 2017, the Settling Defendants collected groundwater and surface water samples for PFOA and PFOS from two overburden wells, two bedrock wells, and two surface water locations. The samples were analyzed via EPA Method 537, Version 1.1. Modified, and QA/QC review determined that results were of acceptable quality. Three of the four wells had concentrations below EPA's drinking water advisory level of 70 ng/L (nanograms per liter or parts per trillion) for both PFOA and PFOS.

    The overburden well with the exceedance of both PFOA and PFOS is historically the most contaminated well in the ongoing long-term Site monitoring and is located immediately downgradient of the former facility's discharge trench. The other overburden well and the two bedrock wells are located 150-450 feet farther downgradient from the well with the exceedance (and for the bedrock wells, the property boundary is another 200 feet or more downgradient beyond them). All the wells are within the Technical Impracticability Zone created under the 2013 ROD Amendment.

    In the two surface water samples collected from Quiggle Brook, PFOS and PFOA were not individually detected at concentrations exceeding the method detection limit of 1.0 ng/L but had estimated PFOA concentrations at the instrument detection limit of 1.0 ng/L at the location upstream of the Site and 0.8 ng/L at the long-term surface water monitoring location. There is no EPA advisory level for surface water. Maine Center for Disease Control has established a surface water advisory level of 170 ng/L based on recreational exposure (swimming and wading) and these sample results are below that surface water advisory level.

    In 2010, 1,4-dioxane was added to the monitoring program. Due to the elevated levels of other compounds in eight of the ten wells in the monitoring program, the samples were diluted for analysis and correspondingly, the Reported Detection Limits (RDL) were raised. Consequently, the 1,4-dioxane levels were reported as below the specific reporting limit, ranging from <20 ppb to <2,000 ppb. However, in the four monitoring events, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, as the RDL has dropped in five of the eight wells, 1,4-dioxane remained below the reporting limit. Of the two wells where 1,4-dio+xane has been detected, the concentrations have decreased so that the latest results are now also below their respective reporting limits of <20 and <100 ppb. There is no Maximum Contaminant Level standard for 1,4-dioxane nor was 1,4-dioxane included the 1992 Maine Maximum Exposure Guidelines (ME MEGs), which is the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement. The current, but unpromulgated ME MEG for 1,4-dioxane is 4 ppb.

    With the recent PFAS sampling indicating one exceedance in four monitoring wells in the Technical Impracticability Zone, PFAS will be added to the long-term monitoring program coincident with every monitoring event that precedes a Five-Year Review.

    Community Involvement

    There was an established community group, Hope Committee for a Clean Environment (HCCE) that was active during the RI/FS and received support through an EPA technical assistance grant. From 1992 through the early 2000s, while Remedial Design and then active remediation of the on-site soils and groundwater, and investigation of the off-site soils were underway, HCCE met regularly with EPA, MEDEP, and the Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator. With the termination of the in situ technologies, these meetings ceased. Communication between HCCE, EPA, and MEDEP is now primarily through email. In 2005-2006, EPA convened meetings with community members to develop re-use options.

    EPA and MEDEP have met frequently with the Hope Town Administrator and have periodically updated the Board of Selectmen. In June 2015, EPA and MEDEP attended the Town of Hope's Annual Meeting. At that meeting, the Town voted not to assume ownership of the Site Property should MEDEP's receivership of the Site Property end. The Town reaffirmed this position in an October 10, 2017 letter to MEDEP. Beyond these meetings and periodic communication with HCCE and owners of a right-of-way easement across the Site Property, there has been little participation or involvement from other members of the local community.

    EPA discussed the deletion process with the Town Administrator and offered to meet with the Board of Selectmen if the Town desired a presentation. Additionally, EPA contacted the HCCE to inform the group of EPA's plan to delete the Site.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) activities at the Site were consistent with the ROD, as modified by the ESDs and the ROD Amendment, and consistent with EPA RD/RA Statements of Work provided to the Settling Defendants. RA plans for all phases of construction included a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) dated February 17, 1995 and QAPP Revision 1, dated September 22, 2001. The QAPP incorporated all EPA and Maine quality assurance and quality control procedures and protocols (where necessary). All procedures and protocols were followed for soil, groundwater, and surface water sampling during the RA. EPA analytical methods were used for all validation and monitoring samples during all RA activities. EPA has determined that the analytical results are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA, and are consistent with the ROD and the RD/RA plans and specifications.

    All institutional controls are in place and currently EPA expects that no further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment, except future Five-Year Reviews and ongoing long-term monitoring. O&M activities were agreed upon by EPA and the Settling Defendants and are documented in the October 2006 O&M Manual. These activities include continuing decommissioning of redundant wells, securing the functioning wells, and maintenance of the soil cap.

    This Site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-09-A-P, Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. All cleanup actions specified in the ROD, as modified by the ESDs and ROD Amendment have been implemented and the implemented remedy has achieved the degree of cleanup or protection specified in the ROD, as modified by the ESDs and ROD Amendment, for all pathways of exposure.

    Confirmatory groundwater monitoring and institutional controls provide further assurance that the Site no longer poses any threats to human health or the environment. The only remaining activity to be performed are Five-Year Reviews, monitoring, and O&M activities described above. A bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of this Site under the Superfund program is in the administrative record for this deletion.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Alexandra Dunn, Regional Administrator, Region 1.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15622 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9981-02—Region 1] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site AGENCY:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site (Site) located at Old Turnpike Road, Southington, Connecticut (CT), from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL was promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Connecticut, through the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under CERCLA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011, by one of the following methods:

    Online: http://www.regulations.gov—Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Email: [email protected] or [email protected].

    Mail:

    Almerinda Silva, U.S. EPA, Region 1—New England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR-07-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912 ZaNetta Purnell, U.S. EPA, Region 1—New England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR-ORA01-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912

    Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 1—New England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    U.S. EPA Region 1—New England, Superfund Records Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-918-1440, Hours: Monday- Friday: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday—Closed.

    Southington Public Library, 255 Main Street, Southington, CT, Phone: 860-628-0947, Hours: Monday-Thursday 9:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m., Friday-Saturday 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Sunday Closed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Almerinda Silva, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1—New England OSRR07-4, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912, Phone: (617) 918-1246, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction

    EPA Region 1 announces its intent to delete the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), promulgated by EPA pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions should future conditions warrant such actions. EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion:

    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete;

    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today;

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate;

    (4) The State has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL;

    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, The Southington Observer. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL; and

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the Site information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History CERCLIS ID: CTD980670806

    The Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site is in the Town of Southington, Hartford County, Connecticut, and is approximately 13 miles southwest of Hartford, Connecticut. From 1920 to 1967, residents and area businesses used portions of the landfill for disposal of waste materials. During this time frame, the landfill was known as the Old Turnpike Landfill. Based upon historical information, Remedial Investigation (RI) data, and differences in ownership between the northern and southern portion of the Site, it is clear that the northern and southern portions of the landfill were used for distinct and separate purposes. The northern portion of the landfill was a “stump dump” that was used for the disposal of wood and construction debris. The southern portion of the landfill was used throughout the period the landfill was in operation for the co-disposal of municipal and industrial waste. Historical information, interviews with current and past Town employees, and information contained in public documents on disposal practices indicate that for a short period of time (1964-1967) two areas (SSDA 1 and SSDA 2) in the southern portion of the landfill were used for disposal of semi-solid industrial wastes. In 1967 (or shortly thereafter), the landfill was “closed” consisting of: Compacting disposed material, covering with 2 feet of clean fill, and seeding for erosion control.

    Between 1973 and 1980, the landfill property was subdivided and sold for residential and commercial development. Several residential and commercial buildings were built on the Site and on adjacent areas.

    The landfill is located approximately 700 feet southeast of the former Production Well No. 5, which was installed in 1965 by the Town of Southington Water Department and was used as a public water supply. The Connecticut Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (then the Department of Health Services) sampled Well No. 5 on several occasions between December 1978 and March 1979. Analyses of the samples indicated the presence of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Because of the detection of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) at levels that exceeded State standards, Well No. 5 was closed in August 1979. The well has been permanently closed since that time. A more detailed description of the Site history can be found in Section 1 of the Supplemental Remedial Investigation (SRI) Report (Kleinfelder, May 2006).

    1. History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities

    In February 1980, EPA authorized a hydrogeologic investigation aimed at defining the nature and extent of contamination in groundwater in the vicinity of Well No. 5. Analysis of groundwater samples collected from two monitoring wells installed between the landfill and Well No. 5 indicated the presence of VOCs (Warzyn Engineering, Inc., 1980). In November 1980, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (now the CT DEEP) collected soil samples from a manhole excavation within the industrial park located on land that had previously been part of the landfill. Analysis of the soil samples indicated the presence of chlorinated and non-chlorinated VOCs.

    The Old Southington Landfill was formerly known as the Old Turnpike Landfill. Based on the above findings and a hazardous ranking evaluation performed in 1982, EPA subsequently proposed the Site be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), pursuant to Section 105(8)(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9605(8)(b). On September 8, 1983, the Site was proposed to the NPL (48 FR 40674) and on September 21, 1984, the Old Turnpike Landfill was final listed on the NPL as the Old Southington Landfill Superfund Site (49 FR 37070). The Site includes two Operable Units (OUs); OU1 includes the landfill cap and permanent relocation of all on-site homes and businesses; and OU2 includes the groundwater.

    In 1987, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with three Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to define the nature and extent of Site contamination. In 1993, the PRPs prepared a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study report (ES&E, 1993) that provided results of the RI, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA), and a Feasibility Study (FS). EPA issued an Addendum to the RI/FS Report in 1994.

    In September 1994, EPA issued the Interim Remedial Action for Limited Source Control Record of Decision (ROD) that addressed the landfill and included the following major remedy components and remedy objectives:

    • Relocation of existing residences and businesses located on top of the landfill;

    • Construction of a synthetic cap over the landfill to prevent human contact with contaminated subsurface soils, stop rainwater infiltration through the soil to the groundwater, and allow for the containment and collection of landfill gas;

    • Excavation and consolidation of a highly contaminated area “hot spot” in a lined cell underneath the landfill cap;

    • Removal of all buildings from the landfill;

    • Installation of a soil gas collection system;

    • Performance of long-term operation and maintenance (O&M);

    • Performance of long-term monitoring;

    • Development and implementation of institutional controls to ensure the remedy integrity by controlling future Site use and access; and

    • Five-Year Reviews.

    The remedy selected in the 1994 ROD also required additional groundwater studies be undertaken concurrent with the implementation of the cap on the landfill. In addition, because it was uncertain if the landfill gas collection system would be effective and protective of human health, the 1994 ROD required that an additional evaluation be conducted.

    In 1998, a Consent Decree (CD) was entered between EPA and approximately 320 PRPs; two PRPs became the Performing Settling Defendants (PSDs) while the remainder were Contributing Settling Defendants. Pursuant to the CD, the PSDs were required to implement the remedy selected in the 1994 ROD. Construction of the remedy selected in the 1994 ROD was completed in 2001. Operation and maintenance as well as long-term monitoring are currently being conducted by the Performing Settling Defendants (PSDs). Institutional controls, consisting of Environmental Land Use Restrictions (ELURs), were implemented in 2010 and 2018 for parcels occupied by the landfill cap. Five-Year Reviews are being conducted by EPA. In June 1999, EPA entered into two additional settlements: One with six parties and the other with 119 de minimis parties who all agreed to contribute to the cost of the remedial action in the 1994 ROD. Per the 1994 ROD, the PSDs performed the additional groundwater studies (i.e., a second RI/FS) to address the remaining issues at the Site under the 1998 CD. Accordingly, in 1999, the PSDs initiated the Supplemental Groundwater Investigations (SGI) which was completed in 2006. The 2006 SRI and the Amended Feasibility Study (AFS), (EPA, 2006) were completed in June 2006. In September 2006, a Final ROD was issued to address potential vapor intrusion risks from contaminants located in shallow groundwater (Operable Unit 2 [OU2]).

    The 2009 CD required the PSDs to develop the Remedial Design and construct the selected remedy for the 2006 ROD. As part of the Remedial Design, a vapor intrusion groundwater investigation was completed for two properties immediately downgradient of the landfill that determined only vinyl chloride slightly exceeded a proposed State groundwater quality commercial/industrial volatilization criterion. Institutional controls in the form of ELURs would be implemented to prevent construction of new buildings to prevent future vapor intrusion risks (LEA, 2014). The ELURs were completed during 2017.

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 1. 1993 Remedial Investigation

    Results from the 1993 RI concluded that the primary sources of groundwater contamination at the Site are wastes, including liquid organic solvents and semi-solid organic sludges, deposited in the landfill during its operation. Deposition of limited amounts of metal-containing wastes has also contributed to localized areas of elevated levels of certain metals in groundwater beneath the landfill.

    Overall, the RI results indicated that industrial-related chemical waste was deposited primarily in the southern portion of the landfill. VOCs were detected in soils at sporadically high concentrations throughout this portion of the landfill. VOCs were detected in shallow, intermediate, and deep overburden groundwater exceeding the federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).

    Low to moderate concentrations of several other contaminants, including semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) [primarily polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)], polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs) and some metals, were also detected. The 1993 RI also identified two areas (SSDA 1 and SSDA 2), where semi-solid industrial waste materials contaminated with relatively high levels of VOCs and/or SVOCs were deposited. EPA determined that SSDA 1 was to be considered a “hot spot” due to contaminants levels being substantially higher than those found throughout the landfill, whereas levels of contamination in SSDA 2 were consistent with those found throughout the southern portion of the landfill. Past records and results also indicated that the northern portion of the landfill was primarily used as a dump for stumps and demolition debris with waste materials including wood, ash, cinders, and some brick and asphalt. Moderate concentrations of PAHs were detected in soils at certain locations in the northern portion of the landfill. Approximately one third of the waste in the southern portion of the landfill remains below the water table.

    2. 2006 Supplemental Remedial Investigation (OU2)

    The results of the 2006 SRI confirmed that groundwater flow beneath the landfill is westerly; however, as groundwater flows away from the landfill towards the Quinnipiac River, the flow becomes northwesterly. Groundwater present near the Site includes an overburden aquifer and a bedrock aquifer. Overall, groundwater flow was postulated to generally follow the bedrock topography, flowing along a west-northwest trending bedrock trough, with the impact of the bedrock topography being potentially greater on the flow in the deeper portions of the aquifer. Hydrogeologic evaluations also indicated that the bedrock surface rises in the western part of the area studied, pinching out the overburden groundwater aquifer west of the Quinnipiac River.

    Groundwater migrating westward from the Site contains dissolved contaminants derived from the waste disposed in the southern portion of the Site, and flows relatively quickly downward into the deeper overburden aquifer. This phenomenon appears to be due to significant differences in the relatively low permeability of the waste versus the high permeability of the underlying sand and gravel layer. Contaminants are then transported at depth to the west by regional groundwater flow. Contaminants from the northern portions of the landfill move downward more slowly and migrate greater distances through the shallow aquifer immediately west and northwest of the landfill.

    3. 1994 Feasibility Study (OU1)

    Using the information gathered from the 1993 RI, HHRA, and other technical documents, EPA identified several source control response objectives to use in developing alternatives to prevent or minimize the release of contaminants from the Site. A comprehensive evaluation of containment and management of contaminated groundwater migration from the landfill was addressed by the final response action. A presumptive remedy for CERCLA municipal landfills was selected, which consisted primarily of containment (capping) of the landfill waste and gas collection/treatment. Capping of the landfill waste along with collection of landfill gases, and if necessary, treatment, was the presumptive containment remedy selected in the FS for this Site. In this FS, the remedy was combined with other remedial actions that addressed source control of the landfill wastes. The presumptive remedy did not address exposure pathways outside the source area (landfill) such as groundwater. The following 2006 Amended Feasibility Study addressed groundwater.

    4. 2006 Amended Feasibility Study (OU2)

    In 2006, an Amended Feasibility Study (AFS) developed remedial alternatives for the remediation of groundwater, provided a detailed evaluation on the remedial alternatives, and performed a comparative analysis of the two remedial alternatives identified as (1) Alternative GW-1: No Action, and (2) Alternative GW-2: Institutional Controls/Groundwater Monitoring/Building Ventilation/Vapor Barriers. Alternative GW-2 was chosen as the selected groundwater remedy for the Site.

    Selected Remedies

    The September 1994, ROD for the Interim Remedial Action for Limited Source Control addressed the following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs):

    • Minimize the current and future effects of landfill contaminants on groundwater quality, specifically, reducing to a minimum the amount of precipitation allowed to infiltrate through the unsaturated waste column and contaminate the groundwater;

    • eliminate potential future risks to human health through direct contact with landfill contaminants by maintaining a physical barrier;

    • control surface water run-on, run-off, and erosion at the Site;

    • prevent risks from uncontrolled landfill gas migration and emissions;

    • comply with state and federal applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); and

    • minimize potential impacts of implementing the selected limited source control alternative on adjacent surface waters and wetlands.

    Additional groundwater studies followed and in September 2006, EPA issued a ROD for the final selected remedy that addresses potential risks from vapor intrusion into buildings above the shallow VOC plume in groundwater (2006 ROD). This remedy addressed the following remedial action objective (RAO): Prevent inhalation of VOCs by occupants of residential/commercial/industrial buildings resulting from volatilization of VOCs in groundwater, in excess of 10 −4 to 10 −6 cancer risk, a Hazard Index >1, and/or comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate volatilization criteria.

    Response Actions 1. 1994 ROD Findings & Remedial Activities

    The remedial action selected in the 1994 ROD (for OU1, the landfill) was based principally upon EPA's Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites, EPA Document No. 540-F-93-035. (Presumptive Remedy Guidance) (EPA, 1993). The 1994 ROD addressed all affected media (i.e., soil, soil gas, surface water, and sediment) at the landfill, at the adjacent Black Pond, and at the Unnamed Stream across Old Turnpike Road west of the landfill. By July 2001 physical construction of the OU1 (landfill) remedy was substantially completed and the operation and maintenance(O & M) activities and long-term monitoring (LTM) had started.

    The northern 4-acre portion of the landfill Site was redeveloped for passive recreational use. This part of the landfill is landscaped with trees and shrubs along its perimeter and abuts Black Pond. It is regularly mowed by the Town of Southington (a PSD). There is a 3-foot high chain link fence that encircles this part of the landfill along Old Turnpike Road to the west and Rejean Road to the north. The fence has an opening, which allows for pedestrian access. People can walk their dogs, sit and watch the naturally existing wildlife, and/or take their kayak or canoe out onto Black Pond. The southern portion of the landfill is secured with a 6-foot high chain link fence and public access is not allowed. The reason for prohibiting public access to this part of the landfill is to prevent potential damage to the low-permeability cap, which could in turn allow rainwater infiltration and direct contact with highly contaminated industrial waste.

    The 2006 SRI determined that there were no receptors downgradient of the Site that could be affected by the plume and that Site-related groundwater contaminants of concern (COCs) downgradient of the Site do not adversely impact environmental media other than groundwater. Groundwater COCs are transported as a narrow plume in the lower portion of the aquifer, remain in the lower portion of the aquifer, with ultimate discharge into the Quinnipiac River Basin west-northwest of the Site. The also determined that non-VOC COCs from the Site in groundwater do not exceed applicable regulatory criteria. Based on the SGI's hydraulic studies, it was determined that contaminated groundwater underlying the landfill does not discharge into Black Pond or the unnamed stream and wetlands.

    Confirmation of the passive landfill gas collection system's effectiveness was conducted through several means. After the gas collection system was installed and the landfill was capped, three rounds of seasonal vapor data were collected directly from the landfill gas vents and a risk assessment was conducted. The data results indicated that the gas vents were operating effectively and there was no risk found to human health or to the environment.

    As part of the 2010 Five-Year Review, a helium tracer study was conducted in the northern part of the landfill to simulate potential landfill gas migration, low levels of helium were detected outside the landfill. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, the PSDs installed an impermeable vertical gas barrier trench that extends into the water table just outside the landfill cap to prevent possible landfill gas from migrating off-Site to the northern neighborhood. The PSDs performed a similar evaluation of the gas vents data in the southern portion of the landfill and found no risk being posed to human health or the environment. All vents continue to be periodically checked through long-term monitoring (LTM) and O&M programs.

    2. 2006 ROD Findings & Remedial Activities

    This ROD memorialized the remedy to reduce potential risks from the migration of volatile contaminants to indoor air within buildings located above groundwater contamination. The components of this remedy complement those in the1994 ROD.

    The major components of the 2006 ROD are as follows:

    i. Institutional controls, in the form of Environmental Land Use Restrictions (ELURs) as defined in Connecticut's Remediation Standard Regulations (CT RSRs) will be placed on properties or portions of properties where groundwater Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) concentrations exceed the CT RSR volatilization criteria for residential or commercial/industrial use, or criteria listed in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD. Periodic inspections are required to ensure compliance with the institutional controls and to ensure proper notification to EPA and the State, as necessary.

    ii. Building ventilation (sub-slab depressurization systems or similar technology) will be used in existing buildings located over portions of properties where VOCs in groundwater exceed the CT RSR's volatilization criteria or criteria listed in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD to prevent migration of VOC vapors into buildings. Similarly, vapor barriers (or similar technology) or sub-slab depressurization (or similar technology) will be used to control vapors in new buildings.

    iii. Groundwater monitoring will be conducted in areas where the potential for vapor intrusion is a concern. Such areas include, but are not limited to, the two parcels that are the initial focus of this remedial action Chuck & Eddy's (C&E) and the Radio Station. Compliance wells will be installed at appropriate locations, to collect groundwater to evaluate long-term fluctuations in accordance with the monitoring requirements of the CT RSRs and other federal requirements to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy in the future.

    iv. Conduct operation, maintenance, and monitoring of engineering and institutional controls to ensure remedial measures are performing as intended and continue to protect human health and the environment in the long-term.

    v. Five-year reviews.

    The 2006 ROD addresses the threat presented by vapor intrusion through engineering controls, institutional controls, long-term monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews to prevent potential exposure to contamination that presents an unacceptable risk to human health. Engineering controls (i.e., vapor mitigation systems) will only be installed in the future if criteria listed in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD are exceeded and/or if new buildings are constructed on properties of concern.

    In August 2010 further testing was performed at the Highland Hills neighborhood and the results confirmed that there is no vapor intrusion risk to this neighborhood and thus no further action is necessary in this area. To confirm that any groundwater contamination that far from the landfill edge would be at depths greater than 15 feet and not pose a vapor intrusion risk, groundwater samples were collected sequentially in discrete vertical intervals and analyzed and compared to criteria presented in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD. Groundwater samples from two consecutive 1 foot intervals and subsequently every 5 feet down to 60 feet were collected and analyzed. There were no exceedances of any of the volatilization criteria in the upper 30 feet of the aquifer. These results confirm the conceptual Site model that there is no vapor intrusion pathway in groundwater below the Highland Hills subdivision and therefore no vapor intrusion risk.

    An investigation was conducted by the PSDs with EPA oversight in 2011 to confirm that the Site's groundwater plume was not migrating towards the portion of the aquifer classified by the State as GA [potable], situated to the south and southwest of the landfill. The investigation results demonstrated that the groundwater that is moving through the Landfill moves in a west/northwest direction, which continues to support the conceptual Site model for groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Thus, the Site groundwater plume does not flow toward or impact the GA aquifer. A more detailed description of this investigation and findings can be found in the GA Boundary Investigation Report (LEA, September 2011).

    A Vapor Intrusion Groundwater Investigation was performed by the PSDs during 2011 to assess the potential for vapor intrusion at the C&E's Property, the Radio Station Property, and at two locations along Nunzio Drive and Barbara Lane (located southwest of the Site). Soil boreholes were advanced at select locations and monitoring wells were installed. Soil and groundwater samples were collected from these locations for analysis. Soil vapor probes were installed in occupied structures at the C&E's Property and the Radio Station Property. Four quarterly rounds of soil vapor and groundwater samples were collected from June 2010 through September 2011. Only vinyl chloride was identified as slightly exceeding the criteria presented in Table L-1 of the 2006 ROD. No VOCs were detected at concentrations exceeding the State RSRs for soil vapor (LEA, 2014). Therefore, construction of remedial vapor mitigation systems for existing structures at the C&E's Property and the Radio Station Property identified in the 2006 ROD was unnecessary. However, a passive vapor barrier was installed under the concrete slab for a new structure built in 2010 at the C&E's Property.

    Residents and businesses have been permanently relocated from the landfill. The landfill has been properly capped and a soil gas collection system and impermeable gas barrier have been installed at the landfill. Therefore, there is no risk to human health or the environment from coming in contact with the landfill soil or landfill gas. In addition, everyone who lives or works in the area over the groundwater plume is connected to a municipal water supply, and so there is no ingestion or dermal contact with the contaminated groundwater. The route of potential exposure to human health is through vapor intrusion in the shallow groundwater that could potentially migrate into buildings. The 2006 remedy addresses this issue through long-term monitoring and implementation of vapor intrusion engineering controls and institutional controls. The components of 1994 and the 2006 remedies are functioning effectively as designed.

    Cleanup Levels

    Attainment of Groundwater Restoration Cleanup Levels is not a Remedial Action Objective at this Site. The final groundwater remedy is not designed to clean up or restore groundwater but to address potential risks from vapor intrusion into buildings located above shallow groundwater contaminated from the Site (EPA, 2006).

    Operation and Maintenance

    There is an ongoing O&M program instituted for the 1994 remedy that includes landfill cover maintenance, cap effectiveness monitoring (groundwater monitoring and gas vent monitoring), and landfill inspection. An Operation and Maintenance Plan was prepared in 2001 that details the inspections, maintenance, and monitoring activities (CRA, 2001). An inspection plan was developed to ensure integrity of the cover system. Routine inspections of the Site include observing and recording the height of grass cover and areas of settlement and/or ponding. A security inspection that includes a fence perimeter inspection and a visual inspection of trespasser or disturbance activity is also conducted periodically. The PSDs' contractor performs the cap effectiveness monitoring, inspections, non-routine maintenance. One PSD (Town of Southington) performs the soil cover maintenance on a routine basis (removal of debris and grass cutting).

    For the 2006 remedy, it was determined that no sub-slab vapor mitigation system was required for either the existing C&E property or the Radio Station buildings. However, as a preventative measure any new construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings would require sub-slab and/or engineering vapor intrusion mitigation measures. In 2010, a pre-fabricated building was constructed at the C&E property with the placement of a passive vapor barrier. This barrier was installed under the direction of the C&E property owner without EPA or CT DEEP oversight. As a result, in 2011 a second geomembrane was proposed for installation under the concrete slab as a passive vapor intrusion barrier. EPA and CT DEEP reviewed and approved the design. The installation with oversight, was approved by EPA and CT DEEP. A Vapor Intrusion Inspection Plan (VIIP) was developed by LEA in March 2018 that specifies inspection frequency on a biennial basis with mitigation steps as necessary. The VIIP is included in Appendix N of the Remedial Action Completion Report (LEA, 2018).

    Institutional Controls Implemented

    Institutional controls have been implemented for properties that comprise the Site and two properties located downgradient of the capped landfill to prevent consumption of groundwater, prevent activities that would compromise the integrity of the landfill cap, and restrict construction of structures over contaminated groundwater that exceed state groundwater standards with regard to preventing vapor intrusion exposures. These institutional controls address the requirements of both the 1994 and 2006 RODs. The institutional controls are environmental restrictions in the forms of “Declarations of Land Use Restrictive Covenants or “Declarations of Environmental Land Use Restrictions (ELURs)”.

    The September 14, 2010 ELURs were executed by the Town of Southington for the three Town-owned parcels located in the northern area of the capped landfill. In the ELURs, the Town agreed to: (1) Place notice of the restrictions on the deed, title, or other instrument and have it continue into perpetuity; (2) prohibit any use of any portion of the property that will disturb any of the remedial measures (except for maintenance and repair upon prior approval by EPA); (3) prohibit any activities that could result in exposure to contaminants in the subsurface soils and groundwater; (4) prohibit any future residential and commercial development on the property; (5) prohibit use or consumption of contaminated groundwater underlying the property; and (6) grant access to EPA, including its contractors, and the State for the purpose of conducting any activity related to the CDs. Finally, EPA, the State, and/or the PSDs have the right to enforce the ELURs. The April 9, 2018 ELURs were implemented for one Town-owned parcel located in the southern area of the capped landfill, which has the same restrictions as the September 14, 2010 ELURs.

    In September 17, 2015 ELURs were implemented by the CT DEEP for the remaining 9 state-owned parcels of the landfill. These ELURs have the same six restrictions as those described in the September 14, 2010 ELURs, plus an additional restriction that requires any new structure to be constructed in accordance to a plan approved by EPA that minimizes the risk of inhalation of contaminants. In addition, this ELUR indicates EPA and/or the PSDs have the right to enforce the restriction.

    The April 19, 2017 ELUR was recorded by the owners of the Radio Station Property. In this ELUR, the owners agreed to: (1) Restrict the construction of a building over groundwater at the Subject Area where volatile organic compounds concentrations exceed the RCSA Section 22a-133k-1(75) Volatilization Criteria (unless a release is obtained from the CT DEEP); (2) allow no action or inaction which would allow a risk of pollutant migration, or potential hazard to human health or the environment; or result in the disturbance of structural integrity of engineering controls used to contain pollutants or limit human exposure; (3) in the event of an emergency, notify the CT DEEP, implement measures to limit actual or potential risks to human health and the environment, implement a plan to ensure restoration of the property to conditions prior to the emergency; (4) not allow alterations to the property inconsistent with the ELUR until a release is approved by the CT DEEP; (5) allows access to the CT DEEP agents that perform pollution remediation activities; (6) allow access onto the property by the CT DEEP upon reasonable notice; and (7) require the property owner to notify any future interests of the ELUR requirements. This ELUR is enforceable by the CT DEEP.

    The June 22, 2017 Declaration of ELUR was recorded by the owner of the property where the C&E's Used Auto Parts business is located. This ELUR has the same seven restrictions as described in the April 2017 ELUR.

    Five-Year Review

    Hazardous substances will remain at the Site above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure after the completion of the action. Pursuant to CERCLA § 121(c) and as provided in the current guidance on Five-Year Reviews (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001), EPA must conduct statutorily required Five-Year Reviews. The first Five-Year Review was conducted in September 2005. The second and third Five-Year Reviews were completed in September 2010 and in September, 2015, respectively. The September 2015 Five-Year Review found the Site remedy currently protective of human health and the environment. There was one issue and recommendation, to complete the Institutional Controls at the C&E property and the Radio Station Property. The PSDs continued to work collaboratively with CT DEEP and the property owners at these two properties and in June 2017 institutional controls, in the form of ELURs, were finalized. These actions completed the 2015 Five-Year Review recommendation. The remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The next Five-Year Review is scheduled for September 2020.

    Community Involvement

    From approximately 1988 through 2002, community concern and involvement was high at this Site. EPA kept the community and other interested parties apprised of the Site's activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press releases and public meetings. In October 1988, EPA released a community relations plan that outlined a program to address community concerns to keep citizens informed and involved with remedial activities. On December 14, 1988, EPA held an informational meeting in the Southington Public Library to describe the plans for the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. In January 1993, a $50,000 technical assistance grant was awarded by EPA to a local group of citizens who called themselves, Southington of Landfill Victims, (SOLV) to hire a technical consultant to help them better understand the Site's technical data and information. This consultant provided the group technical assistance in interpreting technical documents relating to the remedial investigation, human and ecological risk assessments, remedial design, and remedial action. On May 23, 1994, EPA completed the administrative record which included documents that were used by EPA to propose the remedy for the Site. These documents were available for public review at EPA's offices in Boston, Massachusetts and at the Site Repository at the Southington Public Library, Southington, CT.

    The Proposed Plan was made available to the public on May 23, 1994. On June 14, 1994, EPA held a public meeting to discuss the results of the Remedial Investigation, the cleanup activities presented in the FS and to present the Agency's Proposed Plan. This was followed by a 30-day comment period. On June 29, 1994 residents requested an additional 30-day comment period to August 13, 1994, which was granted by EPA.

    On July 12, 1994, the Agency held a public hearing to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept oral comments. A transcript of this hearing and comments, along with the Agency's response to comments are included in the Responsiveness Summary found in Appendix A of the 1994 ROD.

    In June 2006 EPA issued a second Proposed Plan with a 60-day comment period from June 22, 2006 through August 24, 2006 for the final remedy to address vapor intrusion at properties downgradient of the landfill. On July 6, 2006 a public hearing was conducted to accept verbal comments. All comments were addressed in the responsiveness summary included in PART 3 of the 2006 ROD.

    After the 1994 ROD remedy was implemented, community involvement and interest decreased significantly. EPA continues to conduct community outreach through its Five-Year Reviews or any time there is new information to share with the public.

    EPA has worked closely with CT DEEP and the PSDs throughout the preparation of documentation for the deletion process. The community is being notified of EPA's intent to delete the Site from the NPL through the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete and the public will be provided with a 30-day comment period. EPA will take all of received comments into consideration and in consultation with CT DEEP, and will respond, as appropriate, to the comments in a responsiveness summary.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    All Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) activities at the Site were consistent with the 1994 ROD, the 2006 ROD, as well as all respective EPA Statements of Work provided by the PSDs. All selected remedial and removal action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. RA plans for all phases of construction included Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) which incorporated all EPA quality assurance and quality control procedures and protocols (where necessary). All procedures and protocols were followed for soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, soil gas, and fish tissue sampling. EPA analytical methods were used for all validation and monitoring during all RA activities. EPA has determined that the analytical results were accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RAs, and were consistent with the RODs and RD/RA plans and specifications.

    All Institutional Controls are in place and currently EPA expects that no further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment, other than future Five-Year Reviews, ongoing long-term monitoring, O&M, and inspections. Confirmatory groundwater monitoring and institutional controls provide further assurance that the Site no longer poses any threats to human health or the environment. Operation and maintenance activities were agreed upon by EPA, in consultation with CT DEEP, and the PSDs in the 2001 O&M Plan and the 2018 Vapor Intrusion Monitoring Plan (VIIP).

    EPA has followed the procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e). The Site meets all Site completion requirements as specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-09-A-P, Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. All cleanup actions specified in the 1994 and 2006 RODs have been achieved for all pathways of exposure. Therefore, no further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.

    A bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of this Site under the Superfund program are included in the administrative record for this deletion.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, and Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Alexandra Dunn, Regional Administrator Region 1.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15628 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2, 25 and 30 [GN Docket No. 14-177; WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 18-73] Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposed service rules to allow flexible fixed and mobile uses in additional bands and on refinements to the adopted rules in this document. A Final rule document for the Third Report and Order (3rd R&O) related to this document for the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (3rd FNPRM) is published in this issue of this Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before September 10, 2018; reply comments are due on or before September 28, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 14-177, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.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], phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    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:

    John Schauble of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-0797 or [email protected], Michael Ha of the Office of Engineering and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-2099 or [email protected], or Jose Albuquerque of the International Bureau, Satellite Division, at 202-418-2288 or [email protected]. For information regarding the PRA information collection requirements contained in this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Third Report and Order (3rd FNPRM), GN Docket No. 14-177, FCC 18-73, adopted on June 7, 2018 and released on June 8, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available on the Commission's website at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search function on the ECFS web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

    Comment Filing Procedures

    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/filings. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, GN Docket No. 14-177.

    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 Dr., Annapolis Junction, Annapolis MD 20701.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.

    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), 888-835-5322 (tty).

    Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose

    Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this 3rd FNPRM 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 § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 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.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present 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 the attached 3rd FNPRM. 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 as specified in the 3rd FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this 3rd FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 3rd FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The 3rd FNPRM contains proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees

    Synopsis I. 42-42.5 GHz Band A. Introduction

    1. The 42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) consists of 500 megahertz, allocated to non-Federal fixed and mobile services on a primary basis, and it contains no current Federal allocation or service rules. The adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band is allocated to the Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use and to the Federal fixed, fixed-satellite (Earth-to-space), and mobile except aeronautical mobile services on a primary basis. The allocations footnote corresponding to the 42.5-43.5 GHz band also requires that any assignments to the stations of other services also allocated to the band take all practicable steps to protect the RAS from harmful interference. Out-of-band signals into allocated radio astronomy bands can cause interference to radio astronomy observations. The Commission also notes that radio astronomy as a service frequently makes use of observations (passive) in bands not allocated to the RAS. This practice is a result of scientifically valuable signals being subject to the Doppler Effect and shifted in frequency outside radio astronomy-allocated bands. In its 2016 FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposal to authorize flexible fixed and mobile operations in the band under the new part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) rules, but only on the condition that adjacent channel RAS at 42.5-43.5 GHz could be protected. The FNPRM also sought specific comment and detailed study on what protections should be established for this adjacent band—for example, whether out-of-band emission limits into the 42.5-43.5 GHz band should be established or whether it was necessary or appropriate to create a guard band below 42.5 GHz. In addition to the appropriate licensing and technical rules, the Commission also sought comment on the appropriate band plan for the 42 GHz band—including whether the band should be licensed as a single channel, split into two channels, or split into multiple 100 megahertz channels—and whether to license the band geographically using Partial Economic Areas (PEAs). Although the Commission received comment on these various issues, in its 3rd FNPRM, the Commission seeks further comment on several of these proposals and issues, in light of recently enacted legislation that addresses the 42 GHz band.

    2. The MOBILE NOW Act, passed as part of the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018 provides that, within two years of its enactment, the Commission shall publish an NPRM “to consider service rules to authorize mobile or fixed terrestrial wireless operations, including for advanced mobile service operations,” in the 42 GHz band. Section 604(b) of the MOBILE NOW Act provides that, in conducting this rulemaking, the Commission shall: “(1) consider how the band described in subsection (a) may be used to provide commercial wireless broadband service, including whether — (A) such spectrum may be best used for licensed or unlicensed services, or some combination thereof; and (B) to permit additional licensed operations in such band on a shared basis; and (2) include technical characteristics under which the band described in subsection (a) may be employed for mobile or fixed terrestrial wireless operations, including any appropriate coexistence requirements.” Consistent with the MOBILE NOW Act, and out of an abundance of caution, the Commission issues this 3rd FNPRM to seek further comment on how the 42 GHz band could be used to provide commercial wireless broadband service including possible opportunities for unlicensed and/or shared use of the 42 GHz band.

    B. Suitability for Mobile and Fixed Use

    3. Background. The Commission previously proposed to authorize fixed and mobile service operations in the 42 GHz band under the part 30 UMFUS rules. In response to the Commission's FNPRM, most commenters generally supported establishing service rules that would allow the band to be flexibly licensed for fixed and mobile operations under part 30. Qualcomm and T-Mobile argue that flexible use will allow individual licensees to shape the nature of the services they provide. Intel and Samsung argue that authorizing UMFUS expansion in the 42 GHz band would place it within the `tuning range' of radio equipment designed for the 37-40 GHz bands, accelerating the deployment of technology capable of serving these bands. CTIA, Ericsson, Intel, and Samsung, among others, point to the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) WRC-19 identification of the entire 37-42.5 GHz band as a candidate to study for mobile services, and they argue for similar treatment domestically. Commenters supporting geographic area licensing explained why they believe the alternatives of unlicensed or shared licensed use were not appropriate.

    4. Various commenters view the global harmonization of this band, and 5G spectrum generally, as an important step towards greater manufacturing efficiencies and more rapid development and deployment of services. For example, Samsung notes that the Commission has frequently highlighted international harmonization of spectrum as a key policy goal and endorsed its benefits. Commenters present different views, however, on the timing of U.S. action on the band relative to ITU action. One commenter argues the FCC's studying bands like 42 GHz will supplement and advance the study efforts of ITU study groups. Lockheed Martin, however, opposes taking action in bands currently subject to ITU study because the Commission allegedly has provided no evidence it will protect incumbent services in these bands or respect the outcome of these studies. Alternatively, T-Mobile argues the Commission must address domestic wireless capacity requirements and should not await input from the ITU given that the international process can be manipulated to delay the designation of spectrum for terrestrial use.

    5. Certain FSS operators argue that the band should be licensed for satellite uses, and they raise arguments similar to those raised in petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's decision not to allocate the 42 GHz band for FSS. FWCC argues the band by itself is too narrow for fixed duplex operations and that, accordingly, the 42 GHz band should be combined with the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band to create a single band with rules for fixed operations. The Commission notes that although in its R&O, the Commission deleted the broadcasting and broadcasting-satellite service allocations from the 42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) and declined to allocate the band to the fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth), the Commission again declines to reverse those decisions. The Commission also declines to revisit its decision to deny FWCC's prior request that it establish service rules to enable fixed service at 42 GHz under part 101 of its Rules.

    6. Discussion. The Commission tentatively concludes that its part 30 UMFUS Rules provide the best opportunity to provide commercial wireless broadband service to the public in this band. The ability to use this band together with the existing 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands, the international consideration of this band for mobile use, and the availability of 500 megahertz of unassigned spectrum all support the Commission's conclusion that this band is suitable for flexible use. In view of the extensive support in the record, the Commission proposes to authorize fixed and mobile licensed operations in this band under part 30, and the Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and on alternate proposals. In particular, consistent with the MOBILE NOW Act, the Commission seeks comment on whether unlicensed services should be permitted in the band under part 30, or whether licensed services, unlicensed services, or other types of sharing besides unlicensed and licensed should be permitted under other rule parts as well. Proponents of unlicensed uses or sharing in the band between various types of operations should provide technical studies describing how such operations should coexist and share this band.

    7. The Commission also seeks to refresh the record on the previous proposal in the 2016 FNPRM to add Federal fixed and mobile allocations in this band and a framework under which both Federal and non-Federal operations could share. Under this proposal, the Commission would add a Federal allocation to the fixed and mobile services on a primary basis for Federal use in addition to the current non-Federal allocation.

    C. Licensing, Technical, and Service Rules

    8. Introduction. In the FNPRM, the Commission previously sought comment on licensing the 42 GHz band under the part 30 UMFUS licensing and technical rules. The Commission sought comment on whether the 42 GHz band should be licensed for exclusive use by PEAs, and commenters have generally supported this proposal. The FNPRM's proposal contemplated that licensing and operations in the 42 GHz band would be subject to the part 30 rules concerning permissible communications, initial authorizations, license term, construction requirements, partitioning and disaggregation, discontinuance of service, equipment authorization, power limits, emission limits, field strength limits, international coordination, RF safety, flexible duplexing, and competitive bidding procedures. Commenters have thus far generally supported applying the existing licensing and technical rules to the 42 GHz band. The Commission will consider those comments in resolving those issues, as well as additional comments. Further, as described below, the Commission seeks comment on additional considerations regarding protection of radio astronomy at 42.5-43.5 GHz, and the band plan for the 42 GHz band.

    9. Protecting RAS Services at 42.5-43.5 GHz. As noted above, the Commission previously proposed to authorize flexible mobile and fixed operations in the 42 GHz band, as long as RAS could be protected in the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band, and it sought comment on and invited detailed study of the forms that such protection should take given the location of RAS observatories. In response, The National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) informed the Commission that RAS observations are currently made at a limited set observatories around the U.S. These sites are the GBT in Green Bank, WV, the VLA at Soccoro, NM, the Haystack Observatory in Westford, MA, and ten sites of the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), noted in the Table of Allocations footnote US 131. CORF asserted that frequency lines at 42.519, 42.821, 43.122, and 43.424 GHz are of the greatest importance for the detection of strong silicon monoxide maser emissions from stars and star forming regions—important for measuring stellar temperature, density, wind velocity and other parameters. The 42 GHz band also is one of the preferred bands for measuring continuum observations. Because of the very low signal levels being measured, RAS telescopes are particularly vulnerable to in-band emissions, spurious out-of-band emissions, and emissions producing harmonics, making protection all the more important. CORF stated that the detrimental levels for continuum and spectral line radio astronomy observations for single dishes are −227 dBW/m2/Hz and −210 dBW/m2/Hz, respectively, for the average across the full 1 gigahertz of the 42.5-43.5 GHz band and the peak level in any single 500 kHz channel, as based upon ITU-R RA.769, Tables 1 and 2, respectively. For observations using the entire VLBA, the corresponding limit is −175 dBW/m2/Hz.

    10. Proponents of using the 42 GHz band for flexible terrestrial wireless use generally agree that there are various effective means to protect RAS, including use of exclusion zones, coordination zones, and aggregate emissions limits—particularly since RAS sites are generally in remote locations. No commenter, however, provided studies or examples showing how these proposed methods would work in practice in this particular band. T-Mobile suggested that coordination with RAS should be required within a defined coordination distance. The Commission notes that CORF and T-Mobile agree that the relevant received power spectrum density at the RAS receiver should be the parameters established by ITU-R RA.769. The Commission agrees with CORF and T-Mobile that RAS bands can be protected by limiting UMFUS operations near a RAS. However, because no one has submitted technical studies regarding protection of RAS in this band, the Commission does not currently have sufficient information to propose specific rules to protect RAS facilities. The Commission seeks comment on how it can protect RAS facilities in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from UMFUS operations in 42-42.5 GHz. Should the Commission's rule be based on the ITUR RA.769 parameters or are there alternative protection criteria? The Commission also seeks comment on establishing coordination zones around the relevant RAS facilities, and on the appropriate distance at which coordination with RAS should be required.1 Interested parties should provide detailed technical analysis of the coexistence of RAS with terrestrial mobile operations that fully supports any proposed distance or methodology. The Commission also seeks comment on other proposals for ensuring protection of RAS facilities in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band.

    1 The National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) has special protections afforded outside the allocated bands requiring coordination. The NRQZ does work with mobile radio providers, but coordination is required for operation of any mobile radio service above 24 GHz in the NRQZ. Also, as with the existing coordination requirements for the 37-38 GHz band, any coordination requirement would require licensees to coordinate all operations.

    11. Band Plan. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether the band's 500 megahertz of spectrum should be licensed as a single channel, split in two, or broken into various multiple sizes. In response, several commenters noted the value of 100 megahertz channels as an acceptable outcome, particularly in a band such as 42 GHz where less spectrum is available. The Commission proposes to license the 42 GHz band as 100 megahertz channels because this size would be consistent with developing industry standards that maximize spectral efficiency, all the while permitting interested parties to aggregate these channels should they desire larger bands. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Commenters seeking alternative-e band plans should justify why they believe other channel sizes would better serve future services they envision for this band.

    II. 37-37.6 GHz (Lower 37 GHz Band)—Licensing Frameworks

    12. Background. The Federal and non-Federal allocations of the 37-38.6 GHz Band (37 GHz Band) are as follows: The entire 37 GHz band (37-38.6 GHz) is allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use.2 Portions of the 37 GHz band are also allocated to the Space Research Service (SRS) (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis for Federal use (37-38 GHz) and to the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis for non-Federal use (37.5-38.6 GHz). The use of this FSS downlink allocation is limited to individually licensed earth stations and is also subject to other limitations. In addition, the 37 GHz band is adjacent to the 36-37 GHz band, where passive sensors in the Earth exploration satellite service (EESS) and SRS are located.

    2 The Commission has modified the mobile service allocation in the 37-38 GHz band to exclude the aeronautical mobile service, i.e., the 37-38 GHz band is allocated to the mobile except aeronautical mobile service.

    13. In the R&O, the Commission adopted rules to permit fixed and mobile terrestrial operation in the 37 GHz band. The Commission also adopted a licensing regime for the 37.6-38.6 GHz portion of the band (Upper 37 GHz Band), which would be licensed in five 200 megahertz blocks on a geographical area basis, and made the Lower 37 GHz band available for coordinated co-primary sharing between Federal and non-Federal users. The Commission identified non-Federal users as Shared Access Licensees (SAL) and decided that such users would be licensed by rule. The Commission explained that Federal and non-Federal users will access the Lower 37 GHz Band through a coordination mechanism, which it would develop more fully through government/industry collaboration. The Commission adopted the same technical rules for the Lower 37 GHz Band and the Upper 37 GHz Band.

    14. In the FNPRM, the Commission stated that Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile users would access the Lower 37 GHz Band by registering individual sites through a coordination mechanism. The Commission explained that the coordination mechanism is the regulatory, technical, or procedural tool necessary to actually facilitate coordinated access, will authorize a particular user to use a particular bandwidth of spectrum at a particular location. The Commission stated that the coordination mechanism must; (1) be able to obtain information about the type of equipment used, the signal contour from the coordinated location, and the bandwidth requested compared with the bandwidth available; (2) be capable of regularly updating the status of a coordinated location (on/off or authorized/unauthorized); and (3) be able to incorporate this type of information for both Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile uses. The Commission sought comment on the coordination mechanism and the functions that it should be able to perform. The Commission also proposed that registered non-Federal sites must be put into service within seven days of coordination and that registered and coordinated sites must reassert their registration every seven days. The Commission sought comment on: Whether a portion of the lower band segment should be made available for priority access by Federal users, whether an enforcement mechanism in the lower band segment is necessary to help identify and rectify interference events, and whether and how to apply secondary market rules to the lower band segment.

    15. Two commenters, Starry and Intel, offer recommendations on the specific regulatory, technical, or procedural tool necessary to facilitate coordinated access in the Lower 37 GHz band. Starry proposes site-based registration through a third-party coordinator. Under its proposal, licensees would file “specific information about each site sufficient for a third-party coordinator to conduct an interference analysis,” including its location, height above ground level, EIRP, transmitter azimuth, and channel size. In addition, “end points operating under the control of a registered transmitter” would not be registered individually, and would instead fall under the authorization of the transmitter.” The third-party coordinator would conduct an interference analysis under which previously registered sites would be protected at a modeled receive signal strength of −79 dBm/10 MHz assuming a test antenna at the end points with a gain of 25 dBi, at a height of 10 meters above ground. Also, under this proposal, licensees would be able to negotiate alternative sharing arrangements and sites would be required to be constructed and in operation within 120 days after the registration is accepted. Under Starry's proposal, there would be clear penalties for registering unused sites. Starry also offers additional ideas for an enhanced sharing framework that could be implemented over time. No party responded to Starry's proposal. Intel's proposal would use a database similar to the database used for the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, except that the database would also play a role in frequency coordination.

    16. Discussion. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to further develop the record regarding the coordination mechanism that it would expect to use, as between either two or more non-Federal entities or between Federal and non-Federal entities. In order to facilitate shared use of the Lower 37 GHz band between Federal and non-Federal users, as well as among non-Federal users, the Commission seeks comment on a proposed coordination mechanism and alternatives, as set forth below. The Commission anticipates that a sharing mechanism would facilitate quick access to spectrum without unreasonable processing delays and a predictable path for future coordination in the band among stakeholders. The Commission recognizes the importance of the Lower 37 GHz band to future Federal operations, and it will work in partnership with NTIA, DoD, and other Federal agencies to develop a sharing approach that allows for robust Federal and non-Federal use in this band.

    17. In designing a licensing mechanism for the Lower 37 GHz Band, the Commission seeks to accommodate a variety of use cases that may develop for this band—in essence, the Commission envisions Lower 37 GHz as an innovation band in the mmW spectrum. In particular, the Commission anticipates that there will be at least four types of non-Federal deployments in the Lower 37 GHz Band: Point-to-point links (for example backhaul and backbone links); fixed wireless broadband systems (generally consisting of a fixed access point and fixed subscriber units); single base station IoT-type systems (for example, in a factory); and carrier-based deployments of mobile systems using the Lower 37 GHz Band as supplemental capacity tied to other bands that are licensed on a geographic area basis. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are additional types of deployments contemplated for this band. If so, what would those additional uses be, and how would they affect the licensing of the Lower 37 GHz Band?

    18. As detailed above, Starry proposes a model in which proposed facilities would be registered with a third-party coordinator. Another possible model, under which the Commission would issue licenses authorizing operations, would be the coordination model used in part 101 point-to-point bands. In order to complete frequency coordination, an applicant must give prior notice to nearby licensees and other applicants for licenses of the proposed applicant's operations, make reasonable efforts to avoid interference and resolve conflicts, and certify to the Commission that the proposed operation has been coordinated. Once the applicant has completed frequency coordination, the applicant must file an application for authorization with the Commission, specifying the latitude and longitude of the transmitter to be used to an accuracy of one second. The applicant must coordinate each operation, including any change in the location of the transmitter of more than five seconds in latitude or longitude or both, and must apply for a modification of their license. Similarly, if the applicant later seeks to deploy additional transmitters, the Commission's part 101 rules require coordination of those facilities and the applicant must apply for modification of the license. The Commission seeks comment on the relative merits of using these coordination models in the Lower 37 GHz band. The Commission also seeks comment on the criteria that it should use to determine whether predicted interference would be harmful. If actual harmful interference occurs after successful coordination, how should the interference be resolved? How will future Federal operations be accommodated in the sharing framework and what parameters will be used to develop a trigger for required coordination? Given that the Commission is proposing construction requirements for non-Federal licensees in this band, as discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on how best to enforce those requirements in an environment where registrations are not filed with the Commission.

    19. For the four types of deployments, the Commission seeks comment on a first-come-first-served licensing or registration scheme, in which actual users have a right to interference protection, but no right to exclude other users. The Commission seeks comment on subsequent users being required to coordinate with previously registered non-Federal and Federal sites through part 101 notice and response rules or on the alternative of registering facilities with a third-party coordinator.

    20. With regard to Federal sites, the Commission proposes to require non-Federal users to work with Federal users in good faith to coordinate any new system Federal users may seek to deploy. The Commission anticipates that non-Federal users would not be required to agree to coordination requests that would carry a significant risk of harmful interference. The Commission seeks comment on the criteria that it should use to determine whether interference is harmful. Is the coordination trigger that Starry proposes appropriate, or should the Commission use an alternative set of criteria? The Commission seeks comment on the best means of coordinating with Federal operations. The Commission intends to adopt as part of the rules a coordination methodology that will facilitate coordination for the kinds of cases that it anticipates may be typical. This will allow us to test the assumption that any coordination zone typically “can be measured in meters rather than kilometers.” To do so, the Commission will work with NTIA, on behalf of Federal users, and with industry to identify those cases. DoD has expressed an interest in a possible aeronautical allocation in the Lower 37 GHz band, so the Commission anticipates including aeronautical cases in its consideration of coordination methodologies.

    21. The Commission expects the identification and analysis of these cases to be a critical component to its understanding of the extent that the band can be shared dynamically. Commenters should address how to prevent “warehousing,” whereby a licensee preserves its rights without providing actual service. Should licensees receive any protection before they have completed construction and begun operations? How should “operation” be defined and how can the Commission plan to monitor compliance, including whether operations have been discontinued? Should the Commission put limits on the aggregate area, or amount of spectrum, that any one licensee or its affiliates can protect? These issues are critical to establishing the co-primary sharing rights that the Commission envisions for this band.

    22. To the extent that the solution to preserving Federal entity's options may be to reserve a part of the band for their priority use, the Commission seeks comment on how to define such priority rights. Are there geographic areas where such priority rights would have little or no adverse impact on non-Federal operations and, if so, what should be the process for identifying those areas? The Commission seeks comment on alternative approaches that can be used to ensure Federal and non-Federal users will have access to the band to meet their needs.

    23. Below, the Commission seeks comment on whether offering three types of non-Federal licenses—point-to-point licenses; base stations licenses; and site-cluster licenses—would facilitate deployment in the Lower 37 GHz band.

    24. Point-to-point licenses. The Commission seeks comment on requiring individual point-to-point links to be coordinated with previously licensed or registered sites using part 101 notice and response rules. If it is determined that the proposed link would not interfere or could be modified not to interfere with previously licensed or registered sites, then a license would be issued for the specific point-to-point link in the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) to establish future interference protection rights. A point-to-point licensee would be required to construct its sites within 18 months from the date the site was registered. If the licensee fails to construct these sites within the 18 months, the licensee might be prohibited from reapplying for that specific link for 12 months. The Commission seeks comment on this approach, as well as alternatives. Are there other methods that would facilitate licensing of point-to-point links? The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require licensees to file individual construction notices in order to facilitate enforcement of construction obligations. The Commission seeks comment on the relative costs and benefits of this licensing mechanism.

    25. Base station licenses. The Commission seeks comment on permitting an applicant to select a point around which it would get a license for a specific site with either a 360 degree radius or a defined sector of a 360 degree radius. This license also would authorize any customer premises equipment (such as equipment used for point-to-multipoint networks) or mobile devices operating in conjunction with the licensed base station. The licensee would receive interference protection for a certain specified distance, for example one kilometer, that would then be a protection zone. The Commission proposes to require that individual base stations be coordinated with previously licensed or registered sites using part 101 notice and response rules. If it is determined that the proposed base station license would not interfere or could be modified to not interfere with a previously licensed or registered site, then a license would be issued in ULS to establish future interference protection rights. Under this licensing scheme, a subsequent licensee would not be precluded from licensing either a point-to-point link or a base station, or from registering a facility under a site-cluster license (discussed below) within a previously established protection zone, as long as it can be coordinated successfully with any previously licensed or registered facilities. The Commission proposes to require that a base station licensee must construct its site within 18 months from the date the site was licensed. If the licensee fails to construct its site within the 18 months, the Commission proposes that the licensee be prohibited from reapplying for a base station license covering any portion of the same area for 12 months. The Commission seeks comment on this approach, as well as alternatives commenters might propose. Are there other means or requirements that would facilitate licensing of these types of deployments? The Commission seeks comment on whether it should require licensees to file individual construction notices. If so, should these construction notices be filed with the Commission or with a third-party database administrator? The Commission seeks comment on the relative costs and benefits of this licensing mechanism.

    26. Site-cluster licenses. The Commission recognizes that operators proposing 5G deployments may have difficulties determining the precise locations of their facilities, particularly in instances where they are deploying a large number of facilities. Requiring licensees to identify specific locations, file applications for each individual facility, and then wait 30 days for each application to undergo the mandatory public notice period may not promote efficient deployment of 5G services. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the use of a novel concept to address this issue: The site-cluster license. Under a site-cluster license, instead of licensing individual base stations or point-to-point links, the applicant would license a larger (e.g., 5 km) non-exclusive point-radius license within which it could register individual base stations and/or point-to-point links. Much like the licensing paradigm for the 70-80 GHz band, a non-exclusive point and radius license would not authorize operation, but rather would authorize the licensee to register individual base stations and/or point-to-point links within its non-exclusive site cluster area. A site-cluster licensee would not have the right to preclude facilities proposed by other licensees. To receive interference protection for specific facilities within the site-cluster, the applicant would have to coordinate those facilities with other Federal and non-Federal Lower 37 GHz licensees (point-to-point, base station, or site-cluster) within the radius of its site cluster area, and register each specific facility. First-in-time rights would be triggered only for those facilities that are successfully registered. The Commission proposes that applicants for site-cluster licenses would file in ULS and would be issued a non-exclusive site-cluster license for a specific radius. Should individual base stations or point-to-point links registered under the umbrella of the site cluster license be registered either in ULS or, alternatively in a third-party database? The Commission seeks comment on the relative costs and benefits of either approach. Is this concept an effective means of facilitating large deployments?

    27. The Commission seeks comment on two buildout requirements for site-cluster licenses. First, a buildout period by which an applicant with a site-cluster license must register and construct a minimum of one specific facility within its site cluster area. Second, a buildout period for each specific site that the applicant registers, which would require the applicant to build that site within a specified period after registration. The Commission seeks comment on what those buildout periods should be. The Commission proposes that failure to meet its buildout requirement would preclude the applicant from reapplying for a non-exclusive license in that area for a certain period. The Commission seeks comment on what that period of time should be. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should require licensees to file individual construction notices. If so, should these construction notices be filed with the Commission or with a third-party database administrator? The Commission also seeks comment on alternative means of enforcing construction requirements. As mentioned above, the Commission seeks comment on what rights a registrant should have before it actually constructs its facility and begins operations.

    III. 37.0-38.6 GHz (37 GHz Band)

    28. With regard to Federal co-primary access to the 37 GHz band, the R&O adopted rules that establish the coordination zones for the 14 military sites and three scientific sites identified by NTIA, and noted the ability for Federal agencies to add future sites on a coordinated basis. The Commission seeks comment on how best to accommodate coordination zones for future Federal operations at a limited number of additional sites. For instance, should the Commission supplement § 30.205 to add more specific sites for Federal operations, or should it establish a process that would permit Federal entities in the future to identify a limited number of additional sites on an as-needed basis? The Commission also seeks comment on whether the coordination zones previously established in § 30.205 might be reduced to better accommodate nearby non-Federal operations without adversely impacting Federal operations at those sites.

    IV. 25.25-27.5 GHz Band (26 GHz Band) A. Suitability for Mobile Use

    29. Background. In this proceeding, the Commission has authorized mobile services in the 700 megahertz of spectrum in the 24 GHz band and 850 megahertz of spectrum in the 28 GHz band). In the U.S., the 25.25-27.5 GHz (“26 GHz”) band is allocated primarily for Federal government services, but Commenters in this proceeding note that there is a growing international consensus that terrestrial mobile services should be authorized in the broader 24.25-27.5 GHz band. This year the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) has adopted a preliminary determination to make the 24.25-27.5 GHz band a “clear priority” for harmonization of 5G services throughout Europe and to promote it for worldwide harmonization at WRC-19. In addition, at least eight countries in other parts of the world are also preparing to authorize terrestrial mobile services in that range. In February, 2018, ITU-R Task Group 5/1 issued a set of preliminary technical analyses concluding that the band can be shared among terrestrial mobile and incumbent services. Most of the contributors represented national governments, including the U.S.

    30. Discussion. As noted above, in regional and international forums leading to the World Radiocommunication Conference 2019 (WRC-19), the frequency range from 24.25-27.5 GHz has emerged as the leading candidate for 5G services, referred to in ITU parlance as “International Mobile Telecommunication 2020” (IMT-2020). The international momentum presents the Commission with an opportunity to consider whether the 26 GHz band would be suitable for flexible fixed and mobile use. The Commission notes that in the U.S., the 25.25-27.5 GHz (“26 GHz”) band is allocated primarily for Federal government services.

    31. Equipment manufacturers indicate that they can readily integrate the 26 GHz band into a tuning range that includes two bands that the United States has already authorized for mobile services, the 24 GHz band (24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz) and the 28 GHz band (27.5-28.35 GHz). That presents three opportunities—first, to achieve manufacturing economies by covering several bands with a single radio; second, to provide international roaming capability in affordable user devices, and third, to accelerate the availability of equipment in newly authorized bands that share a tuning range with early-deployed bands. Some commenters also contend that the 26 GHz band has better coverage characteristics than other bands that might potentially be available at higher frequencies.

    32. The Commission will continue to actively support the 24 GHz and 28 GHz bands. At the same time, the Commission believes the 26 GHz band could be suitable for flexible fixed and mobile use. It is relatively near to the 24 GHz and 28 GHz bands, which the Commission has already found suitable for fixed and mobile use. The amount of spectrum potentially available (over two gigahertz) could make this band a useful addition to UMFUS. The Commission recognizes that it would need to work out suitable sharing or protection arrangements with Federal incumbents in the band. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 26 GHz band could be made available for non-Federal fixed and mobile use.

    B. Spectrum Sharing and Compatibility

    33. Existing allocations for the 26 GHz band in this country are mostly Federal. While Federal use of the 26 GHz band to this point has been fairly limited, the Commission recognizes that Federal agencies may aspire to make heavier use of that band in the future. Any exploration of private sector opportunities in the band must therefore address the potential for spectrum sharing and compatibility among diverse participants.

    1. Protection of Incumbents

    34. Background. The Federal allocations for the 25.25-27.5 GHz bands in this country generally follow the ITU's international allocations. In the Federal column of the U.S. Table of Allocations, the entire 25.25-27.5 GHz band has primary allocations for Fixed (FS), Mobile (MS), and Inter-Satellite (ISS) services, with Inter-Satellite limited to space research and Earth exploration-satellite applications, along with transmissions of data originating from industrial and medical activities in space. The 25.5-27 GHz band has a primary allocation for both Federal and non-Federal Space Research service (SRS) (space-to-Earth), with non-Federal Earth exploration-satellite service (EESS) subject to case-by-case electromagnetic compatibility analysis.

    35. Consistent with the international community's focus on making the 24.25-27.5 GHz band available for terrestrial mobile services, a.k.a. IMT, ITU-R's Study Group 5 Task Group 5/1 (TG 5/1) has been conducting extensive studies to evaluate the potential for sharing and compatibility in that range between mobile and EESS, SRS, FS, FSS, and ISS. As directed by WRC-15 Resolution 238, TG 5/1 has focused on ensuring the protection of EESS and SRS earth stations operating in the 25.5-27 GHz band segment. The U.S. contribution to the EESS/SRS Study found that the coordination distances necessary to prevent IMT from causing interference is 52 km for SRS and 7 km for EESS.

    36. Discussion. The Commission seeks comment on the best ways to protect existing incumbent operations and systems that Federal agencies might choose to deploy in the future, including identifying appropriate separation distances. The Commission invites comment on steps it could take to facilitate sharing now and in the future. For example, should the Commission give priority to Federal operations at certain locations such as military bases and test ranges? Alternatively, can the Commission strike an appropriate balance by ensuring deployment of Federal operations provided they do not affect more than a certain amount of population? Or might the Commission provide priority to non-Federal operations in a certain number of markets, with priority to Federal operations elsewhere? To what extent would it be possible to develop coordination mechanisms between licensees and Federal operations?

    37. The Commission notes that the United States and other governments have submitted detailed sharing and compatibility studies for a frequency range that includes the 26 GHz band, which are being evaluated by that group. In general, it appears that protection zones around existing EESS and SRS earth stations would affect only small percentages of the overall U.S. population, though their impact on specific localities could be significant for the affected populations. The protection radiuses being considered by TG 5/1 are generally intended to serve only as triggers to begin a coordination process. The final definitions of exclusion zones around particular earth stations will need to take into account a variety of local factors, including terrain, clutter, and network design features that could mitigate the effect of IMT deployment inside coordination zones. The Commission also seeks comment on the best means of protecting existing fixed links in the band. The Commission notes that there are well-established protocols for coordinating Federal and non-Federal point-to-point services.

    38. The 26 GHz band currently has Federal fixed and mobile allocations in addition to the EESS, ISS, and SRS allocations. While Federal use of the 26 GHz band appears to be fairly limited to this point, the Commission recognizes that Federal agencies may be considering various potential uses for this spectrum in the future. It is difficult to predict what those services might be, their characteristics, and where they may be deployed. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that the nature of the technology apt to be used in this region of the spectrum is likely to enable sharing using such techniques as geographic separation, highly directional antennas, and taking advantage of the relatively high path losses to enable operation in close proximity. This should make sharing between Federal and non-Federal systems easier than it has been at lower frequencies. Nevertheless, sharing the 26 GHz band between Federal and non-Federal systems will still require a carefully developed framework. The Commission intends to work closely with NTIA to enable UMFUS use of the 26 GHz band while preserving the ability of Federal users to develop and deploy new technologies and services in the 26 GHz band. The Commission intends to explore a number of different approaches for sharing the band. For example, this may involve sharing the band using a framework similar to what the Commission is proposing for the lower 37 GHz band. Alternately, the Commission may set aside portions of the 26 GHz band for exclusively Federal use while making other portions available exclusively for non-Federal use. The Commission may limit non-Federal use of the band to certain geographic areas while reserving use of the band in other areas for Federal use. The Commission request comments on various approaches to sharing the 26 GHz band between UMFUS licensees and both existing and future Federal operations.

    2. Spectrum Sharing and Compatibility With Other New Services

    39. Background. Elefante proposes to deploy what it calls “persistent stratospheric-based communications infrastructure” at altitudes below 20 km in the 26 GHz band, and it says that ITU study groups are conducting studies for stations that would operate at altitudes between 20 and 50 km. Having analyzed the band with Lockheed Martin, Elefante concludes that spectrum sharing between unaffiliated mobile deployments and persistent stratospheric communications systems may not be possible absent an extremely high degree of dynamic coordination and information sharing. On that basis, Elefante recommends that UMFUS not be authorized in the 26 GHz band.

    40. Discussion. Where a high-altitude platform stations (HAPS) or Elefante-style platform is deployed above the center of an urban area, ground stations in the urban core would presumably communicate with the airborne station at relatively high elevation angles, which would allow shorter separation distances from terrestrial mobile equipment. By contrast, ground stations in the periphery of the urban area would likely require lower elevation angles to communicate with the airborne platform and would therefore require larger separation distances. A HAPS operator or Elefante might also choose to deploy some of their airborne platforms away from urban cores, which would enable some ground stations in exurban or rural areas to communicate at high elevation angles and with limited separation from terrestrial systems.

    41. In light of the above, the Commission invites comment on Elefante's conclusion that spectrum sharing between airborne platform services (i.e., both HAPS and systems such as Elefante's that would operate at lower altitudes) and unaffiliated UMFUS operators would be infeasible, and that UMFUS should therefore not be authorized in the 26 GHz band.3 Alternatively, the Commission inquires whether it should prohibit airborne platform systems in the band, or authorize airborne platform services only if they are affiliated with UMFUS licensees. The Commission also invites comment on any additional spectrum-sharing techniques that might reduce the required separation distances between UMFUS equipment and ground stations communicating with airborne platforms. Finally, the Commission invites comment on any other new or proposed services, Federal or non-Federal, that should be given priority over UMFUS in the band or, alternatively, would be compatible with UMFUS and with incumbent services.

    3 On May 31, 2018, Elefante filed a petition for rulemaking to establish the Stratospheric-Based Communications Services (SBCS). This petition is pending, and the Commission has not initiated the requested rulemaking proceeding at this time. The Commission sees no basis for deferring initial consideration of flexible fixed and mobile use of the 26 GHz band, as Elefante requests.

    C. Licensing the 26 GHz Band

    42. Background. In the R&O, the Commission noted that in recent years it has sought greater consistency in its approach to geographic license area sizes in order to help providers aggregate licenses in a more targeted and efficient manner, and that it has gravitated toward license areas that are derived from Economic Area (EA) units. Because Partial Economic Areas (PEAs) nest into EAs but can also be broken down into counties, the Commission found that choosing them would strike the right balance by facilitating access to spectrum by large and small providers, simplifying frequency coordination, and incentivizing investment. By contrast, the Commission decided to license the 28 GHz band by counties, primarily because the band was already licensed by Basic Trading Areas (BTAs), which could not readily be reformed into either EAs or PEAs. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission selected PEAs as the geographic unit for UMFUS licenses in two other bands, the 24 GHz and 47 GHz.

    43. Discussion. The Commission seeks comment on using geographic area licensing and adopting PEAs as the geographic license area size for UMFUS licenses in the 26 GHz band. The Commission also seeks comment on site-based licensing, as well as other licensing mechanisms. Geographic area licensing may provide licensees with the flexibility to provide a variety of services, and will foster innovation and investment and thereby spur deployment. Will geographic area licensing facilitate coexistence between Federal and non-Federal uses? If the Commission decides to use geographic area licensing, PEAs also appear to provide a balance between the larger areas that can encourage more investment, and the smaller areas that can more efficiently accommodate mmW propagation characteristics. To the extent licensees are interested in smaller areas, partitioning is an available option. Commenters favoring site-based licensing or other licensing methods should set forth specific proposals for licensing the 26 GHz band. Given the amount of spectrum available, should the Commission consider using different licensing approaches in different parts of the band?

    D. Band Plan

    44. Background. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission acknowledged that most millimeter-wave mobile design work is being built around 100-megahertz building blocks. It chose to license the 700 megahertz in the 24 GHz band as seven 100-megahertz channels and to license the 1,000 megahertz in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band as five 200-megahertz channels. In the R&O, the Commission decided to issue new licenses for the 28 GHz band in two 450-megahertz blocks, and it divided the 39 GHz band into seven 200-megahertz channels.

    45. Discussion. If carriers will eventually require 200 megahertz bandwidths to meet their customers' needs, the Commission recognizes that the necessity of combining smaller channels to achieve the requisite scale could involve transaction costs that might eventually be passed on to consumers. On the other hand, 100 megahertz channels would increase the opportunity for competitive entry into the band and provide flexibility for uses that might require less spectrum. With those countervailing considerations in mind, the Commission seeks comment on adopting channel bandwidths of 100 megahertz or, in the alternative, 200 megahertz for the 26 GHz band.

    V. 50.4-51.4 GHz Band

    46. Background. The 50.4-51.4 GHz band includes primary Federal and non-Federal allocations for fixed and mobile services, as well as primary Federal and non-Federal allocations for fixed-satellite (Earth-to-space) and mobile satellite (Earth-to-space) services. In 1998, in the V-Band First Report and Order, the Commission designated the 50.4-51.4 GHz band for use by wireless (fixed and mobile) services. In the FNPRM in the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, the Commission proposed to authorize fixed and mobile operations throughout the 50.4-52.6 GHz band in accordance with the part 30 UMFUS rules. The Commission also proposed to use geographic area licensing to license UMFUS stations on a PEA basis and sought comment on sharing with satellite services. The Commission has received eight satellite applications or market access requests and twenty earth station applications seeking to use the existing FSS (Earth-to-space) allocation in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band for delivery of broadband services.

    47. In response to the FNPRM, certain satellite companies request that the Commission designate satellite services in the 50.4-52.4 GHz band currently allocated to FSS. Echostar supports preserving the co-primary status of FSS and terrestrial fixed/mobile services in the 50.4-52.4 GHz band and recommends adopting spectrum sharing rules that recognize likely deployment scenarios by the different services. CTIA asserts that any technical requirements should be equivalent to the Commission's part 30 rules for other shared bands. To the extent the Commission decides to adopt a sharing framework in the band, Viasat urges the Commission to consider broader and more balanced sharing between the services on a true co-primary basis at 50.4-52.4 GHz instead of imposing the “three earth stations per license area” framework adopted for the 28 GHz Band.

    48. Discussion. Although the 50.4-52.6 GHz band remains under consideration for UMFUS licensing, the Commission has throughout this proceeding sought to promote spectrum efficiency by permitting spectrum made available for UMFUS to be shared with other allocated services when possible. As in the case of other bands shared between co-primary terrestrial and fixed-satellite services, (e.g., 24.75-25.25 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz and 47.2-48.2 GHz), the Commission believes that in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band, where an FSS allocation already exists, that a limited number of individually licensed FSS earth stations can share the 50.4-51.4 GHz band with minimal impact on terrestrial operations. Therefore, the Commission proposes to adopt rules permitting licensing of individual FSS earth stations in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band using the criteria identical to those applicable in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band. Specifically, the Commission proposes to apply the permitted aggregate population limits within the specified earth station PFD contour on a per-county basis, similar to the requirement in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band. Additionally, as in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band, the Commission proposes to adopt constraints on the number of permitted earth stations, not only per county, but also per PEA in which the earth stations are located. To reflect these requirements, the Commission proposes to modify § 25.136(g) of the Commission's rules to include the 50.4-51.4 GHz band. The Commission also proposes to amend footnote NG65 to the U.S. Table to include the 50.4-51.4 GHz band, making clear the relative interference protection obligations between the co-primary services. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

    VI. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies in the 26 GHz and 42 GHz Bands

    49. In this 3rd R&O, the Commission adopted its proposal to eliminate the pre-auction limit for the R&O bands, finding that entities bidding for licenses in the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands will not be subject to bright-line, pre-auction limits on the amount of spectrum they may acquire at an auction of these bands. Similarly, to the extent that the Commission adopts UMFUS rules for some portion or all of the 26 GHz and 42 GHz bands, it proposes to have no pre-auction limit on the amount of spectrum in these bands (or portions thereof) that an entity may acquire through competitive bidding. The Commission believes that the reasons for eliminating the pre-auction limit for these five bands would apply equally to the 26 GHz and 42 GHz bands, given their technical characteristics relative to these other bands. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

    50. To the extent that the Commission adopts UMFUS rules for some portion or all of the 26 GHz and 42 GHz bands, it proposes to include those bands (or portions thereof) in the mmW spectrum threshold for reviewing proposed secondary market transactions. The Commission notes that these bands share similar technical characteristics to the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

    VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    51. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present 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 the attached 3rd FNPRM. 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 as specified in the 3rd FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this 3rd FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 3rd FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

    A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    52. In the 3rd FNPRM, the Commission proposes to increase the Nation's supply of spectrum for mobile broadband by adopting rules for fixed and mobile services in the 25.25-27.5 GHz and 42-42.5 GHz band. The Commission proposes to include this band in the part 30 UMFUS. This additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile service. It will also make possible new types of services for consumers and businesses. The Commission proposes to award Partial Economic Area-based licenses for these bands to best balance the needs of large and small carriers. The 3rd FNPRM also proposes to include these bands, or portions of these bands, in the mmW spectrum threshold for reviewing proposed secondary market transactions.

    53. Until recently, the mmW bands were generally considered unsuitable for mobile applications because of propagation losses at such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate around obstacles. As increasing congestion has begun to fill the lower bands and carriers have resorted to smaller and smaller microcells in order to re-use the available spectrum, however, the industry is taking another look at the mmW bands and beginning to realize that at least some of its presumed disadvantages can be turned to advantage. For example, short transmission paths and high propagation losses can facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the amount of interference between adjacent cells. Furthermore, where longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths of mmW signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation losses. The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it possible to build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small enough to fit into handsets—a feat that might never be possible at the lower, longer-wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz where cell phones operate today.

    54. In the 3rd FNPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on developing the licensing framework it has adopted for the 37-37.6 GHz band. That framework creates an innovative shared space that can be used by a wide variety of Federal and non-Federal users, by new entrants and by established operators—and smaller businesses in particular—to experiment with new technologies in the mmW space. The Commission seeks comment on a first-come-first-served licensing or registration scheme, in which actual users have a right to interference protection, but no right to exclude other users. The Commission seeks comment on subsequent users being required to coordinate with previously registered non-Federal and Federal sites through part 101 notice and response rules or on the alternative of registering facilities with a third-party coordinator.

    55. The 3rd FNPRM also proposes to adopt rules permitting licensing of individual FSS earth stations in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band using the criteria identical to those applicable in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band. Although the 50.4-52.6 GHz band remains under consideration for UMFUS licensing, the Commission has throughout this proceeding sought to promote spectrum efficiency by permitting spectrum made available for UMFUS to be shared with other allocated services when possible. The Commission believes that in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band, where an FSS allocation already exists, that a limited number of individually licensed FSS earth stations can share the 50.4-51.4 GHz band with minimal impact on terrestrial operations.

    56. Overall, this proposal is designed to provide for flexible use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their type of service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory environment in which fixed, mobile, and satellite deployment would be able to develop through the application of flexible rules. The market-oriented licensing framework for these bands would ensure that this spectrum is efficiently utilized and will foster the development of new and innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage the growth and development of a wide variety of services, ultimately leading to greater benefits to consumers.

    B. Legal Basis

    57. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310, section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    58. 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 rules, 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.

    59. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes 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.

    60. 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).

    61. 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 the Commission estimates that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

    62. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises 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 Bureau 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.

    63. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the UMFUS the Millimeter Wave Service, Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz Service, where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. At present, there are approximately 66,680 common carrier fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz licensees, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this SBA category and the associated standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.

    64. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission notes, however, that both the common carrier microwave fixed and the private operational microwave fixed licensee categories includes some large entities.

    65. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.

    66. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is comprised of establishments 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 Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1400 firms had gross annual receipts of under $25 million and 42 firms had gross annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by its actions can be considered small.

    67. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has established a size standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of manufacturers in this industry is small.

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    68. The Commission expects the rules proposed in the 3rd FNPRM will impose new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance obligations on small entities as well as other licensees and applicants.

    69. Applicants in the Lower 37 GHz band will be required to coordinate their proposed operations with other licensees and applicants. Such coordination is necessary to ensure that neighboring operations will not interfere with each other. Potential applicants will also be required to coordinate their operations with any Federal agencies with operations in the areas.

    70. Small entities and other applicants in 26 GHz, 42 GHz, and Lower 37 GHz UMFUS will be required to meet buildout requirements. In doing so, they will be required to provide information to the Commission on the facilities they have constructed, the nature of the service they are providing, and the extent to which they are providing coverage in their license area. With respect to the 26 GHz performance requirements, the Commission believes such requirements are necessary to ensure that spectrum is being put into use and has proposed a variety of metrics to provide small entities as well as other licensees with a variety of means by which they may demonstrate compliance. The Commissions anticipates the performance requirements will encourage rapid deployment of next generation wireless services, including 5G, which will benefit small entities and the industry as a whole.

    E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    71. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives for small businesses that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (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 rule 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.

    72. The Commission does not believe that its proposed changes will have a significant economic impact on small entities. The Commission believes the proposed site-based licensing scheme for the Lower 37 GHz band would facilitate access to spectrum by small businesses and a wide variety of other entities. However, to get a better understanding of costs and any burdens, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described above can be minimized for small businesses. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the costs associated with its construction or performance requirements in the 26 GHz and Lower 37 GHz bands can be alleviated for small businesses. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of comments filed in response to the 3rd FNPRM.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

    73. None.

    VIII. Ordering Clauses

    74. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310, section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and § 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411, that this Third Report and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order is hereby adopted.

    75. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Third Report and Order, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final, Supplemental Final, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    76. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2, 25 and 30

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Communications equipment.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2, 25, and 30 as follows:

    PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations is amended as follows: a. Revise pages 54, 55, 58, and 60. b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG65 is revised.
    § 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.

    The revisions read as follows:

    EP20JY18.001 EP20JY18.002 EP20JY18.003 Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes

    NG65 In the bands 24.75-25.25 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz, stations in the fixed and mobile services may not claim protection from individually licensed earth stations authorized pursuant to 47 CFR 25.136. However, nothing in this footnote shall limit the right of UMFUS licensees to operate in conformance with the technical rules contained in 47 CFR part 30. The Commission reserves the right to monitor developments and to undertake further action concerning interference between UMFUS and FSS, including aggregate interference to satellite receivers, if appropriate.

    PART 25—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.

    4. Amend § 25.136 by revising the section heading and paragraph (g), and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 25.136 Earth Stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz bands.

    (g) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in the 24.75-25.25 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz bands, earth stations in these bands shall be limited to individually licensed earth stations. An applicant for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz or 50.4-51.4 GHz band must meet one of the following criteria to be authorized to operate without providing any additional interference protection to stations in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service:

    (1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license(s) for the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6dBm/m2/MHz;

    (2) The earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was authorized prior to August 20, 2018; or the earth station in the 50.4.2-51.4 GHz band was authorized prior to [effective date of this rule]; or

    (3) The application for the earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was filed prior to August 20, 2018; or the application for the earth station in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band was filed prior to [effective date for this rule]; or

    (4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:

    (i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the same frequency band within the county where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in either paragraphs (g)(1) (g)(2), (g)(3) or (g)(4) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in the same frequency band within the Partial Economic Area where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (g)(1) (g)(2), (g)(3) or (g)(4) of this section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth station;

    (ii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m2/MHz, together with the similar area of any other earth station operating in the same frequency band authorized pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, does not cover, in the aggregate, more than the amount of population of the county within which the earth station is located as noted below:

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(4)(ii) Population within the County where earth
  • station is located
  • Maximum permitted aggregate
  • population within −77.6 dBm/m2/MHz PFD contour of earth stations
  • Greater than 450,000 0.1 percent of population in county. Between 6,000 and 450,000 450 people. Fewer than 6,000 7.5 percent of population in county.

    (h) If an earth station applicant or licensee in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz and/or 50.4-51.4 GHz bands enters into an agreement with an UMFUS licensee, their operations shall be governed by that agreement, except to the extent that the agreement is inconsistent with the Commission's rules or the Communications Act.

    PART 30—UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE 5. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.

    6. Amend § 30.4 by: a. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g), and b. Adding a new paragraph (b) and (e).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 30.4 Frequencies.

    (b) 25.25-27.5 GHz band—25.25-25.45 GHz; 25.45-25.65 GHz; 25.65-25.85 GHz; 25.85-26.05 GHz; 26.05-26.25 GHz; 26.25-26.45 GHz; 26.45-26.65 GHz; 26.65-26.85 GHz; 26.85-27.05 GHz; 27.05-27.25 GHz; 27.25-27.45 GHz; 27.45-27.5 GHz.

    (e) 42-42.5 GHz band—42-42.1 GHz; 42.1-42.2 GHz; 42.2-42.3 GHz; 42.3-42.4 GHz; 42.4-42.5 GHz.

    [FR Doc. 2018-14807 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 140 Friday, July 20, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Request for Nominations of Members for the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, Specialty Crop Committee, and National Genetics Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Solicitation for membership.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announces the opening of the solicitation for nominations to fill vacancies on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics (NAREEE) Advisory Board and its subcommittees. There are eight vacancies on the NAREEE Advisory Board; three vacancies on the Specialty Crop Committee; six vacancies on the Citrus Disease Subcommittee; and two vacancies on the National Genetics Advisory Council.

    DATES:

    All nomination materials should be submitted in a single, complete package and received or postmarked by August 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The nominee's name, resume or CV, completed and signed Form AD-755, and any letters of support must be submitted via one of the following methods: (1) Email to [email protected]; (2) By fax to 202-720-6199; or (3) By mail delivery service to: REE Advisory Board Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 332-A, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-2255.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Esch, Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 332A, The Whitten Building, Washington, DC 20250-2255; telephone: 202-720-3684; fax: 202-720-6199; email: [email protected]. Committee website: www.nareeeab.ree.usda.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Instructions for Nominations: Nominations are solicited from organizations, associations, societies, councils, federations, groups, and companies that represent a wide variety of food and agricultural interests throughout the country. Nominations for one individual who fits several of the categories listed above, or for more than one person who fits one category, will be accepted. Nomination letters must indicate the specific category(s) or subcommittee for which the nominee is applying (i.e., for the Specialty Crop Committee or the National Genetics Advisory Council). Nominees may be considered for more than one category and/or subcommittee dependent on qualifications. Each nominee must submit a signed form AD-755, “Advisory Committee Membership Background Information,” which can be obtained from the contact person below or from: https://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/AD-755%20-%20Approved%20Master%202015.pdf).

    Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure the recommendation of the Advisory Board take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the needs of all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.

    Please note, individuals may not serve on more than one USDA Federal Advisory Committee. Lobbyists who are registered with the Federal Government and who are selected to serve on committees to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government (e.g., as Special Government Employees) are ineligible to serve.

    All nominees will be carefully reviewed for their expertise, leadership, and relevance. All nominees will be vetted before selection.

    Appointments to the NAREEE Advisory Board and its subcommittees will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture.

    NAREEE Advisory Board: The NAREEE Advisory Board was established in 1996 via Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123) to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and land-grant colleges and universities on top priorities and policies for food and agricultural research, education, extension, and economics. Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 was amended by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to reduce the number of members on the NAREEE Advisory Board to 25 members and required the Board to also provide advice to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives; the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate; the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

    Since the Advisory Board's inception by congressional legislation in 1996, each member has represented a specific category related to farming or ranching, food production and processing, forestry research, crop and animal science, land-grant institutions, non-land grant college or university with a historic commitment to research in the food and agricultural sciences, food retailing and marketing, rural economic development, and natural resource and consumer interest groups, among many others. The Board was first appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture in September 1996, and one-third of its members were appointed for a 1-, 2-, and 3-year term, respectively. The terms for eight members who represent specific categories will expire September 30, 2018. Nominations are for a 3-year appointment for these eight vacant categories. All nominees will be carefully reviewed for their expertise, leadership, and relevance to a category. Nominations for multiple categories is acceptable. Please note nomination categories on the AD-755 or nomination letter.

    The eight slots to be filled are:

    Category A. National Farm Organization Category C. Food Animal Commodity Producer Category I. National Human Health Association Category N. Non-Land Grant College or University With Historic Commitment to Research in Food and Agricultural Sciences Category O. Hispanic-serving Institutions Category Q. Transportation of food and agricultural products to domestic and foreign markets Category R. Food Retailing and Marketing Interests Category S. Food and Fiber Processors

    Specialty Crop Committee: The Specialty Crop Committee was created as a subcommittee of the NAREEE Advisory Board in accordance with the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 under Title III, Section 303 of Public Law 108-465. The committee was formulated to study the scope and effectiveness of research, extension, and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry. The legislation defines “specialty crops” as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops (including floriculture). The Agricultural Act of 2014 further expanded the scope of the Specialty Crop Committee to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on the relevancy review process of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, a granting program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

    Members should represent the breadth of the specialty crop industry. Six members of the Specialty Crop Committee are also members of the NAREEE Advisory Board and six members represent various disciplines of the specialty crop industry. The terms of three members will expire on September 30, 2018. The Specialty Crop Committee is soliciting nominations to fill three vacant positions to represent the specialty crop industry. Appointed members will serve three years with their terms expiring in September 2021.

    National Genetic Resources Advisory Council: The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council was re-established in 2012 as a permanent subcommittee of the NAREEE Advisory Board to formulate recommendations on actions and policies for the collection, maintenance, and utilization of genetic resources; to make recommendations for coordination of genetic resources plans of several domestic and international organizations; and to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and the National Genetic Resources Program, part of the Agricultural Research Service, of new and innovative approaches to genetic resources conservation.

    The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council membership is required to have two-thirds of the appointed members from scientific disciplines relevant to the National Genetic Resources Program, including agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, natural resource sciences, health sciences, and nutritional sciences; and one-third of the appointed members from the general public including leaders in fields of public policy, trade, international development, law, or management.

    The terms of two members of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council will expire on September 30, 2018. The two slots to be filled are to be composed of one scientific members and one general public member. Appointed members will serve three-year appointments expiring in September 2021.

    Citrus Disease Subcommittee: The Citrus Disease Subcommittee was established by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Sec. 7103) to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on citrus research, extension, and development needs, engage in regular consultation and collaboration with USDA and other organizations involved in citrus, and provide recommendations for research and extension activities related to citrus disease. The Citrus Disease Subcommittee will also advise the Department on the research and extension agenda of the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program, a granting program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

    The subcommittee is composed of nine members who must be a producer of citrus with representation from the following States: Three members from Arizona or California, five members from Florida, and one member from Texas.

    The terms of six Citrus Disease Subcommittee will expire on September 30, 2018. The Citrus Disease Subcommittee is soliciting nominations to fill six vacant positions for membership; three positions are to represent Florida, two positions are to represent California or Arizona, and one position is to represent Texas. Appointed members will serve three years with their terms expiring in September 2021.

    Done at Washington, DC, this day of June 3, 2018. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Acting Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics, Acting Chief Scientist.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15551 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2018-0025] National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is announcing that the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) will hold public meetings of the full Committee and Subcommittees on August 7-10, 2018. The Committee will discuss and adopt: (1) Effective Salmonella Control Strategies for Poultry and (2) Virulence Factors and Attributes that Define Foodborne Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) as Severe Human Pathogens. The Committee will also discuss two new charges; the first charge is The Use of Water in Animal Slaughter and Processing. Regulatory agencies such as FSIS must also be able to provide supportable alternatives to current water consumption practices that allow industry to potentially use less and recycle water through developing criteria on the appropriate uses of varying water sources and treatment technologies in the processing of meat, poultry, and egg products. The second charge is Appropriate Product Testing Procedures and Criteria to Verify Process Control for Microbial Pathogens or appropriate indicator organisms in Ready-to-Eat (RTE) Foods under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) jurisdiction.

    DATES:

    The full Committee will hold an open meeting on Tuesday, August 7, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EST. The Subcommittees on the Use of Water in Animal Slaughter and Processing, and Appropriate Product Testing Procedures and Criteria to Verify Process Control for Microbial Pathogens or appropriate indicator organisms in Ready-to-Eat (RTE) Foods under FDA's jurisdiction, will hold concurrent open Subcommittee meetings on Tuesday, August 7, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 8, 2018; Thursday, August 9, 2018; and Friday, August 10, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST., respectively.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Committee meetings will be held at the Patriot's Plaza 3, 1st Floor Auditorium and Conference Rooms, 355 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20250. Attendance is free. Attendees must show a valid photo ID to enter the building. Attendees with non-government ID may be required to pass through the security screening systems, please allow adequate time for this process.

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on the FSIS-2018-0025. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2018-0025. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, call (202) 720-5627 to schedule a time to visit the FSIS Docket Room at 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700. All documents related to the full Committee meeting will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room The NACMCF documents will also be available on the internet at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/federal-register-notices.

    FSIS will finalize an agenda on or before the meeting dates and post it on the FSIS web page at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings. Please note that the meeting agenda is subject to change due to the time required for Committee discussions; thus, sessions could start or end earlier or later than anticipated. Please plan accordingly if you would like to attend a particular session or participate in a public comment period.

    The official transcript of the August 7, 2018 full Committee meeting, when it becomes available, will be kept in the FSIS Docket Room at the above address and will also be posted on https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/data-collection-and-reports/nacmcf/meetings/nacmcf-meetings.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Persons interested in making a presentation, submitting technical papers, or providing comments at the August 7, plenary session should contact Karen Thomas: Phone: (202) 690-6620; Fax (202) 690-6334; Email: [email protected] or at the mailing address: USDA, FSIS, Office of Public Health Science, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Patriots Plaza 3, Mailstop 3777, Room 9-47, Washington, DC 20250. Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should notify Ms. Thomas by July 30, 2018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The NACMCF was established in 1988, in response to a recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences for an interagency approach to microbiological criteria for foods, and in response to a recommendation of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, as expressed in the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1988. The charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing on the FSIS web page at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/data-collection-and-reports/nacmcf/committee-charter.

    The NACMCF provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on public health issues relative to the safety and wholesomeness of the U.S. food supply, including development of microbiological criteria and review and evaluation of epidemiological and risk assessment data and methodologies for assessing microbiological hazards in foods. The Committee also provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Departments of Commerce and Defense. Questions from the Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services agencies that are sponsors of the Committee are submitted as Charges to the Executive Committee for vetting and approval before they are presented to the full Committee during the plenary session. The Committee is expected to respond to the questions during their two-year term.

    Ms. Carmen Rottenberg, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA, is the Committee Chair; Dr. Susan T. Mayne, Director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, is the Vice-Chair; and Dr. Mark Carter, FSIS, is the Designated Federal Officer.

    Documents Reviewed by NACMCF

    FSIS will make all materials reviewed and considered by NACMCF regarding its deliberations available to the public. Generally, these materials will be made available as soon as possible after the full Committee meeting. Further, FSIS intends to make these materials available in electronic format on the FSIS web page (www.fsis.usda.gov), as well as in hard copy format in the FSIS Docket Room.

    Disclaimer: NACMCF documents and comments posted on the FSIS website are electronic conversions from a variety of source formats. In some cases, document conversion may result in character translation or formatting errors. The original document is the official, legal copy.

    To meet the electronic and information technology accessibility standards in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, NACMCF may add alternate text descriptors for non-text elements (graphs, charts, tables, multimedia, etc.). These modifications only affect the internet copies of the documents.

    Copyrighted documents will not be posted on the FSIS website, but will be available for inspection in the FSIS Docket Room.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication online through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination, any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Paul Kiecker, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15594 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Malheur National Forest, Prairie City Ranger District; Oregon; Cliff Knox Project AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Malheur National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of proposed vegetation and fuels treatments, wildlife habitat designations, and road activities in the Cliff Knox project area located on the Prairie City and Emigrant Creek Ranger Districts. Proposed actions include timber harvest, small diameter thinning, aspen and mountain mahogany restoration, landscape underburning, road activities to support vegetation and fuels treatments, and road system changes. The intent of the project is to restore forest health, reduce fuels, increase the forest's resilience to wildfires and other disturbance, and enhance fish and wildlife habitats.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the proposed action in this notice must be received by August 20, 2018. The draft EIS is expected in December 2018 and the final EIS is expected in June 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    The preferred method to submit comments is via email to: [email protected] You may also submit comments via mail to Ed Guzman, District Ranger, Prairie City Ranger District, P.O. Box 337, Prairie City, OR 97869; via facsimile to 541-820-4844; or by hand delivery to the Prairie City Ranger District, 327 SW Front St., Prairie City, Oregon.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Schnider, District NEPA Planner, 327 SW Front St., P.O. Box 337, Prairie City, OR 97869. Phone: 541-820-3821. Email: [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Cliff Knox Project encompasses approximately 40,000 acres across the Bluebucket Creek subwatershed (10,976 acres) and the Cliff Creek-Malheur River subwatershed (29,342 acres), and includes the Malheur River Inventoried Roadless Area and part of the Malheur River Wild and Scenic River corridor. The legal description for the planning area includes Townships 17 and 18 South and Ranges 33, 34, and 35 East, Willamette Meridian, Grant County, Oregon. The full scoping package is available on the Malheur National Forest website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50433.

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The project's purpose and need is represented by differences between existing and desired conditions based on forest plan management direction, other forest service policies, and best available science.

    The purpose of the Cliff Knox Project is to improve forest health and increase resilience to drought, fire, insects and diseases, and other disturbances by moving the project area toward its historical (natural) range of variability in forest structure, tree density, species composition, and associated wildlife habitat. Additionally, there is an opportunity to contribute to the economic stability of local communities that depend on timber resources for their livelihood and move the forest transportation system toward a more environmentally and fiscally sustainable state.

    Specifically, there is a need in the project area to:

    (1) Increase forest resilience to insect and disease outbreaks and uncharacteristic wildfires by moving the landscape toward a more historical range of variability for structure, density, and species composition. This includes special consideration for the Malheur River Wild and Scenic River, the Malheur Inventoried Roadless Area, riparian habitat conservation areas, dedicated and replacement old growth stands, aspen and mountain mahogany stands, and connectivity corridors.

    (2) Enhance landscape resilience to wildfire by restoring fuel profiles to types primarily conducive to surface fire, with special attention to lands adjacent to strategic roads and areas identified as wildland-urban interface.

    (3) Increase public and firefighter safety in the event of a wildfire in the project area.

    (4) Restore and promote open stands dominated by large trees and fire-tolerant tree species, which were historically dominant across the project area.

    (5) Maintain existing old forest stands and promote old trees (greater than 150 years old) to increase their abundance over the long term.

    (6) Restore and promote regeneration of hardwoods, including quaking aspen, mountain mahogany, and riparian hardwoods.

    (7) Treat vegetation to improve characteristics of the Malheur River Inventoried Roadless Area as defined by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294.11).

    (8) Increase water availability for native vegetation by reestablishing historical openings and grasslands, thinning overstocked stands, and removing encroaching juniper and other conifers where they did not historically occur.

    (9) Improve quantity and quality of forage for large ungulates, especially in big-game winter range management areas.

    (10) Reduce road related impacts to the watershed (aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and water quality).

    (11) Improve existing road networks to provide access to the forest while meeting forest plan standards and guidelines as well as regulatory direction.

    (12) Capture the economic value of forest products and other resources to support local economies and provide employment opportunities.

    (13) Provide safe access to the forest for public health, enjoyment, and stewardship.

    Proposed Action

    To meet the purpose and need for the Cliff Knox Project and to move the project area toward desired conditions, the Malheur National Forest is proposing activities including timber harvest, small diameter thinning, aspen and mountain mahogany restoration, landscape underburning, road activities to support vegetation and fuels treatments, and road system changes.

    Approximately 27,000 acres of vegetation and fuel treatments are proposed to increase forest resilience to insect and disease outbreaks and uncharacteristic wildfires; restore fuel profiles, promote development of old stands and trees; and restore quaking aspen, mountain mahogany, and riparian hardwoods (related to the need). Treatments include stand improvement commercial thinning, biomass removal (biomass material may be removed during logging operations, by hand, or with small equipment such as all-terrain vehicles or small excavators or forwarders), and small diameter thinning where stands are above the appropriate management zone for stand density. In areas of high tree mortality due to insect infestations, dead lodgepole and ponderosa pine trees in excess of wildlife standards for downed and dead trees may be salvaged. Additionally, 3 units are identified as potential tree tipping units, where large wood could be placed in streams. Proposed vegetation and fuel treatments are located across the project area to address the purpose and need, including within the Malheur Wild and Scenic River, Malheur River Inventoried Roadless Area, the wildland-urban interface and adjacent to strategic roads, and riparian habitat conservation areas. These treatments would help move forest structure, composition, and density toward more resilient vegetative conditions.

    Landscape underburning on approximately 40,000 acres is proposed to reduce surface fuel loading, reduce ladder fuels, and raise canopy base height. Treated stands would see a combination of piled material burning and underburning. Those stands not mechanically treated would be managed exclusively with the use of underburning.

    The proposed action includes wildlife habitat designations that include additions to replacement old growth (108 acres) and pileated woodpecker feeding areas (205 acres), establishment of connectivity corridors (4,950 acres) and wildlife habitat enhancement openings (1,020 acres). Preliminary connectivity corridors have been identified between late and old structure stands to allow for movement of old-growth dependent species. The goal of creating “connectivity” is to manage stands in corridors at higher canopy densities when compared to more intensively managed stands located outside of corridors. Habitat enhancement openings are proposed in areas where soil types point to a more open canopy in the past to create openings in coniferous forest to move areas that would have historically been more open towards desired vegetation communities. Most of these units are located in big-game winter range and are adjacent to or include existing openings.

    Road activities to support vegetation and fuels treatments are also proposed to provide safe access and to reduce road-related impacts. Road maintenance and reconstruction for haul would occur on open or temporarily opened roads to provide safe access and adequate drainage. About 15 miles of temporary roads would be constructed to access some timber harvest units; these areas would be rehabilitated following use.

    Multiple changes to the road system are proposed. This includes decommissioning about 9.5 miles of road that are not needed for future management actions and are either already in an overgrown state or are contributing to resource related impacts, such as delivering sediment to streams or disturbing wildlife. Also proposed is closing about 14 miles of currently open roads that may be needed for future management actions but are either currently in an overgrown state or contributing to resource related impacts, such as delivering sediment to streams or disturbing wildlife. Closed roads are to be left in a stable hydrologic state and are to be periodically maintained. The proposed action also includes confirming the previous administrative closure of 28 miles of road and opening about 2.5 miles of currently closed roads that show signs of moderate to high use, have little potential for resource impacts, and some of which provide access to dispersed camping sites, State and Bureau of Land Management lands, and permittee allotments. Additionally, the proposed action includes decomissioning and relocating about 2 miles of road that are causing unacceptable resource damage in their current locations but provide access to essential management activities and dispersed campsites.

    The Cliff Knox Project will also include a variety of project design criteria that serve to mitigate impacts of activities to forest resources, including wildlife, soils, watershed condition, aquatic species, riparian habitat conservation areas, heritage resources, visuals, rangeland, botanical resources, and invasive plants.

    Possible Alternatives

    A full range of alternatives to the proposed action, including a no action alternative, will be considered. The no action alternative represents no change and serves as the baseline for the comparison of the action alternatives. Alternatives may be developed in response to issues raised by the public during the scoping process or due to additional concerns for resource values identified by the interdisciplinary team.

    Forest Plan Amendments

    The proposed action may also include the following amendments to the 1990 Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended:

    (1) Designating management area 13 (old growth): Old growth changes are needed to maintain consistency with forest plan standards for dedicated and replacement old growth.

    (2) Reducing cover below forest plan standards in big-game summer range and winter range: Reduction in satisfactory and/or total cover in big-game summer range and/or big-game winter range. Vegetation management treatments may initially reduce cover levels in some areas; however, these treatments would make it possible to achieve desired vegetative health conditions that may result in more abundant, higher quality cover with reduced insect activity in the future.

    (3) Removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height and harvest within late and old structure: Removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height within specific stands with existing aspen and mountain mahogany is proposed to improve the growth of existing aspen and mountain mahogany by reducing competition for sunlight and water from large, young nearby trees, and to move stands with old forest multi-strata structure toward the old forest single-stratum structure that is deficient in the project area.

    (4) Not maintaining the current level of connectivity between late and old structure and old growth stands: Reduction in connectivity is proposed because the southern portion of the project area contains pockets of late and old structure stands within areas that developed over mollic soils, an indicator that these areas were grasslands and meadows within their historical range of variability, but are now experiencing encroachment from conifers. Connectivity does not exist in these areas, and therefore cannot be maintained.

    When proposing a forest plan amendment, the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219), as amended, requires the Responsible Official to provide in the initial notice “which substantive requirements of §§ 219. 8 through 219.11 are likely to be directly related to the amendment (§ 219.13(b)(5)).” Whether a rule provision is likely to be directly related to an amendment is determined by the purpose for the amendment, the beneficial effects or adverse effects of the amendment, and informed by the best available scientific information, scoping, effects analysis, monitoring data or other rationale. The following substantive requirements would likely be directly related to the proposed amendments.

    Substantive provisions that relate to all proposed amendments include: 219.8(a)(1)(ii) Contributions of the plan area to ecological conditions within the broader landscape influenced by the plan area; 219.8(a)(1)(iv) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change; 219.9(a)(1) Ecosystem integrity; 219.9(a)(2) Ecosystem diversity; 219.10(a)(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources and uses; 219.10(a)(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of 219.9, for wildlife, fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and used by the public; for hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, observing, subsistence, and other activities (in collaboration with federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments); and 219.10(a)(8) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change (219.8).

    Substantive provisions that relate to the proposed amendments for reducing cover below forest plan standards in big-game summer range and winter range, removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height and harvest within late and old structure, and not maintaining the current level of connectivity between late and old structure and old growth stands include: 219.8(a)(1)(iii) Conditions in the broader landscape that may influence the sustainability of resources and ecosystems within the plan area; 219.8(a)(1)(v) Wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems; 219.8(a)(1)(vi) Opportunities for landscape scale restoration; and 219.10(a)(7) Reasonably foreseeable risks to ecological, social, and economic sustainability.

    Substantive provisions that relate to the proposed amendments for designating management area 13 (old growth), removal of trees greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height and harvest within late and old structure, and not maintaining the current level of connectivity between late and old structure and old growth stands include: 219.9(a)(2)(i) Key characteristics associated with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types.

    Responsible Official

    The Forest Supervisor of the Malheur National Forest, 431 Patterson Bridge Road, John Day, OR 97845, is the Responsible Official. The Responsible Official decides if the proposed action will be implemented and documents the decision and rationale for the decision in the record of decision. Responsibility for preparation of the draft EIS and final EIS has been delegated to the District Ranger, Prairie City Ranger District.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Given the purpose and need of the project, the Responsible Official will review the proposed action, other alternatives, and the environmental effects analysis in order to determine: (1) Which alternative, or combination of alternatives, should be implemented; (2) the location and treatment methods for all proposed activities; (3) the design features, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements; and, (4) consistency with the forest plan and the need for amendments.

    Decisions by the Forest Supervisor to approve project-specific plan amendments are subject to the Project-level Predecisional Administrative Review Process of 36 CFR 218 Subpart A, in accordance with 36 CFR 219.59(b). The term “project specific” refers to amendments that would only apply to the proposed project and would not apply to any future management actions.

    Per 36 CFR 218.7(a)(2), this is a project proposing to implement a land management plan and is not authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). Therefore, it is subject to both subparts A and B of 36 CFR 218.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS for the Cliff Knox Project. The interdisciplinary team will continute to seek information and comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, in addition to Tribal governments and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action. There is a collaborative group in the area that the interdisciplinary team will interact with during the analysis process.

    Public meetings will occur in Prairie City and Burns, Oregon, during the scoping period for the purposes of discussing and gathering comments on the proposed action. Times and locations of scheduled meetings will be advertised through local media outlets and posted on the Malheur National Forest website. The intent of this comment period is to provide those interested in or affected by this proposed action with an opportunity to make their concerns known. Written, hand-delivered, electronic, and facsimile comments concerning this proposed action will be accepted. We invite you to provide any substantive comments you might have regarding the proposed action for the Cliff Knox Project; substantive comments are within the scope of the project and the decision to be made, are specific to the proposed activities and the project area, and have a direct relationship to the project. Please provide supporting reasons for us to consider. If you cite or include references with your comments, you need to state specifically how those references relate to the proposed action. Please include a copy of or an internet link for any references you cite.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposed action, and may be released under the Freedom of Information Act. However, comments submitted anonymously will also be accepted and considered.

    Dated: June 6, 2018. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15491 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-979, C-570-980] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Consideration of Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in Part AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on a request from Goal Zero LLC (Goal Zero), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating changed circumstances reviews to consider the possible revocation, in part, of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (China) with respect to certain solar panels, as described below.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eli Lovely, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1593.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 7, 2012, Commerce published AD and CVD orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China.1 On April 17, 2018, Goal Zero, an importer of the subject merchandise, requested, through a changed circumstances review, revocation, in part, of the Orders pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b),2 with respect to certain off-grid solar panels. On May 4, 2018, SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (the petitioner) submitted a letter stating that it did not oppose the partial revocation proposed by Goal Zero.3 On May 14, 2018, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Goal Zero,4 to which it responded on May 23, 2018.5 On May 30, 2018,6 and again on June 29, 2018, we extended the deadline for determining whether to initiate the requested changed circumstances.7 The current deadline is July 16, 2018.8 On July 9, 2018, we received revised proposed partial revocation language from Goal Zero.9

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012) and Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 (December 7, 2012) (collectively, Orders).

    2See Goal Zero's Letter, “Goal Zero LLC's Request for a Changed Circumstances Review,” dated April 17, 2018.

    3See SolarWorld's Letter, “Support for Goal Zero LLC's Request for a Changed Circumstances Review,” dated May 4, 2018.

    4See Commerce's Letter, dated May 14, 2018.

    5See “Goal Zero LLC's Response to Additional Questions Regarding the Changed Circumstances Reviews,” dated May 23, 2018.

    6See Commerce's Letter, dated May 30, 2018.

    7See Commerce's Letter, dated June 29, 2018.

    8Id.

    9See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Comments on Goal Zero LLC' s Request for a Changed Circumstances Review, dated July 9, 2018; see also Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from The People's Republic of China; Goal Zero LLC's Comments Regarding the Proposed Scope of the Changed Circumstances Reviews, dated July 9, 2018.

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by the Orders is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.

    The Orders cover crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

    Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the Orders.

    Excluded from the scope of the Orders are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).

    Also excluded from the scope of the Orders are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm2 in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

    Additionally, excluded from the scope of the Orders are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm2 to 33,782 mm2 with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 24 AWG not more than 206 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), and not exceeding 2.9 volts, 1.1 amps, and 3.19 watts. For the purposes of this exclusion, no panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.

    Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in the PRC are covered by the Orders; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the Orders.

    Merchandise covered by the Orders is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the Orders is dispositive.10

    10See Orders, 77 FR at 73018-73019, 77 FR at 73017 (footnote omitted).

    Proposed Revocation of the Orders

    Goal Zero proposes that the Orders be revoked, in part, with respect to with certain off-grid solar panels. Goal Zero submitted its most recent proposed scope revocation language on July 9, 2018.11 Should Commerce determine to revoke the Orders, in part, Goal Zero proposes that Commerce exclude the following products:

    11See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from The People's Republic of China; Goal Zero LLC's Comments Regarding the Proposed Scope of the Changed Circumstances Reviews, dated July 9, 2018.

    (1) Off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) A total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm2 per panel; (C) do not include a built-in inverter; (D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in either an 8mm male barrel connector, or a two-port rectangular connector with two pins in square housing of different colors; (E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and (F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this provision, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features, and foam for transport); and (2) Off-grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) A total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm2 per panel; (C) do not include a built-in inverter; (D) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and (E) each panel is 1. permanently integrated into a consumer good; 2. encased in a laminated material without stitching, or 3. has all of the following characteristics: (i) The panel is encased in sewn fabric with visible stitching, (ii) includes a mesh zippered storage pocket, and (iii) includes a permanently attached wire that terminates in a female USB-A connector. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Consideration of Revocation of the Orders in Part

    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, Commerce will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party 12 that shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of an order. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(d), Commerce determines that the information submitted by Goal Zero, and the petitioner's affirmative statement of no interest in the Orders with respect to the products described by Goal Zero, constitutes sufficient evidence to conduct changed circumstances reviews of the Orders.

    12 Goal Zero stated in its April 17, 2018 CCRs request that it is an importer of subject merchandise. As such, Goal Zero is an interested party pursuant to 19 CFR 351.102(b)(29).

    Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that Commerce may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part. In addition, in the event Commerce determines that expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits Commerce to combine the notices of initiation and preliminary results. In its administrative practice, Commerce has interpreted “substantially all” to mean producers accounting for at least 85 percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like product covered by the order.13

    13See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent To Revoke Order in Part, 77 FR 42276 (July 18, 2012), unchanged in Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Determination To Revoke Order, in Part, 77 FR 53176 (August 31, 2012).

    The petitioner states that it does not oppose the partial revocation request; however, because the petitioner did not indicate whether it accounts for substantially all of the domestic production of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, we are not combining this notice of initiation with a preliminary determination, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), but will provide interested parties with an opportunity to address the issue of domestic industry support with respect to this requested partial revocation of the orders, as explained below. After examining comments, if any, concerning domestic industry support, we will issue the preliminary results of these changed circumstances reviews.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to provide comments and/or factual information regarding these changed circumstances reviews, including comments on industry support and the proposed partial revocation language. Comments and factual information may be submitted to Commerce no later than ten days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments and rebuttal factual information may be filed with Commerce no later than seven days after the comments and/or factual information are filed.14 All submissions must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).15 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due dates set forth in this notice.

    14 Submission of rebuttal factual information must comply with 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    15See, generally, 19 CFR 351.303.

    Preliminary and Final Results of the Review

    Commerce intends to publish in the Federal Register a notice of the preliminary results of the antidumping and countervailing duty changed circumstances reviews in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and (c)(3)(i), which will set forth Commerce's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Commerce will issue its final results of the changed circumstances reviews in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This initiation is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15572 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-983] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joshua Tucker, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2044.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 11, 2013, Commerce published its antidumping duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks from China.1 On March 5, 2018, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks from China pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.2 On March 16, 2018, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate from Elkay Manufacturing Company (Elkay), a domestic interested party, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).3 Elkay claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a producer of drawn stainless steel sinks in the United States.

    1See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 21592 (April 11, 2013) (Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 83 FR 9279 (March 5, 2018).

    3See Letter from Elkay “First Five-Year (`Sunset') Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Drawn

    Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China/Elkay Manufacturing Company's Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated March 16, 2018.

    On April 2, 2018, Commerce received an adequate substantive response to the notice of initiation from Elkay within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).4 We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties with respect to the order covered by this sunset review.

    4See Letter from Elkay “First Five-Year (`Sunset') Review of The Antidumping Duty Order on Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China/Substantive Response to the Notice Of Initiation,” dated April 2, 2018.

    On April 10, 2018, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties.5 As a result, pursuant to 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the antidumping duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks from China.

    5See Letter to the ITC re: “Sunset Reviews Initiated on March 5, 2018,” dated April 10, 2018.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes drawn stainless steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of stainless steel. Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads are also covered by the scope of this order if they are included within the sales price of the drawn stainless steel sinks.6 For purposes of this scope definition, the term “drawn” refers to a manufacturing process using metal forming technology to produce a smooth basin with seamless, smooth, and rounded corners. Drawn stainless steel sinks are available in various shapes and configurations and may be described in a number of ways including flush mount, top mount, or undermount (to indicate the attachment relative to the countertop). Stainless steel sinks with multiple drawn bowls that are joined through a welding operation to form one unit are covered by the scope of the order. Drawn stainless steel sinks are covered by the scope of the order whether or not they are sold in conjunction with non-subject accessories such as faucets (whether attached or unattached), strainers, strainer sets, rinsing baskets, bottom grids, or other accessories.

    6 Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads are not covered by the scope of this order if they are not included within the sales price of the drawn stainless steel sinks, regardless of whether they are shipped with or entered with drawn stainless steel sinks.

    Excluded from the scope of the order are stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not have seamless corners, but rather are made by notching and bending the stainless steel, and then welding and finishing the vertical corners to form the bowls. Stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls may sometimes be referred to as “zero radius” or “near zero radius” sinks. The products covered by this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,7 which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum are the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and to all in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    7See Memorandum “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks from China would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 76.53 percent.8

    8 The PRC-wide rate determined in the investigation was 76.53 percent. See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 21592, 21594 (April 11, 2013). This rate was adjusted for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass through to determine the cash deposit rate (76.45 percent) collected for companies in the PRC-wide entity. See explanation in Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Investigation, Final Determination, 78 FR 13019, 13025 (February 26, 2013).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing the final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: July 2, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15569 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-060, A-533-875, A-580-893, A-583-860] Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty orders on fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the People's Republic of China (China), India, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Taiwan.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 (China), Patrick O'Connor at (202) 482-0989 (India), Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-4081 (Korea), Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 735(a), 735(d), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on May 30, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea and Taiwan.1 On July 13, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative final determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of LTFV imports of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan.2

    1See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 24740 (May 30, 2018); Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 24737 (May 30, 2018); Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 24743 (May 30, 2018); and Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 24745 (May 30, 2018).

    2See Letter to Gary Taverman, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from David S. Johanson, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding fine denier polyester staple fiber from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan (July 13, 2018).

    Scope of the Orders

    The product covered by these orders is fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Antidumping Duty Orders

    In accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan.3 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    3Id.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan. With the exception of entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, as further described below, antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations.4 Additionally, because the estimated weighted-average dumping for subject merchandise produced and exported by Tainan Spinning Co., Ltd. was determined to be zero in the investigation of fine denier PSF from Taiwan, and the estimated weighted-average dumping for subject merchandise produced and exported by Toray Chemical Kora Inc. was determined to be zero in the investigation of fine denier PSF from Korea, Commerce is directing CBP to not suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise from these exporter/producer combinations for each of the respective orders. Entries of subject merchandise exported to the United States by any other producer and exporter combination are not entitled to this exclusion from suspension of liquidation and are subject to the applicable cash deposit rates noted below.

    4See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 665 (January 5, 2018), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (China Preliminary Determination); Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 662 (January 5, 2018), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (India Preliminary Determination); Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 660 (January 5, 2018), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Korea Preliminary Determination); and Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 668 (January 5, 2018), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Taiwan Preliminary Determination).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Except as noted above and in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice below, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins, or cash deposits adjusted for subsidy offset, as applicable, indicated in the tables below. Given that the provisional measures period has expired, as explained below, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins or cash deposits adjusted for subsidy offset, as applicable, listed in the tables below.5 The relevant all-others rates apply to all producers or exporters not specifically listed. The China-wide entity rate applies to all exporter-producer combinations not specifically listed.

    5See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in each of these investigations. Commerce published the preliminary determinations in these investigations on January 5, 2018.6 Hence, the extended provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, ended on July 3, 2018.

    6See China Preliminary Determination, India Preliminary Determination, Korea Preliminary Determination, and Taiwan Preliminary Determination.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice,7 Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after July 3, 2018, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determinations in the Federal Register.

    7See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 48390, 48392 (July 25, 2016).

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages and cash deposit rates adjusted for subsidy offset, as applicable, are as follows:

    China Exporter Producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit
  • adjusted for
  • subsidy offset
  • (percent)
  • Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd./Jiangyin Xinlun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Yunlun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Bolun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Fenghua Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huamei Special Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huasheng Polymerization Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huayi Polymerization Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huaxing Synthetic Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Xingsheng Plastic Co., Ltd 72.22 72.22 Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huakai Polyester Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Hongkai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 65.17 65.11 Hangzhou Best Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Hangzhou Best Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd 68.70 68.64 Jiangsu Xinsu Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Jiangsu Xinsu Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Jiangyin Jinyan Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Jiangyin Jinyan Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Xiang He Tai Fiber Technology Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Jiangyin Yangxi International Trade Co., Ltd Jiangsu Hengze Composite Materials Technology Co., Ltd./Chuzhou Prosperity Environmental Protection Color Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Xiang He Tai Fiber Technology Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Hengfeng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Shunze Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Zhejiang Jinfuchun Industrial Co., Ltd Zhejiang Jinfuchun Industrial Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd 68.70 68.64 Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Unifi Textiles (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Jiangyin Yueda Chemical Fiber Limited Company/Hangzhou BenMa Chemical and Spinning Company Ltd./Yizheng Chemical Fiber Limited Liability Company 68.70 68.64 Yuyao Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Yuyao Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Zhangjiagang City Hongtuo Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Jiangyin Jindun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Zhejiang Linan Foreign Trade Co., Ltd Zhejiang Huashun Technology Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Suzhou Zhengbang Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Suzhou Zhengbang Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 CHINA-WIDE ENTITY 103.06 103.00
    India Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit rate
  • adjusted for
  • subsidy offset
  • (percent)
  • Reliance Industries Limited 21.43 14.48 Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited 21.43 15.49 All-Others 21.43 14.67
    Korea Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Toray Chemical Korea Inc 0.00 Huvis Corporation 45.23 Down Nara, Co., Ltd., Down-Nara, Co., Ltd
  • (AKA Koreco Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd.)
  • 45.23
    All-Others 30.15
    Taiwan Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Tainan Spinning Co., Ltd 0.00 Far Eastern Textile Ltd. (AKA Far Eastern New Century Corporation) 48.86 All-Others 24.43

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by these orders is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:

    (1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.

    (2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.

    Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15567 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-967] Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Expedited Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating and issuing the preliminary results of a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China), finding that the cash deposit rate for the 21 exporters/producers who retain a separate rate assigned in the less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation should be recalculated to reflect the revised countervailing duty (CVD) export subsidy offsets from the amended final CVD determination. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Flessner or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On May 26, 2011, Commerce published AD and CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China.1 On October 23, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained Commerce's results of redetermination pursuant to court remand, which recalculated the all-others subsidy rate in the CVD investigation of aluminum extrusions from China.2 On November 10, 2015, Commerce published an amended final CVD determination, with an effective date of November 2, 2015.3

    1See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) (the Order); and Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011).

    2See MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (CIT August 2015) (MacLean-Fogg).

    3See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Pursuant to Court Decision, 80 FR 69640 (November 10, 2015) (CVD Amended Final Determination).

    In the CVD investigation, the subsidy rate applied to “all other” companies was 374.15 percent,4 and the amount of export subsidies included in the all-others rate was 42.16 percent.5 Section 772(c)(1)(C) the Act provides that in determining export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP), Commerce should adjust its calculations by “the amount of any countervailing duty imposed on the subject merchandise . . . to offset an export subsidy.” Therefore, the AD cash deposit rate for companies eligible for a separate rate was calculated as the separate rate dumping margin determined in the LTFV investigation (i.e., 32.79 percent), less the amount of export subsidies included in the all-others CVD rate (i.e., 42.16 percent).6 However, as a result of Commerce's amended final CVD determination, the all-others CVD rate was determined to be 7.37 percent,7 and the amount of export subsidies included in the all-others rate was determined to be 0.28 percent.8

    4See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 76 FR 18521, 18523 (April 4, 2011).

    5See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 18524, 18531 (April 4, 2011).

    6Id., 76 FR at 18531.

    7See CVD Amended Final Determination, 80 FR at 69640.

    8See Memorandum, “Preliminary Export Subsidy Offset Calculation Memorandum,” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Calculation Memorandum).

    Of the companies that were granted a separate rate in the LTFV investigation, 21 companies have not been subject to an administrative review and, thus, continue to be assigned the separate rate cash deposit rate determined in the LTFV investigation.9 These companies are listed below in the “Preliminary Results of Expedited Changed Circumstances Review” section.

    9 Two additional companies, China Square Industrial Ltd and USA Worldwide Door Components (PINGHU) Co., Ltd., are currently assigned the separate rate established in the LTFV investigation. However, both companies are currently under review in the 2015-2016 administrative review of aluminum extrusions from China, and their dumping margin will be determined in the final results of that review.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the Order is aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents). Specifically, the subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 1 contains not less than 99 percent aluminum by weight. The subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 3 contains manganese as the major alloying element, with manganese accounting for not more than 3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject merchandise is made from an aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 6 contains magnesium and silicon as the major alloying elements, with magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 2.0 percent of total materials by weight, and silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject aluminum extrusions are properly identified by a four-digit alloy series without either a decimal point or leading letter. Illustrative examples from among the approximately 160 registered alloys that may characterize the subject merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060.

    Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of shapes and forms, including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that are drawn subsequent to extrusion (drawn aluminum) are also included in the scope.

    Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of finishes (both coatings and surface treatments), and types of fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments applied to subject aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that are mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing), brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including brightdip anodized), liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum extrusions may also be fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would include, but are not limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined, drilled, punched, notched, bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. The subject merchandise includes aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated, painted, etc.), fabricated, or any combination thereof.

    Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise unless imported as part of the finished goods `kit' defined further below. The scope does not include the non-aluminum extrusion components of subassemblies or subject kits.

    Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, door thresholds, carpet trim, or heat sinks (that do not meet the finished heat sink exclusionary language below). Such goods are subject merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are ready for use at the time of importation.

    The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: Aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designations commencing with the number 2 and containing in excess of 1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and aluminum extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 7 and containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc by weight.

    The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing material, and solar panels. The scope also excludes finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a “finished goods kit.” A finished goods kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or punching, and is assembled “as is” into a finished product. An imported product will not be considered a “finished goods kit” and therefore excluded from the scope of the Order merely by including fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with an aluminum extrusion product.

    The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by other than the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A letter may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum Association designations are representative of aluminum alloys for casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form.

    The scope also excludes collapsible tubular containers composed of metallic elements corresponding to alloy code 1080A as designated by the Aluminum Association where the tubular container (excluding the nozzle) meets each of the following dimensional characteristics: (1) Length of 37 millimeters (“mm”) or 62 mm, (2) outer diameter of 11.0 mm or 12.7 mm, and (3) wall thickness not exceeding 0.13 mm.

    Also excluded from the scope of this order are finished heat sinks. Finished heat sinks are fabricated heat sinks made from aluminum extrusions the design and production of which are organized around meeting certain specified thermal performance requirements and which have been fully, albeit not necessarily individually, tested to comply with such requirements.

    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 6603.90.8100, 7616.99.51, 8479.89.94, 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90, 7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20, 9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10, 7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30, 7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60, 8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60, 8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50, 8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65, 8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85, 8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00, 8414.59.60.90, 8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85, 9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10, 9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80, 9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05, 9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15, 9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40, 9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30, 9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00, 9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00, 9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00, 9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.

    The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99, as well as under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), Commerce is initiating a CCR of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. While Commerce was conducting the 2016-2017 administrative review,10 the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (the petitioner), brought to Commerce's attention that, despite the issuance of the CVD Amended Final Determination, which modified the all-others CVD rate, Commerce never revised the export subsidy offset applied to the AD cash deposit rates determined for the 21 exporters/producers who retain a separate rate assigned in the LTFV investigation. In light of the issuance of the CVD Amended Final Determination, as well as the information raised by the petitioner in the 2016-2017 administrative review, we have determined that there is sufficient information of changed circumstances to warrant self-initiation of a review to consider revision of the AD cash deposit rates applied to those exporters/producers who continue to be assigned a separate rate from the LTFV investigation.

    10See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2016-2017, 83 FR 5604 (February 8, 2018).

    Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of Commerce's regulations permits Commerce to combine the notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review and the notice of preliminary results if Commerce concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because we believe we have all the information necessary to make a preliminary finding, and that modification of the export subsidy offset was permitted on or after November 2, 2015 (the effective date of the CVD Amended Final Determination), we find that expedited action is warranted, and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results.

    Preliminary Results of Expedited Changed Circumstances Review

    When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, Commerce may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results of a CCR in a single notice.11 As detailed below, expedited action is warranted in this instance to bring Commerce's application of the export subsidy offset in accordance with the revised CVD rate issued in the CVD Amended Final Determination. Accordingly, we are combining the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

    11See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

    Based on Commerce's analysis of the information published in the CVD Amended Final Determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216, we preliminarily determine that changed circumstances exist, and that the appropriate cash deposit rate for the 21 exporters/producers who retain a separate rate assigned in the LTFV investigation should be recalculated to include the revised CVD export subsidy offsets from the CVD Amended Final Determination. 12

    12See Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.

    The preliminary cash deposit rates are listed below:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash
  • deposit
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd Changshu Changsheng Aluminium Products Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd Cosco (J.M.) Aluminium Co., Ltd/Jiangmen Qunxing Hardware Diecasting Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 First Union Property Limited Top-Wok Metal Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Foshan Jinlan Non-Ferrous Metal Product Co., Ltd Foshan Jinlan Aluminium Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium Co., Ltd Foshan Sanshui Fenglu Aluminium CO., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd Guangdong Hao Mei Aluminium Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Guangdong Weiye Aluminum Factory Co., Ltd Guangdong Weiye Aluminum Factory Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd Guangdong Xingfa Aluminium Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Hanwood Enterprises Limited Pingguo Aluminium Company Limited 32.79 32.51 Honsense Development Company Kanal Precision Aluminium Product Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Innovative Aluminium (Hong Kong) Limited Taishan Golden Gain Aluminum Products Limited 32.79 32.51 Jiangyin Trust International Inc Jiangyin Xinhong Doors and Windows Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Longkou Donghai Trade Co., Ltd Shandong Nanshan Aluminum Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Ningbo Yili Import and Export Co., Ltd Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 North China Aluminum Co., Ltd North China Aluminum Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited PanAsia Aluminium (China) Limited 32.79 32.51 Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd Pingguo Asia Aluminum Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Popular Plastics Co., Ltd Hoi Tat Plastic Mould & Metal Factory 32.79 32.51 Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51 Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology, Ltd Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat Transmission Technology, Ltd 32.79 32.51 Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd 32.79 32.51
    Public Comment

    Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.13 Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the submission of case briefs.14 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this CCR are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included.15

    13See 19 CFR 321.309(c)(1)(ii).

    14See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    15See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), and (d)(2).

    All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).16 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the deadline.17 Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 18022 and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 5 p.m. ET on the due date.18

    16See 19 CFR 351.303(f).

    17See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    18See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures: Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, or the first business day thereafter. Persons interested in attending the hearing, if one is requested, should contact Commerce for the date and time of the hearing.

    Notifications to Interested Parties

    Unless extended, consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review is initiated, or within 45 days after the date on which this review is initiated if all parties agree to our preliminary finding. The final results will include Commerce's analysis of issues raised in any written comments.

    We are issuing and publishing this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and sections 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3) of Commerce's regulations.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15573 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Survey To Collect Economic Data From Recreational Anglers Along the Atlantic Coast AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Sabrina Lovell, Economist, Office of Science and Technology, NMFS, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910. Tel: (301) 427-8153 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for a new information collection.

    The objective of the survey will be to understand how anglers respond to changes in management options and fishing regulations (e.g., bag limits, size limits, dates of open seasons, etc.) along the Atlantic Coast. We are conducting this survey to improve our ability to understand and predict how changes in management options and regulations may change the number of trips anglers take for highly sought after recreational fish species. This data will allow fisheries managers to conduct updated and improved analysis of the socio-economic effects to recreational anglers and to coastal communities of proposed changes in fishing regulations. The recreational fishing community and regional fisheries management councils have requested more species-specific socio-economic studies of recreational fishing that can be used in the analysis of fisheries policies. This survey will address that stated need for more species-specific studies. The population consists of those anglers who fish in saltwater along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida who possess a license to fish. A sample of anglers will be drawn from state fishing license frames. The survey will be conducted using both mail and email to contact anglers and invite them to take the survey online. Anglers not responding to the online survey may receive a paper survey in the mail.

    II. Method of Collection

    The survey will be conducted using two modes: Mail and internet.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,800.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 450 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15474 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG355 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings (webinars).

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT) will hold a series of meetings via webinar to discuss the ongoing development of salmon rebuilding plans for Klamath River fall Chinook, Sacramento River fall Chinook, Strait of Juan de Fuca natural coho, Queets River natural coho, and Snohomish River natural coho. These meetings are open to the public.

    DATES:

    The STT webinar for Klamath River fall Chinook will be held Tuesday, August 14, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

    The STT meeting for Sacramento River fall Chinook will be held Tuesday, August 14, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

    The STT meeting for Strait of Juan de Fuca natural coho will be held Wednesday, August 15, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

    The STT meeting for Queets River natural coho will be held Wednesday, August 15, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

    The STT meeting for Snohomish River natural coho will be held Thursday, August 16, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The STT meetings will be held by webinar. To attend the webinars, (1) join the meeting by visiting this link https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar, (2) enter the webinar ID: 726-810-643, and (3) enter your name and email address (required). After logging into the webinar, please (1) dial this TOLL number: 1-213-929-4212 (not a toll-free number); (2) enter the attendee phone audio access code: 716-619-777; and (3) then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Note: We have disabled mic/speakers as an option and require all participants to use a telephone or cell phone to participate. Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (see the https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar/ipad-iphone-android-webinar-apps). You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected] or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 411 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be available at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Robin Ehlke, Pacific Council; telephone: 503-820-2410.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Three natural coho stocks (Queets coho, Strait of Juan de Fuca coho, and Snohomish coho) and two Chinook stocks (Sacramento River fall Chinook and Klamath River fall Chinook) were found to meet the criteria for being classified as overfished in the PFMC Review of 2017 Ocean Salmon Fisheries. Under the tenets of the Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the STT is required to develop a salmon rebuilding plan for each of these stocks and propose them to the Council within one year.

    The STT will meet with tribal, state, and other management entities who are working together to develop the salmon rebuilding plans. These meetings will focus on progress made since the June 2018 meetings, and on additional analysis needed for plan development. Topics for discussion may include, but are not limited to, outstanding data needs, data analysis, and potential alternatives to rebuild the stocks. One meeting will occur for each of the five stocks; additional meetings will be scheduled as needed. These meetings are open to the public. All meetings will have the same webinar ID and access code.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]; (503) 820-2411) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15590 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG341 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) will hold a 2-day meeting in August to discuss the items contained in the agenda in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on August 9, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on August 10, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the CFMC Headquarters, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: August 9, 2018, 10 a.m.-4 p.m. ○ Call to Order ○ Adoption of Agenda ○ OEAP Chairperson's Report —Status of: • OEAP members meeting attendance • Chair Report —GeoAmbiente video on Puerto Rico's fishers' contribution to fisheries management —Videos for St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix —Meetings attended: Council Communication Coordination Group (CCG) Sitka, AK; Capitol Hill Ocean Week (CHOW) Washington, DC —CFMC Report 162nd Regular Meeting —Status of fishing infrastructure post hurricanes in the region —USVI activities —Status of Island-Based Fishery Management Plans (IBFMPs) —Status of Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) —Responsible Seafood Consumption Campaign August 10, 2018, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. —2019 Calendar and CFMC web page Update—Natalia Perdomo —Caribbean Fishery App —CFMC Social Media communication Plan —Facebook and YouTube channel —MREP Caribbean —Other Business

    The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on August 9, 2018 at 10 a.m. and will end on August 10, 3018 at 3 p.m. Other than the start time, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated. In addition, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contac Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15589 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Date added to and deleted from the Procurement List: August 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addition

    On 4/20/2018 (83 FR 77), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published a notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

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

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

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

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

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement List:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6220-01-266-1651—Spotlight, .52 AMPS 28V BA15S bulb, yellow/white output, HMMWV Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH Mandatory for: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Distribution: C-List Deletions

    On 6/15/2018 (83 FR 116), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published a notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

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

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

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

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

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-496-5479—Planner, Hanging Kit, EA 7520-01-584-0877—Planner, Hanging Kits, 20 Kits Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Chicago Lighthouse Industries, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-01-600-7616—Monthly Desk Planner, Dated 2018, Wire Bound, Non-refillable, Black Cover 7530-01-600-7593—Weekly Desk Planner, Dated 2018, Wire Bound, Non-refillable, Black Cover 7530-01-600-7583—Daily Desk Planner, Dated 2018, Wire bound, Non-refillable, Black Cover 7530-01-600-7605—Weekly Planner Book, Dated 2018, 5″ x 8″, Black 7510-01-600-7568—Monthly Wall Calendar, Dated 2018, Jan-Dec, 8-1/2″ x 11″ 7510-01-600-7629—Wall Calendar, Dated 2018, Wire Bound w/Hanger, 12″ x 17″ 7510-01-600-7563—Wall Calendar, Dated 2018, Wire Bound w/hanger, 15-1/2″ x 22″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Chicago Lighthouse Industries, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-NIB-0613—Holder, Key and Credit Card, Custom Print, Black Leather, 2-1/4″ x 4″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Travis Association for the Blind, Austin, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15570 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

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

    1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the service to the Government.

    2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the service to the Government.

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

    Item proposed for addition to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Document Destruction Service Mandatory for: Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center, 3990 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Greene, Inc., Xenia, OH Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency, DLA Contracting SVCS OFF Columbus Deletions

    1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

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

    Items proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6230-01-617-3776—Kit, Safety Flare, Programmable Flicker Pattern, Red LED, 8in Diameter, AA Battery Operated 6230-01-617-6959—Kit, Safety Flare, Programmable Flicker Pattern, Red LED, 8in Diameter, Rechargeable Power Unit Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Tarrant County Association for the Blind, Fort Worth, TX Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6545-07-000-0762—USMC Individual First Aid Kit, Complete 6545-09-000-2727—Minor First Aid Kit, USMC Individual First Aid Kit Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Chautauqua County Chapter, NYSARC, Jamestown, NY Contracting Activity: Commander, Quantico, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-502-3285—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Small—Regular, Green 8415-01-502-3287—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Medium—Regular, Green 8415-01-502-3288—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Large—Regular, Green 8415-01-502-3289—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Large—Long, Green 8415-01-502-3290—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Extra Large—Regular 8415-01-502-3292—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Extra Large—Long, G 8415-01-502-3321—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Size Short—Regular 8415-01-502-3322—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Size Medium—Regular 8415-01-502-3324—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Size Large—Regular 8415-01-502-3325—Green, Midweight Undershirt, X-tra Large—Regular 8415-01-502-3328—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Large—Long 8415-01-502-3341—Green, Midweight Undershirt, X-Large—Long 8415-01-502-4366—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Small—Regular, 8415-01-502-4368—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Medium-Regular, 8415-01-502-4370—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Large—Regular, 8415-01-502-4371—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Large—Long, Green 8415-01-502-4373—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Extra Large—Regular 8415-01-502-4375—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Extra Large—Long Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, KY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5340-01-230-0219—Bracket, Angle with Four Holes, Abrams M-1 Tank, Green 5340-01-386-2917—Bracket, Angle, Command AAVC-7A1 Amphibious Assault Vehicle 5340-01-112-9693—Bracket, Angle, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System 5340-01-525-0579—Bracket, Angle, Right Side, Medium Tactical Vehicles 5340-01-102-3483—Bracket, Angle with Two Holes, Abrams M-1 Tank 5340-01-525-0574—Bracket, Angle, Left Side, Medium Tactical Vehicles 5340-01-519-7318—Bracket, Angle, Truck 1-1/4 Ton HMMWV Vehicle System 5340-01-162-7040—Bracket, Angle, Personnel M113A1, M113-A2, M-113A3 Armored Carrier 5340-01-163-4245—Bracket, Double Angle, Hercules M88A2 Recovery Vehicle 5340-01-288-5231—Bracket, Double Angle, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System 5340-01-167-1810—Bracket, Mounting, Personnel M113A1, M113-A2, M-113A3 Armored Carrier 5340-01-329-8589—Bracket, Mounting, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System 5340-01-084-1232—Bracket, Mounting, Cargo Truck 5340-01-500-4197—Bracket, Mounting, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Fighting Vehicle 5340-00-627-5411—Bracket, Mounting, Stratofortress B-52 Aircraft 5340-01-347-9608—Bracket, Mounting, F-16 Aircraft 5340-00-602-4977—Bracket, Mounting, Hercules M88A2 Recovery Vehicle 5340-01-272-6634—Bracket, Mounting, Truck 1-1/4 Ton HMMWV Vehicle System 5340-01-098-5119—Bracket, Mounting, Howitzer M-109 5340-01-078-7642—Bracket, Mounting, Abrams M-1 Tank 5340-01-521-0196—Bracket, Mounting, Non-Weapons System 5340-01-458-0473—Bracket, Mounting, M-16 Rifle 5.56MM Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6840-00-NIB-0039—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Original Scent 6840-00-NIB-0040—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Fresh Scent 6840-00-NIB-0041—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Country Scent 6840-00-NIB-0042—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Crisp Linen Scent 6840-00-NIB-0043—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Spring Waterfall Scent Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: GSA/FSS OFC SUP CTR—Paper Products, New York, NY Service Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: USPS, Mail Transportation Equipment Center, 7600 West Roosevelt Road, Forest Park, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lester and Rosalie Anixter Center, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: U.S. Postal Service, Washington, DC Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Naval Air Reserve Center, 6201 32nd Avenue, Minneapolis, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: AccessAbility, Inc., Minneapolis, MN Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U S Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Laundry Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army Aviation Support Command: CMPSC Commissary, Granite City, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northeregion Contract OFC Dated: July 17, 2018. Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15571 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2018-0022] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is proposing to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection, titled, “Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before August 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments in response to this notice are to be directed towards OMB and to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (202) 395-5806

    Mail: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

    In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link becomes active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected] Please do not submit comments to these email boxes.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Consumer and College Credit Card Agreements.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0052.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of an existing information collection.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 430.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 430.

    Abstract: Sections 204 and 305 of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) and 12 CFR 226.57(d) and 226.58 require card issuers to submit to the Bureau:

    • Agreements between the issuer and a consumer under a credit card account for an open-end consumer credit plan; and

    • any college credit card agreements to which the issuer is a party and certain additional information regarding those agreements.

    The data collections enable the Bureau to provide consumers with a centralized depository for consumer and college credit card agreements. It also presents information to the public regarding the arrangements between financial institutions and institutions of higher education. This is a routine request for OMB to renew its approval of the collections of information currently approved under this OMB control number. The Bureau is not proposing any new or revised collections of information pursuant to this request.

    Request For Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on February 28, 2018 (83 FR 8656), Docket Number: CFPB-2018-0008. Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be reviewed by OMB as part of its review of this request. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15581 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Commitment Form; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Application Package for Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Commitment Form for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Rhonda Taylor, at 202-606-6721, or by email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • 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;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to 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.

    Comments

    A 60-day notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2018 at Vol. 83, No. 30. This comment period ended March 15, 2018. Zero public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description: The information is provided by institutions of higher education that are requesting to be listed on the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Matching Program section of the Corporation for National and Community Service website. The information will be collected electronically by CNCS. CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. The revisions are intended to renew the current information collection. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application expired on 5/31/2018.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Commitment Form.

    OMB Control Number: 3045-0143.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Institutions of higher education that provide incentives for AmeriCorps alumni, such as matching the AmeriCorps Education Award that members receive after successful completion of the AmeriCorps Program, and that request to be listed on the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Matching Program section of the Corporation for National and Community Service website.

    Total Respondents: Estimated 200 colleges and universities.

    Frequency: Once every five years.

    Average Time per Response: Average 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 100 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (Capital/Startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (Operating/Maintenance): None.

    Dated: June 25, 2018. Rhonda Taylor, Director of Partnerships and Public Engagement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15593 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID: USAF-2018-HQ-0006] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Air Force announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24 Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the HQ AFSPC/A4MC, ATTN: SMSgt. John Storm, 150 Vadenberg St., Ste. 1105, Peterson AFB CO 80914, or call HQ AFSPC/A4MC Nuclear C2 Systems Branch at (719) 554-4057.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Hardened Intersite Cable Right-of-Way Landowner Questionnaire; AF Form 3951; OMB Control Number 0701-0141.

    Needs and Uses: This form collects updated landowner/tenant information as well as data on local property conditions which could adversely affect the Hardened Intersite Cable System (HICS) such as soil erosion, projected/building projects, evacuation plans, etc. This information also aids in notifying landowners/tenants when HCIS preventative or corrective maintenance becomes necessary to ensure uninterrupted Intercontinental Ballistic Missile command and control capability. The information collection requirement is necessary to report changes in ownership/lease information, conditions of missile cable route and associated appurtenances, and projected building/excavation projects. The information collected is used to ensure system integrity and to maintain a close contact public relations program with involved personnel and agencies.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,125.

    Number of Respondents: 4,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 4,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 mins.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15515 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Special Communication and Contact Control Measures AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    This directive establishes the Special Communications and Contacts Control Measures (SCCCM) program to provide specific limitations on the communications and contacts of Army Corrections Command (ACC) prisoners to protect national security, public safety, the good order, discipline and correctional mission of the Army Corrections System (ACS) facilities from acts of violence or terrorism.

    DATES:

    Comments are due by August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail comments to: Office of the Provost Marshal General (Gregory W. Limberis), 2800 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Gregory Stroebel, (703) 545-5935.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    (a) Upon direction of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA (M&RA)), the Commander, ACC, may authorize the Commander of an ACS Facility to implement SCCCM that are reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury. These procedures may be implemented upon written notification to the Commander, ACC, by the ASA (M&RA), that there is a substantial risk that a prisoner's communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons or substantial damage to property that would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury to persons. These SCCCM ordinarily may include housing the prisoner in administrative segregation and/or limiting certain conditions of confinement, including, but not limited to, correspondence, visiting, interviews with representatives of the news media, and use of the telephone, as is reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury. The authority of the Commander, ACC under this paragraph may not be delegated.

    (b) Designated ACS facility staff shall provide to the affected prisoner, as soon as practicable, written notification of the restrictions imposed and the basis for the restrictions. The notice's statement as to the basis may be limited in the interest of prison security or safety, to protect against acts of violence or terrorism that could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons, or substantial damage to property that would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury to persons. The prisoner shall sign for and receive a copy of the notification. The prisoner's attorney(s) of record shall also provide a written acknowledgement of receipt of the notice and an agreement to abide by the SCCCM.

    (c) Initial placement of a prisoner in administrative segregation and/or any limitation of the prisoner's conditions of confinement in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may be imposed for up to 120 days or, with the approval of the ASA (M&RA), a longer period of time not to exceed one year. Special restrictions imposed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may be extended thereafter by the Commander, ACC, in increments not to exceed one year, upon receipt by the Commander, ACC of an additional written notification from the ASA (M&RA) that there continues to be a substantial risk that the prisoner's communications or contacts with other persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons or substantial damage to property that would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury to persons. The authority of the Commander, ACC under this paragraph may not be delegated.

    (d) In any case where the Secretary of the Army specifically so orders, based on information from the Provost Marshal General/Commanding General, United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) that reasonable suspicion exists to believe that a particular prisoner may use communications with attorneys or their agents to solicit, further, or otherwise facilitate acts of terrorism, the Commander, ACC, shall, in addition to the SCCCM imposed under paragraph (a) of this section, provide appropriate procedures for the monitoring or review of communications between that prisoner and attorneys or attorneys' agents who are traditionally covered by the attorney-client privilege, for the purpose of deterring future acts of terrorism.

    (1) The certification by the Secretary of the Army under this paragraph (d) shall be in addition to any findings or determinations relating to the need for the imposition of other SCCCM as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, but may be incorporated into the same document.

    (2) Except in the case of prior court authorization, the Commander, ACC, shall provide written notice to the prisoner and to the attorneys involved prior to the initiation of any such monitoring or review authorized under this paragraph (d). The notice shall explain:

    (i) That, notwithstanding the provisions of DoDI 1325.07, AR 190-47, or other rules, all communications between the prisoner and attorneys may be monitored, to the extent determined to be reasonably necessary for the purpose of deterring future acts of terrorism;

    (ii) That communications between the prisoner and attorneys or their agents are not protected by the attorney-client privilege if they would facilitate criminal acts or a conspiracy to commit criminal acts, or if those communications are not related to the seeking or providing of legal advice.

    (3) The Commander, ACC, with the concurrence of the Judge Advocate General and the Army General Counsel, shall employ appropriate procedures to ensure that all attorney-client communications are reviewed for privilege claims and that any properly privileged materials (including, but not limited to, recordings of privileged communications) are not retained during the course of the monitoring. To protect the attorney-client privilege and to ensure that the investigation or judicial proceeding is not compromised by exposure to privileged material relating to the investigation, judicial proceeding or to defense strategy, a privilege team shall be designated by the Judge Advocate General, consisting of individuals not involved in the underlying investigation or judicial proceeding. The monitoring shall be conducted pursuant to procedures designed to minimize the intrusion into privileged material or conversations. Except in cases where the person in charge of the privilege team determines that the acts of terrorism are imminent, the privilege team shall not disclose any information unless and until such disclosure has been approved by a federal or military judge presiding over the legal matter for which attorneys or their agents represent the particular prisoner.

    (e) The affected prisoner may seek review of any specific limitation on communications or contacts imposed pursuant to this directive in accordance with AR 190-47, paragraph 10-14. The Commander, ACC will act on any request for review.

    The Provost Marshal General is the proponent for this policy and will incorporate the provisions of this directive into AR 190-47 as soon as possible. This directive will be rescinded upon publication of the revised regulation.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15425 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Integrated Supply Project, Larimer and Weld Counties, Colorado AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Omaha District has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a water supply project called the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP or Project) in Larimer and Weld Counties, CO. The purpose of NISP is to provide the Participants, a group of 15 water providers and communities, with approximately 40,000 acre-feet (AF) per year of new, reliable municipal water supply through a regional project coordinated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water). NISP would result in direct impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The placement of fill material into waters of the U.S. requires authorization from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Northern Water is the applicant for the Section 404 permit, acting on behalf of the Participants. In accordance with Section 176 of the Clean Air Act a Draft General Conformity Determination has been prepared for the Project.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the Final EIS and the Draft General Conformity Determination will be accepted on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments regarding NISP, the Final EIS, and the Draft General Conformity Determination to John Urbanic, NISP EIS Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Denver Regulatory Office, 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard, Littleton, CO 80128, or by email to [email protected] Requests to be placed on or be removed from the NISP mailing list should also be sent to this address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Urbanic, NISP EIS Project Manager, telephone 303-979-4120, fax at 303-979-0602, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Final EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Corps' regulations for NEPA implementation (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 230 and 325, Appendix B). The Corps, Omaha District, Denver Regulatory Office is the lead federal agency responsible for the Final EIS. Information contained in the EIS serves as the basis for a decision regarding issuance of a Section 404 Permit. It also provides information for local and state agencies that have jurisdictional responsibility for affected resources.

    The Corps released a Draft EIS for NISP on April 30, 2008 and a Supplemental Draft EIS on June 19, 2015. The Corps has considered the comments received on the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS in the development of the Final EIS. The purpose of the Final EIS is to provide decision-makers and the public with information pertaining to the Project, disclose environmental impacts of the alternatives, and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts. In NISP, Northern Water proposes to construct Glade Reservoir with a total storage capacity of approximately 170,000 AF. The Project would also involve rehabilitating the existing diversion and intake structure in the Cache la Poudre River as well as constructing a new diversion and intake structure, forebay, pumping facility, and outlet channel. Glade Reservoir would inundate approximately 7 miles of U.S. Highway 287 and a section of the Munroe (North Poudre Supply) Canal, requiring a relocation of the highway and the canal. Northern Water also proposes to construct the South Platte Water Conservation Project (SPWCP) which includes Upper Galeton Reservoir with a total storage capacity of approximately 45,624 AF. The SPWCP includes the construction of a new diversion and intake structure in the South Platte River, pumping facilities, and new pipelines for Upper Galeton Reservoir.

    This FEIS evaluates the effects of the following alternatives to NISP: Alternative 1—No Action Alternative; Alternative 2M—Glade Reservoir with modified conveyance and the South Platte Water Conservation Project (Applicant's Preferred Alternative); Alternative 2—Glade Reservoir and the South Platte Water Conservation Project; Alternative 3—Cactus Hill Reservoir, Poudre Valley Canal Diversion, and the South Platte Water Conservation Project; and Alternative 4—Cactus Hill Reservoir, with multiple diversion locations, and the South Platte Water Conservation Project.

    In accordance with Section 176 of the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency's general conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart B), a Draft General Conformity Determination has been prepared for the Project. Section 176 of the Clean Air Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to applicable implementation plans for achieving and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria air pollutants. The Corps has prepared a Draft Conformity Determination for the Project and has included it in Chapter 4.14.7 of the Final EIS. The Draft General Conformity Determination finds that all alternatives of the Project conform with the State Implementation Plan.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and Larimer County participated as cooperating agencies in the development of the Final EIS.

    Copies of the Final EIS will be available for review at:

    1. Colorado State University Morgan Library, 1201 Center Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521.

    2. Poudre River Public Library District—Old Town Library, 201 Peterson Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524.

    3. Poudre River Public Library—Harmony Library, 4616 S. Shields Street, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

    4. University of Northern Colorado, James A. Michener Library, 14th Avenue and 20th Street, Greeley, CO 80639.

    5. Fort Morgan Public Library, 414 Main Street, Fort Morgan, CO 80701.

    6. Windsor Recreation Center, 250 11th Street, Windsor, CO 80550.

    7. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 220 Water Avenue, Berthoud, CO 80513.

    8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Denver Regulatory Office, 9307 S. Wadsworth Boulevard, Littleton, CO 80128.

    Electronic copies of the Final EIS and supporting documents may be obtained from the Denver Regulatory Office or its website at: http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program/Colorado/EIS-NISP.

    Dated: July 2, 2018. Kiel Downing, State Regulatory Program Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Denver Regulatory Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15427 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Availability of the Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement for the Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado General Investigation Study, Adams and Denver County, Colorado AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of public comment deadline.

    SUMMARY:

    The comment period for the Notice of Availability of the Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement for the Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado General Investigation Study, Adams and Denver County, Colorado published in the Federal Register on Monday, July 2, 2018, and required comments be postmarked on or before August 16, 2018. The Corps is extending the deadline for submitting public comments to August 28, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jeffrey Bohlken, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (402) 995-2671 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Draft EIS can be downloaded from www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Planning/Project-Reports/.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15429 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005] Solicitation of Nominations for Membership on the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Solicitation of nominations for membership.

    SUMMARY:

    To ensure a wide range of candidates and a balanced committee, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the solicitation of nominations to fill upcoming vacancies on the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (Committee).

    DATES:

    All nomination information should be provided in a single, complete package submitted electronically or postmarked by August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations packages should be submitted either electronically or by mail, but not by both methods. Complete nomination packages identified by docket number “EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005” may be submitted by any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected] Include docket number “EERE-2013-BT-NOC- 0005” in the subject line of the message.

    3. Postal Mail: Ms. Naeema Conway, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Naeema Conway, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    It is recommended that nominations be submitted in electronic format via email to [email protected] Submissions submitted by mail are welcome, but may be delayed in delivery due to the DOE mail vetting procedures in place. For submission by mail, please send to Ms. Naeema Conway, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky by telephone at (202) 287-1692 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on the DOE's Appliance and Equipment Standards Program's test procedures and rulemaking determinations. The Committee's scope is to review and make recommendations on the: (1) Development of minimum efficiency standards for residential appliances and commercial equipment, (2) development of product test procedures, (3) certification and enforcement of standards, (4) labeling for various residential products and commercial equipment, and (5) specific issues of concern to DOE as requested by the Secretary of Energy, the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Buildings Technologies Office's Director.

    To facilitate the functioning of the Committee, working groups (i.e., subcommittees) may be formed with the approval of the Department of Energy. The objectives of the working groups are to make recommendations to the Committee with respect to particular matters related to the responsibilities of the parent committee. Such working groups may not work independently of the Committee and must report their recommendations and advice to the Committee for full deliberation and discussion. Working group members are appointed with DOE approval.

    DOE is hereby soliciting nominations for members of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee. The Committee is expected to be continuing in nature. Members will be selected with a view toward achieving a balanced committee of experts in fields relevant to energy efficiency, appliance and commercial equipment standards to include DOE, as well as representatives of industry (including manufacturers and trade associations representing manufacturers, component manufacturers and related suppliers, and retailers), utilities, states, energy efficiency/environmental advocacy groups, and consumers. Committee members will serve for a term of three years or less and may be reappointed for successive terms, with no more than two successive terms. Appointments may be made in a manner that allows the terms of the members serving at any time to expire at spaced intervals, so as to ensure continuity in the functioning of the Committee. Some Committee members may be appointed as special Government employees, experts in fields relevant to energy efficiency and appliance and commercial equipment standards; or as representatives of industry (including manufacturers and trade associations representing manufacturers, component manufacturers and related suppliers, and retailers), utilities, states, energy efficiency/environmental advocacy groups, and consumers. Special Government employees will be subject to certain ethical restrictions and such members will be required to submit certain information in connection with the appointment process.

    Members of the Committee will serve without compensation; however, each member may be reimbursed in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations for authorized travel and per diem expenses incurred while attending Committee meetings.

    Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Qualified individuals can self-nominate or be nominated by any individual or organization. Nominators should submit:

    1. The nominee's current resume or curriculum vitae and contact information, including mailing address, email address, and telephone number; and

    2. A letter of interest, including a summary of how the nominee's experience and expertise would support the Committee's objectives;

    All nomination information should be provided in a single, complete package by the deadline specified in this notice. Nominations packages should be submitted by either mail or electronically, but not by both methods.

    Should more information be needed, DOE staff will contact the nominee, obtain information from the nominee's past affiliations or obtain information from publicly available sources, such as the internet. A selection team will review the nomination packages. This team will be comprised of representatives from several DOE Offices. The selection team will seek balanced viewpoints and consider many criteria, including: (a) Scientific or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience; (b) stakeholder representation; (c) availability and willingness to serve; and (d) skills working in committees, working groups and advisory panels. The selection team will make recommendations regarding membership to the Secretary of Energy for review and selection of Committee members.

    Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that recommendations to the Committee take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by DOE, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the needs of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups, and persons with disabilities. Please note, however, that individuals already serving on another Federal advisory committee are ineligible for nomination.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15582 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-456] Application To Export Electric Energy; Manifold Energy Inc. AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Manifold Energy Inc. (the Applicant) has applied for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On June 25, 2018, DOE received an application from the Applicant for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities.

    In its application, the Applicant states that it “does not own or control electric generation facilities or transmission facilities and that it has no “obligation to serve native load within a franchised service area.” The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and other suppliers within the United States pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five (5) copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning the Applicant's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-456. An additional copy is to be provided to Marc-Antoine Dénommée, 495 Avenue de l'étang, Mascouche, Québec J7K 4E4, Canada.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2018. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15583 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-455] Application To Export Electric Energy; NS Power Energy Marketing Incorporated AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    NS Power Energy Marketing Incorporated (NSP Marketing or Applicant) has applied for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b) and 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On June 28, 2018, DOE received an application from NSP Marketing for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. NSP Marketing will be seeking market-based rate authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

    In its application, NSP Marketing states that it “does not own or control any electric power generation or transmission facilities and does not have a franchised electric power service area.” The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and other suppliers within the United States pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five (5) copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning NSP Marketing's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-455. An additional copy is to be provided to both Matt Clarke, Nova Scotia Power, 1223 Lower Water St., Halifax, NS B3J 3S8 Canada, and Bonnie A. Suchman, Suchman Law LLC, 8104 Paisley Place, Potomac, MD 20854.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program website at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2018. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15580 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-1639-000] Constellation Mystic Power, LLC; Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional

    With respect to an order issued by the Commission on July 13, 2018 in the above-captioned docket,1 with the exceptions noted below, the staff of the Office of Administrative Litigation are designated as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2017), these non-decisional staff will not serve as advisors to the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of any future filings in the above-referenced docket, including offers of settlement or settlement agreements. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2201 (2017), they are prohibited from communicating with advisory staff concerning any deliberations in this docket.

    1Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,022 (2018).

    Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:

    Daniel Poffenberger Joseph Hoffman Dated: July 16, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15557 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-459-002.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing RE: OATT, OA and RAA OVEC Integration Effective Date to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-460-002.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing RE: CTOA OVEC Integration Effective Date to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2004-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3461 Mid-Kansas and City of Anthony, KS Interconnection Agr to be effective 6/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5007.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2005-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 4411; Queue No. AA1-059 to be effective 7/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2006-000.

    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company, MidAmerican Energy Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: IPL—MEC Remote LBA Agreement to be effective 9/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5066.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2008-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State Construct Agmt ? Monolith Tap IC Rev 2 to be effective 9/11/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2009-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment AE to Enhance Regulation Deployment of DVERs to be effective 12/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5102.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2010-000.

    Applicants: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: ODEC Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule and Request for Waiver to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2011-000.

    Applicants: Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 7/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2013-000.

    Applicants: Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application to be effective 7/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5171.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15493 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-520-000; Docket No. CP18-521-000] Spire Storage West, LLC, Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Applications

    Take notice that on July 10, 2018, Spire Storage West, LLC (Spire), filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's regulations for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Spire's acquisition of the underground natural gas storage facility currently owned and operated by the Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. (Clear Creek) and to operate that facility (Clear Creek Facility) to provide storage services in interstate commerce pursuant to Spire's FERC Gas Tariff. Spire further requests the Commission's reaffirmation of its authorization for Spire to charge market-based rates following its acquisition of the Clear Creek Facility.

    Concurrently with the Spire application above, Clear Creek filed an application under section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to abandon the Clear Creek Facility by combination with Spire, an affiliated entity.

    Following approval of the proposals in the above applications and completion of the consolidation, Spire will render service through the combined Spire and Clear Creek facilities under Spire's open-access FERC Gas Tariff. These services will include service to any customer served by Clear Creek at the time of the combination.

    Questions regarding the Spire filing in Docket No. CP18-520-000 may be directed to James F. Bowe, Jr., King & Spalding LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006; phone (202) 626-9601; FAX (202) 626-3737; [email protected] Questions regarding the Clear Creek filing in Docket No. CP18-521-000 may be directed to James F. Bowe, Jr., or William E. Rice, King & Spalding LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006; phone (202)626-9601; FAX (202) 626-3737; [email protected]; or Castor Armesto, General Counsel, 700 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101; phone (314) 342-3326, [email protected]

    These filings are available for review at the Commission's Washington, DC offices, or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the “e-Library” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], or call toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this Project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, 385.211 (2016), by the comment date below. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission, and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit filings made with the Commission by mail, hand delivery, or internet, in accordance with Rule 2001 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, id. 385.2001. A copy must be served on every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website under the “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act section 3 or section 7 proceeding.1 Persons desiring to become a party to a certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner. If seeking to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to “show good cause why the time limitation should be waived,” and should provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.2

    1Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC ¶61,167 at ¶50 (2018).

    2 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).

    If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying the requested authorizations will be issued.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, August 9, 2018.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15556 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1827-006; ER10-1533-016.

    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC, Macquarie Energy LLC.

    Description: Supplement to December 22, 2017 Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region of Cleco Power LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5042.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1632-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended Filing—Major Maintenance Cost Component to Mitigated Offers to be effective 1/15/2019.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5174.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1898-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1534R8 Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA NOA—Amended to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2012-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Request of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. for Limited Waiver.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2014-000.

    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.

    Description: Request of Ohio Valley Electric Corporation for Limited Waivers and Expedited Treatment.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2015-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended & Restated Operating Agreement re: NYISO and New York Transco to be effective 5/23/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2016-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA, SA No. 5147; Queue No. AD1-144 to be effective 6/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5104.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2017-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Operation and Maintenance Agreement (Rates Schedule No. 501) of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15483 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-122-000.

    Applicants: GridLiance High Plains LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization to Acquire Transmission Facilities Pursuant to Section 203 of the FPA and Request for Expedited Action and Certain Waivers of GridLiance High Plains LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-164-019.

    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy III LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Facts under Market-Based Rate Authority of Bishop Hill Energy III LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5063.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1414-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5052.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-836-001.

    Applicants: Energia Sierra Juarez 2 U.S., LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Energia Sierra Juarez 2 U.S., LLC Compliance Filing to be effective 7/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1344-001.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-07-16 Congestion Revenue Rights Auction Efficiency Track 1A Compliance to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1915-001.

    Applicants: Bowfin KeyCon Energy, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Bowfin Energy FERC Electric Tariff Supplement to be effective 8/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1917-001.

    Applicants: Bowfin KeyCon Power, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Bowfin Power FERC Electric Tariff Supplement to be effective 8/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2018-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Notice of termination of Electric Rate Schedule (No. 378) of PacifiCorp.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2019-000.

    Applicants: AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company Inc., AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP Transco submits revisions to OATT, Schedule 1A to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2020-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits IA SA No. 4578 and ECSA Nos. 4971, 4972, 5012 to be effective 9/14/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2021-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits OIA SA No. 2852 & CA SA No. 4715 to be effective 9/14/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5066.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2022-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO & National Grid—amended/restated LGIA no. 2356 with Arkwright to be effective 6/28/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2023-000.

    Applicants: Whiting Clean Energy, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 9/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2024-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-16_SA 3084 St. Joseph Phase II-NIPSCO GIA 1st Rev (J351) to be effective 6/27/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2025-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc PPSA (RS-508) to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15563 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2013-000] Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 2, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic 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.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15484 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee, Members Committee, Board of Directors and Holistic Integrated Tariff Team Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee (RSC), Members Committee, Board of Directors and Holistic Integrated Tariff Team (HITT) as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

    The meetings will be held at the Embassy Suites Downtown/Old Market, 555 South 10th Street, Omaha, NE 68102. The phone number is (402) 346-9000. All meetings are Central Time.

    SPP RSC July 30, 2018 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.) SPP Members/Board of Directors July 31, 2018 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.) SPP HITT July 31, 2018 (3:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.) August 1, 2018 (9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket No. ER12-1179, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER14-2850, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER14-2851, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER15-2028, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER15-2115, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER15-2237, Kanstar Transmission, LLC Docket No. ER15-2594, South Central MCN LLC Docket No. EL16-91, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL16-108, Tilton Energy v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER16-204, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-2522, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-2523, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL17-21, Kansas Electric Co. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL17-89, American Electric Power Service Corporation v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., et al. Docket No. ER17-426, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-428, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-469, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-953, South Central MCN LLC Docket No. ER17-1741, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1610, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL18-9, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL18-12, ATX Southwest, LLC Docket No. EL18-13, Transource Kansas, LLC Docket No. EL18-14, Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC Docket No. EL18-15, Kanstar Transmission, LLC Docket No. EL18-16, South Central MCN, LLC Docket No. EL18-19, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL18-20, Indicated SPP Transmission Owners v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL18-26, EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL18-35, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL18-58, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. Docket No. ER18-99, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-171, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-194, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-195, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-564, South Central MCN LLC Docket No. ER18-572, South Central MCN LLC Docket No. ER18-939, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1078, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1267, South Central MCN LLC Docket No. ER18-1268, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1323, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1403, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1426, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1542, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1562, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1568, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1572, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1590, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1632, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1643, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1662, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1680, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1701, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1702, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1742, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1747, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1753, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1756, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1757, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1768, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1776, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1780, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1781, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1789, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1811, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1816, Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC Docket No. ER18-1838, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1854, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1864, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1867, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1872, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1881, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1898, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1904, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1919, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1921, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1923, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER18-1963, Midwest Energy, Inc. Docket No. TX18-1, AEP Energy Partners, Inc.

    This meeting is open to the public.

    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or [email protected]

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15479 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13318-003] Swan Lake North Hydro LLC; Notice of Modification of Procedural Schedule

    Take notice that the schedule for processing the following hydroelectric application has been modified.

    a. Type of Application: Original License (Major Project).

    b. Project No.: 13318-003.

    c. Date Filed: October 28, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Swan Lake North Hydro LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Swan Lake North Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project would be located about 11 miles northeast of Klamath Falls, in Klamath County, Oregon. The project would occupy about 730 acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation, state lands, and private lands.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Erik Steimle, Rye Development LLC, 745 Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02111. Telephone: (503) 998-0230; Email: [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman at (202) 502-6077 or [email protected]

    j. Procedural Schedule: The Commission's December 20, 2017 Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis established August 2018 as the estimated date for issuing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The revised estimate for issuing the Draft EIS is now September 2018. As such, the application will be processed according to the following revised schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. If a date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date will be the following business day.

    Milestone Target date Commission Issues Draft EIS September 2018. Comments on Draft EIS November 2018. Commission Issues Final EIS January 2019. Dated: July 13, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15485 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP17-248-000.

    Applicants: Dakota Natural Gas, LLC.

    Description: Application for a Limited Jurisdiction Hinshaw Blanket Certificate and Approval of Rates, et al. and Request for Expedited Treatment of Dakota Natural Gas, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180628-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-248-000.

    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits tariff filing per 154.501: Refund Report.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-556-002.

    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Rate Case Settlement—2018 Implementation to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5018.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-967-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Gulf Markets—MC Global NRA and Non-Conforming Agrmt to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15492 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-65-000.

    Applicants: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Revision to Statement of Effective Rates to be effective 6/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 201807115156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-968-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 071218 Negotiated Rates—Tenaska Marketing Ventures R-2835-19 to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-969-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 071218 Negotiated Rates—NJR Energy Services Company R-2890-17 to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-970-000.

    Applicants: NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC, EQT Energy, LLC.

    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waivers of Capacity Release Regulations and Related Tariff Provisions, et al. of NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-971-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20180712 Rate Schedules TF and TFX and Misc Tariff Revisions to be effective 8/12/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-972-000.

    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Unauthorized Overrun Quantity Filing to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-973-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (Pioneer July 2, 2018) to be effective 7/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-974-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Market Area Pooling Area Revisions and Other Tariff Changes to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180712-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-419-001.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing DECP—Liquefaction Project Implementation (RP18-419) Compliance to be effective 4/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-975-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: NCF Cleanup Filing—Termination of NRG Canal K #510534 to be effective 8/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-976-000.

    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates Update Filing to be effective 8/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5041.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-977-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Broad Run Expansion Project—Recourse Rate & Incremental Fuel and EPCR to be effective 8/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-978-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2—Broad Run Expansion Project to be effective 8/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20180713-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15555 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-518-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on July 6, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in Docket No. CP18-518-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to abandon 12 injection/withdrawal wells and associated pipelines and appurtenances at five of Columbia's Ohio storage fields located in Ashland, Medina, and Richland counties, Ohio. Columbia proposes to abandon these facilities under authorities granted by its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-2700 at (832) 320-5685 or at [email protected]

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. 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.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15559 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status Docket Nos. Stella Wind Farm, LLC EG18-72-000 Calpine Mid-Merit II, LLC EG18-73-000 GenOn Holdco 10, LLC EG18-74-000 CED Upton County Solar, LLC EG18-75-000 CED Wistaria Solar, LLC EG18-76-000 Walnut Ridge Wind, LLC EG18-77-000 Pine River Wind Energy LLC EG18-78-000 Sholes Wind Energy, LLC EG18-79-000

    Take notice that during the month of June 2018, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017).

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15558 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD18-5-000] Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for the Costs of Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2017

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is required to determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by other Federal agencies (OFAs) 1 in connection with their participation in the Commission's proceedings under the Federal Power Act (FPA) Part I 2 when those agencies seek to include such costs in the administrative charges licensees must pay to reimburse the United States for the cost of administering Part I.3 The Commission's Order on Remand and Acting on Appeals of Annual Charge Bills4 determined which costs are eligible to be included in the administrative annual charges. This order also established a process whereby the Commission would annually request each OFA to submit cost data, using a form 5 specifically designed for this purpose. In addition, the order established requirements for detailed cost accounting reports and other documented analyses to explain the cost assumptions contained in the OFAs' submissions.

    1 The OFAs include: the U.S. Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Solicitor, Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance, Office of Hearings and Appeals, and Office of Policy Analysis); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service); the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service); and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    2 16 U.S.C. 791a-823d (2012).

    3See id. 803(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 7178.

    4 107 FERC ¶ 61,277, order on reh'g, 109 FERC ¶ 61,040 (2004).

    5 Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form, available at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#ofa.

    2. The Commission has completed its review of the forms and supporting documentation submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year (FY) 2017. This notice reports the costs the Commission included in its administrative annual charges for FY 2018.

    Scope of Eligible Costs

    3. The basis for eligible costs that should be included in the OFAs' administrative annual charges is prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-25—User Charges and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) Number 4—Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government. Circular A-25 establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for government services and provides specific information on the scope and type of activities subject to user charges. SFFAS Number 4 provides a conceptual framework for federal agencies to determine the full costs of government goods and services.

    4. Circular A-25 provides for user charges to be assessed against recipients of special benefits derived from federal activities beyond those received by the general public.6 With regard to licensees, the special benefit derived from federal activities is the license to operate a hydropower project. The guidance provides for the assessment of sufficient user charges to recover the full costs of services associated with these special benefits.7 SFFAS Number 4 defines full costs as the costs of resources consumed by a specific governmental unit that contribute directly or indirectly to a provided service.8 Thus, pursuant to OMB requirements and authoritative accounting guidance, the Commission must base its OFA administrative annual charge on all direct and indirect costs incurred by agencies in administering Part I of the FPA. The special form the Commission designed for this purpose, the “Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form,” captures the full range of costs recoverable under the FPA and the referenced accounting guidance.9

    6 OMB Circular A-25 6.

    7 OMB Circular A-25 6.a.2.

    8 SFFAS Number 4 ¶ 7.

    9 To avoid the possibility of confusion that has occurred in prior years as to whether costs were being entered twice as “Other Direct Costs” and “Overhead,” the form excluded “Other Direct Costs.”

    Commission Review of OFA Cost Submittals

    5. The Commission received cost forms and other supporting documentation from the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. The Commission completed a review of each OFA's cost submission forms and supporting reports. In its examination of the OFAs' cost data, the Commission considered each agency's ability to demonstrate a system or process which effectively captured, isolated, and reported FPA Part I costs as required by the “Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form.”

    6. The Commission held a Technical Conference on March 29, 2018 to report its initial findings to licensees and OFAs. Representatives for several licensees and most of the OFAs attended the conference. Following the technical conference, a transcript was posted, and licensees had the opportunity to submit comments to the Commission regarding its initial review.

    7. Idaho Falls Group (Idaho Falls) filed written comments,10 stating its general support of the Commission's analysis but raising questions regarding certain various individual cost submissions. These issues are addressed in the Appendix to this notice.

    10 See Letter from Sharon L. White, Van Ness Feldman, to the Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, FERC, Docket No. AD18-5-000 (filed April 26, 2018).

    8. After additional review, full consideration of the comments presented, and in accordance with the previously cited guidance, the Commission accepted as reasonable any costs reported via the cost submission forms that were clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying reports and/or analyses. These documented costs will be included in the administrative annual charges for FY 2018.

    EN20JY18.000

    9. Figure 1 summarizes the total reported costs incurred by Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce with respect to their participation in administering Part I of the FPA. Additionally, Figure 1 summarizes the reported costs that the Commission determined were clearly documented and accepted for inclusion in its FY 2018 administrative annual charges.

    Summary Findings of Commission's Costs Review

    10. As presented in Figure 1, the Commission determined that $6,602,429 of the $6,643,007 in total reported costs were reasonable and clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying reports and/or analyses. Based on this finding, 1% of the total reported cost was determined to be unreasonable. The Commission noted the most significant issue with the documentation provided by the OFAs was the lack of supporting documentation to substantiate costs reported on the “Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form.”

    11. The cost reports that the Commission determined were clearly documented and supported could be traced to detailed cost-accounting reports, which reconciled to data provided from agency financial systems or other pertinent source documentation. A further breakdown of these costs is included in the Appendix to this notice, along with an explanation of how the Commission determined their reasonableness.

    Points of Contact

    12. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Norman Richardson at (202) 502-6219 or Raven Rodriguez at (202) 502-6276.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15562 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project Nos. 2386-004, 2387-003, 2388-004] City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Licenses.

    b. Project Nos.: 2386-004, 2387-003, and 2388-004.

    c. Date filed: August 31, 2016.

    d. Applicant: City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department.

    e. Names of Projects: Holyoke Number 1 Hydroelectric Project, P-2386-004; Holyoke Number 2 Hydroelectric Project, P-2387-003; and Holyoke Number 3 Hydroelectric Project, P-2388-004.

    f. Locations: Holyoke Number 1 (P-2386-004) and Holyoke Number 2 (P-2387-003) are located between the first and second level canals, and Holyoke Number 3 (P-2388-004) is located between the second and third level canals on the Holyoke Canal System, adjacent to the Connecticut River, in the city of Holyoke in Hampden County, Massachusetts. The projects do not occupy federal land.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Paul Ducheney, Superintendent, City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, 99 Suffolk Street, Holyoke, MA 01040, (413) 536-9340 or [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Kyle Olcott at (202) 502-8963; or email at [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include the relevant docket number(s): P-2386-004, P-2387-003, and/or P-2388-004.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. These applications have been accepted and are now ready for environmental analysis.

    l. The existing Holyoke Number 1 Project consists of: (1) An intake at the wall of the first level canal fed by the Holyoke Canal System (licensed under FERC Project No. 2004) with two 14.7-foot-tall by 24.6-foot-wide trash rack screens with 3.5-inch clear spacing; (2) two parallel 10-foot-diameter, 36.5-foot-long penstocks; (3) a 50-foot-long by 38-foot-wide brick powerhouse with two 240-kilowatt and two 288-kilowatt turbine generator units; (4) two parallel 20-foot-wide, 328.5-foot-long brick arched tailrace conduits discharging into the second level canal; and, (5) appurtenant facilities. There is no transmission line associated with the project as it is located adjacent to the substation of interconnection. The project is estimated to generate 2,710,000 kilowatt-hours annually.

    The existing Holyoke Number 2 Project consists of: (1) An intake at the wall of the first level canal fed by the Holyoke Canal System (licensed under FERC Project No. 2004) with three trash rack screens (one 16.2-foot-tall by 26.2-foot-wide and two 14.8-foot-tall by 21.8-foot-long) with 3-inch clear spacing; (2) two 9-foot diameter, 240-foot-long penstocks; (3) a 17-foot-high by 10-foot-diameter surge tank; (4) a 60-foot-long by 40-foot-wide by 50-foot high powerhouse with one 800-kilowatt vertical turbine generator unit; (5) two parallel 9-foot-wide, 10-foot-high, 120-foot-long brick arched tailrace conduits discharging into the second level canal; (6) an 800-foot-long, 4.8-kilovolt transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate 4,710,000 kilowatt-hours annually.

    The existing Holyoke Number 3 Project consists of: (1) A 52.3-foot-long by 14-foot-high intake trash rack covering an opening in the second level canal fed by the Holyoke Canal System (licensed under FERC Project No. 2004); (2) two 11-foot-high by 11-foot-wide headgates; (3) two 85-foot-long, 93-square-foot in cross section low pressure brick penstocks; (4) a 42-foot-long by 34-foot-wide by 28-foot-high reinforced concrete powerhouse with one 450-kilowatt turbine generator unit; (5) a 29.7-foot-wide, 10-foot-deep, 118-foot-long open tailrace discharging into the third level canal; and, (6) 4.8-kilovolt generator leads that connect directly to the 4.8-kilovolt area distribution system; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to generate 2,119,000 kilowatt-hours annually.

    m. Copies of the applications are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. Copies are also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “REPLY COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the applications directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    o. Procedural schedule: The applications will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

    Commission issues draft EA, December 2018 Comments on draft EA, February 2019 Commission issues final EA, June 2019 Dated: July 16, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15560 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9980-78-OW] Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment #4: Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source) and Recreational Opportunities and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal and State natural resource trustee agencies for the Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group (Louisiana TIG) have prepared the Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment #4: Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source) and Recreational Opportunities (Final RP/EA #4). The Final RP/EA #4 describes and, in conjunction with the associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), selects twenty-three preferred project alternatives considered by the Louisiana TIG to improve water quality by reducing nutrients from nonpoint sources and to compensate for recreational use services lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Louisiana TIG evaluated alternatives under criteria set forth in the OPA natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) regulations, and evaluated the environmental consequences of the restoration alternatives in accordance with NEPA. The selected projects are consistent with the restoration alternatives selected in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PDARP/PEIS). The Federal Trustees of the Louisiana TIG have determined that implementation of the Final RP/EA #4 is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the context of NEPA. They have concluded a FONSI is appropriate, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the approval and availability of the Final RP/EA #4 and FONSI.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: You may download the Final RP/EA #4 and FONSI at any of the following sites:

    http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov

    http://www.la-dwh.com

    Alternatively, you may request a CD of the Final RP/EA #4 and FONSI (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may also view the document at any of the public facilities listed at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    • Louisiana—Joann Hicks, 225-342-5477.

    • EPA—Doug Jacobson, 214-665-6692.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for BP Exploration and Production, Inc. (BP), in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-MC252), experienced a significant explosion, fire, and subsequent sinking in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the seabed. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest off shore oil spill in U.S. history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days.

    The Trustees conducted the natural resource damage assessment for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). Under OPA, Federal and State agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. OPA further instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship, including the loss of use and services from those resources from the time of injury until the time restoration to baseline (the resource quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred) is complete.

    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill Trustees are:

    • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

    • U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

    • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);

    • State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA), Oil Spill Coordinator's Office (LOSCO), Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), and Department of Natural Resources (LDNR);

    • State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;

    • State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;

    • State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and

    • State of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, General Land Office, and Commission on Environmental Quality.

    On April 4, 2016, the Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in the Louisiana Restoration Area are now chosen and managed by the Louisiana TIG. The Louisiana TIG is composed of the following Trustees: CPRA, LOSCO, LDEQ, LDWF, LDNR, EPA, DOI, NOAA, USDA.

    Background

    A Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment #4: Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source) and Recreational Opportunities (Draft RP/EA #4) was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2018. The Louisiana TIG hosted a public meeting on April 24, 2018, in New Orleans, and the public comment period for the Draft RP/EA #4 closed on May 21, 2018. The Draft RP/EA #4 proposed twenty-three restoration projects, evaluated in accordance with OPA and NEPA. The Louisiana TIG considered the public comments received on the Draft RP/EA #4 which informed the Louisiana TIG's analyses and selection of the restoration projects in the Final RP/EA #4. A summary of the public comments received and the Trustees' responses to those comments are included in Chapter 7 of the Final RP/EA #4.

    Overview of the Final RP/EA #4

    The Final RP/EA #4 is being released in accordance with OPA NRDA regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 15 CFR 990, and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). In the Final RP/EA #4, the Louisiana TIG selects the following preferred project alternatives:

    Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source):

    • Nutrient Reduction on Dairy Farms in St. Helena and Tangipahoa Parishes

    • Nutrient Reduction on Dairy Farms in Washington Parish

    • Nutrient Reduction on Cropland and Grazing Lands in Bayou Folse

    • Winter Water Holding on Cropland in Vermilion and Cameron Parishes Plus

    Agricultural Best Management Practices

    Recreational Use:

    • Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area Crevasse Access

    • Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area Campgrounds

    • Grand Isle State Park Improvements

    • Chitimacha Boat Launch

    • Sam Houston Jones State Park Improvements

    • Montegut S1/S2 Access/Pointe-aux-Chenes Fishing Piers

    • WHARF Phase 1

    • Bayou Segnette State Park Improvements

    • Atchafalaya Delta Wildlife Management Area Access

    • Atchafalaya Delta Wildlife Management Area Campgrounds

    • Rockefeller Piers/Rockefeller Signage

    • St. Bernard State Park Improvements

    • Cypremort Point State Park Improvements

    • The Wetlands Center

    • Recreational Use Improvements at Barataria Preserve in Jefferson Parish, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Barataria Unit

    • Des Allemands Boat Launch

    • Middle Pearl

    • Improvements to Grand Avoille Boat Launch

    • Belle Chasse

    The Louisiana TIG has examined the injuries assessed by the Deepwater Horizon Trustees and evaluated restoration alternatives to address the injuries. In the Final RP/EA #4, the Louisiana TIG presents to the public its plan for providing partial compensation for lost recreational use services and reducing nutrients from nonpoint sources in the Louisiana Restoration Area. The selected projects are intended to continue the process of using restoration funding to reduce nutrients (nonpoint source) and restore recreational use services lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The total estimated cost of the selected projects is $47.5 million. Additional restoration planning for the Louisiana Restoration Area will continue.

    Administrative Record

    The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the FinalRP/EA #4 and FONSI can be viewed electronically at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/administrativerecord.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), its implementing NRDA regulations found at 15 CFR part 990, and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    Dated: July 2, 2018. Benita Best-Wong, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15347 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9980-87-OP] National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Meeting, Public Teleconference and Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC. For additional information about registering to attend the meeting or to provide public comment, please see “REGISTRATION” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Due to a limited space, seating at the NEJAC meeting will be on a first-come, first served basis. Pre-registration is highly suggested.

    DATES:

    The NEJAC will convene a public face-to-face meeting beginning on Tuesday, August 14, 2018, starting at 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The NEJAC meeting will continue August 15-16, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting discussion will focus on several topics including, but not limited to, environmental justice concerns of communities in Boston, MA and surrounding areas; discussion and deliberation of the final report from the NEJAC Environmental Justice and Water Infrastructure Finance and Capacity Work Group; and the proactive efforts of EPA Region 1 to advance environmental justice.

    One public comment period relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) is scheduled for Tuesday, August 14, 2018, starting at 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time. Members of the public who wish to participate during the public comment period are highly encouraged to pre-register by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on Monday, August 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The NEJAC meeting will be held at the Boston Park Plaza, 50 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3912.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions or correspondence concerning the public meeting should be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-0203; via email at [email protected]; or by fax at 202-564-1624. Additional information about the NEJAC is available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee “will provide independent advice and recommendations to the Administrator about broad, crosscutting issues related to environmental justice. The NEJAC's efforts will include evaluation of a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement and economic issues related to environmental justice.”

    Registration

    Registration for the August 14-16, 2018, pubic face-to-face meeting will be processed at https://nejac-public-meeting-august-2018.eventbrite.com. Pre-registration is highly suggested. Registration for the August 15-16, 2018, pubic meeting teleconference option will be processed at https://nejac-public-teleconference-option-august-2018.eventbrite.com. Pre-registration is required. Registration closes at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on Monday, August 6, 2018. The deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment period, or to submit written public comments, is 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on Monday, August 6, 2018. When registering, please provide your name, organization, city and state, email address, and telephone number for follow up. Please also indicate whether you would like to provide public comment during the meeting, and whether you are submitting written comments before the Monday, August 6, 2018, deadline.

    A. Public Comment

    Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to seven (7) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak. Written comments can also be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: Name of speaker; name of organization/community; city and state; and email address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by registration deadline, will be included in the materials distributed to the NEJAC prior to the teleconference. Written comments received after that time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written comments should be sent to Karen L. Martin, EPA, via email at [email protected]

    B. Information About Services for Individuals With Disabilities or Requiring English Language Translation Assistance

    For information about access or services for individuals requiring assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, at (202) 564-0203 or via email at [email protected] To request special accommodations for a disability or other assistance, please submit your request at least fourteen (14) working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone/fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Dated: July 5, 2018. Matthew Tejada, Designated Federal Officer, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15621 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0350; FRL-9980-98-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Fish Program (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR)—National Fish Program (formerly referred to as the National Listing of Fish Advisories); EPA ICR Number 1959.06, OMB Control Number 2040-0226—to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on February 22, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0350, to (1) EPA 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, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    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:

    Samantha Fontenelle, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Health Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-2083; fax number: (202) 566-0409; 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.

    Abstract: In 1993, EPA began compiling information on fish advisories provided by the states in its biannual 305(b) Water Quality Inventory Reports. In 1994, EPA's Office of Water began conducting a voluntary annual Fish Program Survey to obtain the most up-to-date information on fish advisories. This information is collected under the authority of section 104 of the Clean Water Act, which provides for the collection of information to be used to protect human health and the environment. The advisory information collected identifies the waterbody under advisory, the fish or shellfish species and size ranges included in the advisory, the chemical contaminants and residue levels causing the advisory to be issued, the waterbody type (river, lake, estuary, coastal waters), and the target populations to whom the advisory is directed. The results of the survey are shared with states, territories, tribes, other federal agencies, and the public through an online database. The responses to the survey are voluntary and the information requested is part of the state/tribal public record associated with the advisories. No confidential business information is requested.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Administrators of Public Health and Environmental Quality Programs in state and tribal governments (NAICS 92312/SIC 9431 and NAICS 92411/SIC 9511).

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary, (Clean Water Act, Section 104).

    Estimated number of respondents: 100 states, territories and tribes.

    Frequency of response: Annual.

    Total estimated burden: 2,468 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $110,517.20 (per year), which includes no annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 584 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The increase is due to revised hourly burden estimates based on input from three states and the addition of two new activities to increase communication, engagement, information sharing and support between the EPA and the states, territories and tribes.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15516 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FR-9040-4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements, Filed 07/09/2018 Through 07/13/2018, Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20180156, Final, USFS, OR, Lobert Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 08/20/2018, Contact: William Conroy 541-783-4039. EIS No. 20180158, Final, HHS, OH, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Site Acquisition and Campus Consolidation for NIOSH, Review Period Ends: 08/20/2018, Contact: Harry Marsh 770-488-8170. EIS No. 20180160, Final, BLM, UT, Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application, Review Period Ends: 08/20/2018, Contact: Keith Rigtrup 435-865-3063. EIS No. 20180161, Final Supplement, USFS, MT, Rock Creek Mine Project, Review Period Ends: 08/23/2018, Contact: Katelyn Miller 406-293-6211. EIS No. 20180162, Final, USACE, CO, Northern Integrated Supply Project, Review Period Ends: 09/04/2018, Contact: John E. Urbanic 303-979-4120. EIS No. 20180163, Draft, USFWS, CA, Green Diamond Forest Habitat Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/04/2018, Contact: Dan Cox 916-414-6539. EIS No. 20180164, Final, USFS, CA, Exchequer Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 08/20/2018, Contact: Elaine Locke 559-855-5355. Amended Notice

    Revision to the Federal Register Notice published 06/01/2018, extend comment period from 07/16/2018 to 07/31/2018, EIS No. 20180113, Draft, DHS, ID, Bog Creek Road Project, Contact: Paul Enriquez, 949-643-6365.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Robert Tomiak, Director, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15514 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9980-79-OW] Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal and State natural resource trustee agencies for the Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group (Louisiana TIG) have prepared the Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities (Final RP/EA #2). The Final RP/EA #2 describes and, in conjunction with the associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), selects four preferred project alternatives considered by the Louisiana TIG to compensate for recreational use services lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Louisiana TIG evaluated alternatives under criteria set forth in the OPA natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) regulations, and evaluated the environmental consequences of the restoration alternatives in accordance with NEPA. The selected projects are consistent with the restoration alternatives selected in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PDARP/PEIS). The Federal Trustees of the Louisiana TIG have determined that implementation of the Final RP/EA #2 is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the context of NEPA. They have concluded a FONSI is appropriate, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the approval and availability of the Final RP/EA #2 and FONSI.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: You may download the Final RP/EA #2 and FONSI at any of the following sites:

    http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov http://www.la-dwh.com

    Alternatively, you may request a CD of the Final RP/EA #2 and FONSI (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may also view the document at any of the public facilities listed at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    • Louisiana—Joann Hicks, 225-342-5477 • EPA—Tim Landers, 202-566-2231 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for BP Exploration and Production, Inc. (BP), in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-MC252), experienced a significant explosion, fire, and subsequent sinking in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the seabed. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest off shore oil spill in U.S. history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days.

    The Trustees conducted the natural resource damage assessment for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). Under OPA, Federal and State agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. OPA further instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship, including the loss of use and services from those resources from the time of injury until the time restoration to baseline (the resource quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred) is complete.

    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill Trustees are:

    • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

    • U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

    • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);

    • State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA), Oil Spill Coordinator's Office (LOSCO), Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), and Department of Natural Resources (LDNR);

    • State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;

    • State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;

    • State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and

    • State of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, General Land Office, and Commission on Environmental Quality.

    On April 4, 2016, the Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in the Louisiana Restoration Area are now chosen and managed by the Louisiana TIG. The Louisiana TIG is composed of the following Trustees: CPRA, LOSCO, LDEQ, LDWF, LDNR, EPA, DOI, NOAA, USDA.

    Background

    A Notice of Availability of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment #2: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities (Draft RP/EA #2) was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2017. The Louisiana TIG hosted a public meeting on January 24, 2018, in New Orleans, and the public comment period for the Draft RP/EA #2 closed on February 2, 2018. The Draft RP/EA #2 proposed four restoration projects, evaluated in accordance with OPA and NEPA. In response to public comments received on the Draft RP/EA #2, the Louisiana TIG prepared a Draft Supplemental Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Elmer's Island Access Project Modification (Draft Supplemental RP/EA) to evaluate proposed changes to the Elmer's Island Access project. A Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental RP/EA was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2018. The Louisiana TIG hosted a public meeting on May 22, 2018, in New Orleans, and the public comment period for the Draft Supplemental RP/EA closed on June 20, 2018. The Louisiana TIG considered the public comments received on both the Draft RP/EA #2, and Draft Supplemental RP/EA, which informed the Louisiana TIG's analyses and selection of the restoration projects in the Final RP/EA #2. A summary of the public comments received and the Trustees' responses to those comments are included in Section 7 of the Final RP/EA #2.

    Overview of the Final RP/EA #2

    The Final RP/EA #2 is being released in accordance with OPA NRDA regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 15 CFR 990, and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). In the Final RP/EA #2, the Louisiana TIG selects the following preferred project alternatives:

    • Elmer's Island Access, as modified • Island Road Piers • Statewide Artificial Reefs • Lake Charles Science Center and Educational Complex

    The Louisiana TIG has examined the injuries assessed by the Deepwater Horizon Trustees and evaluated restoration alternatives to address the injuries. In the Final RP/EA #2, the Louisiana TIG presents to the public its plan for providing partial compensation for lost recreational use services in the Louisiana Restoration Area. The selected projects are intended to continue the process of restoring recreational use services lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The total estimated cost of the selected projects is $22 million. Additional restoration planning for the Louisiana Restoration Area will continue.

    Administrative Record

    The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the Final RP/EA #2 and FONSI can be viewed electronically at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/administrativerecord.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), its implementing NRDA regulations found at 15 CFR part 990, and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    Dated: July 3, 2018. Benita Best-Wong, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. [FR Doc. 2018-15348 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9980-59—Region 8] Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent, Black Swan Restoration Reach Good Samaritan Superfund Site, Boulder County, Colorado AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed agreement; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given of the proposed administrative settlement under sections 104, 106, 107, and 122 of CERCLA, between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Fourmile Watershed Coalition and Four Mile Fire Protection District (“Settling Party”). Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, the Settling Party will conduct a Removal Action to abate an actual or threat of release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the Black Swan Restoration Reach Good Samaritan Superfund Site located in Boulder County, Colorado. In exchange, the EPA will resolve any potential liability the Settling Party may have under CERCLA. The State of Colorado was consulted on this settlement regarding applicable state laws and regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 20, 2018. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the agreement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Agency's response to any comments, the proposed agreement and additional background information relating to the agreement is available for public inspection at the EPA Superfund Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop Denver, Colorado.

    Comments and requests for a copy of the proposed agreement should be addressed to Maureen O'Reilly, Enforcement Specialist, Environmental Protection Agency—Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-RC, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, and should reference the Black Swan Restoration Reach Good Samaritan Superfund Site, Central City, Gilpin County, Colorado.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Chalfant, Enforcement Attorney, Legal Enforcement Program, Environmental Protection Agency—Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-L, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 312-6177.

    Dated: June 29, 2018. Deb Thomas, Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15602 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0220; FRL-9980-99-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Mobile Air Conditioner Retrofitting Program (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Mobile Air Conditioner Retrofitting Program (EPA ICR No. 1774.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0350) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on April 27, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0220, 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, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    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:

    Christina Thompson, Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, MC 6205T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-0983; fax number: (202) 343-2362; 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, EPA 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.

    Abstract: EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program implements Section 612 of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments which authorized the Agency to establish regulatory requirements to ensure that ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are replaced by alternatives that reduce overall risks to human health and the environment, and to promote an expedited transition to safe substitutes. To promote this transition, the CAA specified that EPA establish an information clearinghouse of available alternatives, and coordinate with other federal agencies and the public on research, procurement practices, and information and technology transfers.

    Regulations promulgated under SNAP require that Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs) retrofitted to use a SNAP substitute refrigerant include basic information on a label to be affixed to the air conditioner. The label includes the name of the substitute refrigerant, when and by whom the retrofit was performed, environmental and safety information about the substitute refrigerant, and other information. This information is needed so that subsequent technicians working on the MVAC system will be able to service the equipment properly, decreasing the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: New and used car dealers, gas service stations, top and body repair shops, general automotive repair shops, automotive repair shops not elsewhere classified, including air conditioning and radiator specialty shops.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under 40 CFR 82.180.

    Estimated number of respondents: 13 (total).

    Frequency of response: Once per retrofit of a motor vehicle air conditioner.

    Total estimated burden: 1 hour (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $15 (per year), includes $1 (per year) annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: There is a decrease of 8 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB (per year). This decrease is based on the decline of MVACs in service today using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), specifically CFC-12. After 1994, new cars in the U.S. were no longer manufactured with CFC-12 MVACs. The number of MVACs originally designed to use CFC-12 as well as the number of those retrofitted has been decreasing every year and EPA estimates a continued reduction in the number of CFC-12 MVAC retrofits will occur during the next three years. EPA estimates that in 2017 there were 18,000 MVACs originally designed to use CFC-12 operating in the U.S., and estimates that in 2018, 2019 and 2020 the number of cars originally designed to use CFC-12 will decrease to 8,200, 3,500 and 1,500, respectively. Of these, EPA estimates that approximately 0.1% will be retrofitted annually to use alternative refrigerants. Therefore, EPA estimates that in 2018, 2019 and 2020 the number of MVACs to be retrofitted are 8, 4 and 1, respectively; resulting in a total of 13 MVAC retrofits over the three years of this ICR.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15522 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-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.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Application for a Foreign Organization to Acquire a U.S. Bank or Bank Holding Company (FRY-3F; OMB No. 7100-0119).

    DATES:

    The revisions are applicable as of July 31, 2018.

    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, With Revision, of the Following Report

    Report title: Application for a Foreign Organization to Acquire a Bank Holding Company.

    Agency form number: FR Y-3F.

    OMB control number: 7100-0119.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents: Any company organized under the laws of a foreign country seeking to acquire a U.S. bank or bank holding company.

    Estimated number of respondents: Initial application, 1; subsequent application, 5.

    Estimated average hours per response: Initial application, 91 hours; subsequent application, 71 hours.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 446 hours.

    General description of collection: Under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), submission of this application is required for any company organized under the laws of a foreign country seeking to acquire a U.S. bank or bank holding company. Applicants must provide financial and managerial information, discuss the competitive effects of the proposed transaction, and discuss how the proposed transaction would effect the convenience and needs of the community to be served. The Federal Reserve also uses the information to fulfill, in part, its supervisory responsibilities with respect to foreign banking organizations in the United States.

    In addition to the application materials, an applicant also is required to publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the community where the head office of the bank to be acquired is located. The notice must state the name and address of the applicant and its proposed subsidiary, and it must invite the public to submit written comments to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank.

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: This information collection is mandatory and authorized by sections 3(a), 3(c), and 5(b) of the BHCA (12 U.S.C.1842(a), (c) and 1844(b)). The information provided in the application is not confidential unless the applicant specifically requests confidentiality and the Board approves the request. Applicants may rely on any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption, but such requests for confidentiality must contain detailed justifications corresponding to the claimed FOIA exemption. Requests for confidentiality will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    Effective date: July 31, 2018.

    Current actions: On March 23, 2018, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 12762) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR Y-3F. The Board proposes to revise the FR Y-3F form and instructions in order to improve the clarity of the required information; obtain additional information necessary to evaluate the statutory factors; reflect the impact of new laws, regulations, capital requirements and accounting rules; and increase transparency regarding the information that is required to consider a proposal. The revisions are intended to reduce the need for subsequent information requests, which delay the Board's consideration of a filing and create additional burden for filers. The comment period for this notice expired on May 22, 2018. The Board did not receive any comments. Accordingly, the revisions will be implemented as proposed.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 17, 2018. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15521 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 6, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. Richard Franke, Bayview, Texas, and Dennis Franke, Brownsville, Texas, individually, to acquire voting shares of Laguna Madre Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire shares of First National Bank of South Padre Island, Texas. In addition, The McDaniel Nevada Irrevocable Trust, Fort Worth, Texas, Barbara McDaniel, Fort Worth, Texas, Trustee for The McDaniel Nevada Irrevocable Trust, the Estate of Melvin H. Chapman, South Padre Island, Texas, Stewart Chapman, Wichita Falls, Texas, Executor for the Estate of Melvin H. Chapman, Trevor Franke, Frisco, Texas, Denise Franke Yeary, Dallas, Texas, Richard Franke, Jr., John P. Franke, and Kevin C. Franke, all of Bayview, Texas; to retain shares and to join a group acting in concert to retain shares of Laguna Madre Bancshares, Inc.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 16, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15472 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 15, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Bern Bancshares, Inc., Bern, Kansas; to acquire 6.5 percent of the voting shares of UBT Bancshares, Inc., Marysville, Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire United Bank & Trust, Marysville, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 16, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15471 Filed 7-19-18; 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, with revision, the International Applications and Prior Notifications under Subparts A and C of Regulation K (FR K-1; OMB No. 7100-0107). The revisions are applicable as of July 31, 2018.

    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, With Revision, of the Following Report

    Report title: International Applications and Prior Notifications under Subparts A and C of Regulation K.

    Agency form number: FR K-1.

    OMB control number: 7100-0107.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents: Member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, bank holding companies (BHCs), and foreign organizations.

    Estimated number of respondents: Attachments A and B, 5; Attachments C through G, 15; Attachments H and I, 12; Attachment J, 2; Attachment K, 1.

    Estimated average hours per response: Attachments A and B, 11.5 hours; Attachments C through G, 10 hours; Attachments H and I, 15.5 hours; Attachment J, 10 hours; Attachment K, 20 hours.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 1,013 hours.

    General description of collection: Subpart A of the Board's Regulation K governs the foreign investments and activities of member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, BHCs, and certain investments by foreign organizations. Subpart C of Regulation K governs investments in export trading companies. The FR K-1 information collection contains eleven attachments for the application and notification requirements embodied in Subparts A and C of Regulation K. The Board requires these applications for regulatory and supervisory purposes and to allow the Board to fulfill its statutory obligations under the Federal Reserve Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The applications are event-generated and provide the Federal Reserve with information necessary to evaluate each of the proposed transactions.

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: This information collection is mandatory and collected pursuant to sections 25 and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601-604(a), 611-631), and sections 4(c)(13), 4(c)(14), and 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(13), 1843(c)(14), 1844(c)). The information submitted in the FR K-1 is considered to be public unless an institution requests confidential treatment for portions of the particular application or notification. Applicants may rely on any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption, but such requests for confidentiality must contain detailed justifications corresponding to the claimed FOIA exemption. Any requests for confidentiality will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    Effective date: July 31, 2018.

    Current actions: On March 23, 2018, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 12761) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR K-1. The Board proposed to revise the FR K-1 form and instructions primarily to make minor changes for improved style, grammar, and clarity, and to align the general information, certification, and confidentiality sections with other similar forms.1 In addition, a statement has been added indicating that the Board prefers that applicants/notificants electronically submit the application/notification and that a pre-filing option is available. No changes have been made to the information required in the various attachments to the FR K-1 form. The comment period for this notice expired on May 22, 2018. The Board did not receive any comments. Accordingly, the revisions will be implemented as proposed.

    1 Bank Holding Company Application and Notification Forms (FR Y-3, FR Y-3N, and FR Y-4; OMB No. 7100-0121), the International Applications and Prior Notifications Under Subpart B of Regulation K (FR K-2; OMB No. 7100-0284), and the Application for a Foreign Organization to Acquire a U.S. Bank or Bank Holding Company (FR Y-3F; OMB No. 7100-0119).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 17, 2018. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15518 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the International Applications and Prior Notifications Under Subpart B of Regulation K (FR K-2; OMB No. 7100-0284).

    DATES:

    The revisions are applicable as of July 31, 2018.

    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, With Revision, of the Following Report

    Report title: International Applications and Prior Notifications Under Subpart B of Regulation K.

    Agency form number: FR K-2.

    OMB control number: 7100-0284.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents: Foreign banks.

    Estimated number of respondents: 14.

    Estimated average hours per response: 36 hours.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 504 hours.

    General description of collection: Foreign banks are required to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve to establish a branch, agency, or representative office in the United States; to acquire ownership or control of a commercial lending company in the United States; or to change the status of any existing office in the United States. The FR K-2 information collection contains five attachments for the application and notification requirements embodied in subpart B of Regulation K. The Federal Reserve uses the information to fulfill its statutory obligations under the International Banking Act.

    The applicant also is required to publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the community where the office is proposed to be located. The notice must state the name and address of the applicant/notificant and the proposed office, and it must invite the public to submit written comments to the appropriate Reserve Bank.

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: This information collection is mandatory and collected pursuant to sections 7, 10, and 13 of the International Banking Act (12 U.S.C. 3105, 3107, and 3108). The information collected on the FR K-2 is normally subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The applying or notifying organization may request that portions of the information contained in the FR K-2 be afforded confidential treatment. To do so, applicants must demonstrate how the information for which confidentiality is requested would fall within the scope of one or more of the exemptions contained in the FOIA. Any such request would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    Effective date: July 31, 2018.

    Current actions: On March 23, 2018, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 12760) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR K-2. The Board proposed to revise the FR K-2 form and instructions in order to: Improve the clarity of the requests; reflect the impact of new laws, regulations, capital requirements, and accounting rules; make minor changes for improved style, grammar and clarity; and harmonize the general information, certification, and confidentiality sections with other similar forms. The revisions are intended to make initial filings more reflective of the proposed transaction and thereby reduce the need for subsequent information requests, which delay the Federal Reserve's consideration of a filing and create additional burden for filers. The comment period for this notice expired on May 22, 2018. The Board did not receive any comments. Accordingly, the revisions will be implemented as proposed.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 17, 2018. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15519 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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.

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Bank Holding Company Application and Notification Forms (OMB No. 7100-0121): The Application for Prior Approval to Become a Bank Holding Company or for a Bank Holding Company to Acquire an Additional Bank or Bank Holding Company (FR Y-3), the Notification for Prior Approval to Become a Bank Holding Company or for a Bank Holding Company to Acquire an Additional Bank or Bank Holding Company (FR Y-3N), and the Notification for Prior Approval to Engage Directly or Indirectly in Certain Nonbanking Activities (FR Y-4).

    DATES:

    The revisions are applicable as of July 31, 2018.

    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, With Revision, of the Following Report

    Report title: Application for Prior Approval to Become a Bank Holding Company, or for a Bank Holding Company to Acquire an Additional Bank or Bank Holding Company; Notification for Prior Approval to Become a Bank Holding Company, or for a Bank Holding Company to Acquire an Additional Bank or Bank Holding Company; and Notification for Prior Approval to Engage Directly or Indirectly in Certain Nonbanking Activities.

    Agency form number: FR Y-3, FR Y-3N, and FR Y-4.

    OMB control number: 7100-0121.

    Frequency: Event-generated.

    Respondents: Corporations seeking to become bank holding companies (BHCs) and existing BHCs.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-3, Section 3(a)(1): 50 hours; FR Y-3, Section 3(a)(3) and 3(a)(5): 60.5 hours; FR Y-3N, Sections 3(a)(1), 3(a)(3), and 3(a)(5): 5 hours; FR Y-4, complete notification: 12 hours; FR Y-4, expedited notification: 5 hours; and FR Y-4, post-consummation: 0.5 hours.

    Estimated number of respondents: FR Y-3, Section 3(a)(1): 81; FR Y-3, Section 3(a)(3) and 3(a)(5): 136; FR Y-3N, Sections 3(a)(1), 3(a)(3), and 3(a)(5): 26; FR Y-4, complete notification: 30; FR Y-4, expedited notification: 11; and FR Y-4, post-consummation: 1.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 12,824 hours.

    General description of report: The Federal Reserve requires the submission of these filings for regulatory and supervisory purposes and to allow the Federal Reserve to fulfill its statutory obligations under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the BHC Act). These filings collect information on proposals by BHCs involving formations, acquisitions, mergers, and nonbanking activities. The Federal Reserve uses this information to evaluate each individual transaction with respect to financial and managerial factors, permissibility, competitive effects, net public benefits, financial stability, and the impact on the convenience and needs of affected communities.

    The applicant or notificant also is required to publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the community where the head office of the bank to be acquired is located. The notice must state the name and address of the applicant and its proposed subsidiary, and it must invite the public to submit written comments to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank.

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The FR Y-3 application and FR Y-3N notification are mandatory and submitted pursuant to section 3(a) of the BHC Act, which requires Board approval for formations, acquisitions, and mergers of bank holding companies (12 U.S.C. 1842(a)), and section 5(b) of the BHC Act, which authorizes the Board to issue regulations and orders to carry out these functions (12 U.S.C. 1844(b)). The FR Y-4 notification is mandatory and submitted pursuant to section 4(j) of the BHC Act, which requires BHCs to give advance written notice to the Board of any nonbanking activities (12 U.S.C. 1843(j)), and section 5(b) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(b)), described above.

    The information submitted in the FR Y-3, Y-3N, and Y-4 is considered to be public unless an institution requests confidential treatment for portions of the particular application or notification. Applicants may rely on any Freedom of Information Act exemption, and such requests for confidentiality must contain detailed justifications corresponding to the claimed exemption. Requests for confidentiality will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    Effective date: July 31, 2018.

    Current actions: On March 23, 2018, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 12758) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR Y-3, FR Y-3N, and FR Y-4. The Board proposes to revise the FR Y-3, FR Y-3N, and FR Y-4 forms and instructions in order to improve the clarity of the requests; reflect the impact of new laws, regulations, capital requirements and accounting rules; delete items that are not typically useful for the analysis of the proposal; and add transparency for filers regarding the information that is required to consider a proposal. The revisions are intended to make initial filings better reflect and include the information that Board staff requires to evaluate a transaction and thereby reduce the need for subsequent information requests, which may delay the Board's consideration of a filing and create additional burden for filers. The comment period for this notice expired on May 22, 2018. The Board did not receive any comments. Accordingly, the revisions will be implemented as proposed.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 17, 2018. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15520 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0188; Docket No. 2018-0003; Sequence No. 1] Submission for OMB Review; Combating Trafficking in Persons AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget a request and an extension of existing OMB Clearances concerning combating trafficking in persons.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0188. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0188, Combating Trafficking in Persons.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0188, Combating Trafficking in Persons,” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Mandell/IC 9000-0188, Combating Trafficking in Persons.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0188, Combating Trafficking in Persons, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check regulations.gov, approximately two-to-three business days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, Acquistion Policy Division, via telephone 202-219-0202, or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    This is a requirement for a revision and renewal of OMB control number 9000-0188, Combating Trafficking in Persons.

    Executive Order (E.O.) 13627, entitled Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts, dated September 25, 2012 (77 FR 60029, October 2, 2012) and Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013) strengthen the long standing zero-tolerance policy of the United States regarding Government employees and contractor personnel engaging in any form of trafficking in persons.

    Contractors are required to inform the contracting officer and the agency Inspector General of any credible information it receives from any source that alleges a contractor employee, subcontractor, or subcontractor employee, or their agent has engaged in conduct that violates the policy in paragraph (b) of the clause 52.222-50. This requirement flows down to all subcontractors.

    Additional protections are required where the estimated value of the supplies (other than commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items) to be acquired outside the United States or the services to be performed, outside the United States has an estimated value that exceeds $500,000. These protections include the following: (a) The contractor is required to implement and maintain a compliance plan during the performance of the contract that includes an awareness program, a process for employees to report activity inconsistent with the zero-tolerance policy, a recruitment and wage plan, a housing plan, and procedures to prevent subcontractors from engaging in trafficking in persons; and (b) The contractor is required to submit a certification to the contracting officer prior to receiving an award, and annually thereafter, asserting that it has the required compliance plan in place and that there have been no abuses, or that appropriate actions have been taken if abuses have been found. The compliance plan must be provided to the contracting officer upon request, and relevant portions of it must be posted at the workplace and on the contractor's website. Additionally, contractors are required to flow these requirements down to any subcontracts where the estimated value of the supplies acquired or the services required to be performed outside the United States exceeds $500,000.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Ending Trafficking in Persons, FAR 22.1705 and FAR 52.222-50 and 52.222-56; OMB Control Number 9000-0188.

    Adjustment: This information collection is revised to include appropriate burden hours for reporting that was initially published in FAR Case 2013-001 (78 FR 59317 and 80 FR 4967) for FAR clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and provision 52.222-56, Certification Regarding Trafficing in Persons Compliance Plan. The full burden associated with this FAR Case was inadvertently omitted in the Paperwork Reduction Act notice published on August 20, 2014 (78 FR 59317). The following represents current burdens associated with the FAR clause and provision that were published in the proposed and final rules.

    Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit entities.

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

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents: 5,909.

    Responses per Respondent: 3.

    Annual Responses: 17,727.

    Hours per Response: 12.

    Total Burden Hours: 212,724.

    C. Public Comment

    A notice was published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 12950, on March 26, 2018. No comments were received.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0188, Combating Trafficking in Persons, in all correspondence.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. William Clark, Director, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15523 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket No. CDC-2017-0059] Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement; Site Acquisition and Campus Consolidation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH), Cincinnati, Ohio AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in cooperation with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed acquisition of a site in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the development of this site into a new, consolidated CDC/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) campus (Proposed Action). The site being considered for acquisition and development is bounded by Martin Luther King Drive East to the south, Harvey Avenue to the west, Ridgeway Avenue to the north, and Reading Road to the east.

    The Final EIS and this notice are published pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations.

    DATES:

    CDC will issue a final decision on the proposed action after August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the Final EIS can be obtained at:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov (reference Docket No. CDC-2017-0059).

    By Written Request (Electronic Copies Only) to: [email protected] or Harry Marsh, Architect, Office of Safety, Security and Asset Management (OSSAM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-K80, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027.

    All U.S. Mail communications must include the agency name and Docket Number.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Harry Marsh, Architect, Office of Safety, Security and Asset Management (OSSAM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-K80, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, phone: (770) 488-8170, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: CDC is dedicated to protecting health and promoting quality of life through the prevention and control of disease, injury, and disability. NIOSH, one of CDC's Centers, Institutes, and Offices, was established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. NIOSH plans, directs, and coordinates a national program to develop and establish recommended occupational safety and health standards; conduct research and training; provide technical assistance; and perform related activities to assure safe and healthful working conditions for every working person in the United States.

    Currently, three NIOSH research facilities—the Robert A. Taft Campus, Taft North Campus, and the Alice Hamilton Laboratory Campus—are located in Cincinnati, Ohio. These facilities no longer meet the research needs required to support occupational safety and health in the modern workplace. The facilities' deficiencies adversely affect NIOSH's ability to conduct occupational safety and health research in Cincinnati. It is not possible to renovate the facilities located on the three campuses to meet current standards and requirements. Additionally, the current distribution of NIOSH activities across separate campuses in Cincinnati results in inefficiencies in scientific collaboration and the duplication of operational support activities. Therefore, CDC is proposing to relocate and consolidate its Cincinnati-based functions and personnel (approximately 550 employees) currently housed at the three existing campuses to a new, consolidated campus in Cincinnati.

    Potential locations for the proposed new campus were identified through a comprehensive site selection process conducted by GSA on behalf of CDC. In June 2016, GSA issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) seeking potential sites capable of accommodating the proposed new campus. In response to the REOI, GSA received seven expressions of interest. Following an assessment of each site, GSA found that only one site qualified for further consideration (The Site). The Site encompasses all land between Martin Luther King Drive East to the south, Harvey Avenue to the west, Ridgeway Avenue to the north, and Reading Road to the east in Cincinnati, Ohio.

    Under NEPA, as implemented by CEQ Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), Federal agencies are required to evaluate the environmental effects of their proposed actions and a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action before making a decision. On February 9, 2018, in accordance with NEPA, CDC published a Notice of Availability announcing that a Draft EIS for the proposed acquisition and campus consolidation had been prepared (83 FR 5774). The Draft EIS evaluated the potential impacts of two alternatives: The Proposed Action Alternative (acquisition of the Site and construction of a new, consolidated CDC/NIOSH campus) and the No Action Alternative (continued use of the existing campuses for the foreseeable future). Impacts on the following resources were considered: Land use, zoning, and plans; community facilities; socioeconomics and environmental justice; utilities and infrastructure; visual quality; cultural resources; transportation; geology, topography, and soils; air quality; noise; and hazardous substances.

    Publication of the Draft EIS notice initiated a 45-day review period, which ended on March 26, 2018. During this period, CDC received comments from government agencies, a Native American tribe, and the public. These comments pertained to the proposed action in general; the accessibility of the proposed campus site for bicyclists; historic buildings; traffic and air quality impacts; sustainability; and the potential displacement of neighborhood residents.

    All comments were considered when preparing the Final EIS and responses to the comments are provided in the Final EIS. No comment required substantive revisions to the analyses presented in the Draft EIS or to the alternatives considered. The Final EIS identifies the Proposed Action Alternative as CDC's Preferred Alternative.

    CDC will make a decision on whether to proceed with the proposed action after August 20, 2018. At that time, CDC will issue a Record of Decision documenting and explaining its decision based on the Final EIS.

    Questions on the Final EIS and the proposed action may be directed to: Harry Marsh, Architect, Office of Safety, Security and Asset Management (OSSAM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-K80, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, phone: (770) 488-8170, or email: [email protected]

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Sandra Cashman, Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15410 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30 Day-18-0307] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on February 5, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. The CDC received 2 non-substantive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.

    CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    (a) 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;

    (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

    (d) 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; and

    (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of notice publication.

    Proposed Project

    Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (0920-0307) (Exp. Date 02/28/2019)—Revision—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) was created in 1986 to monitor trends in antimicrobial susceptibilities of Neisseria gonorrhoeae strains in the United States. GISP continues to be a collaboration between different branches of the CDC Division of STD Prevention within the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), selected regional laboratories and selected state/local public health departments and their associated STD specialty care clinics in the U.S. National organizations, local jurisdictions and individuals use data collected in GISP to understand and prevent antibiotic resistance in N. gonorrhoeae. Data from GISP are used to establish a scientific basis for the selection of gonococcal therapies and to allow pro-active changes to treatment guidelines before widespread resistance and failures of treatment occur. To increase capacity to detect and monitor resistant gonorrhea and to improve the specificity of GISP, this revision is being submitted to include collection of additional isolates and data elements.

    In the current approval period, GISP isolates are only collected from males and include <4% of reported male gonorrhea cases in the United States. This relatively limited scope likely limits the speed with which new resistance patterns are found and with which public health officials can respond. Published data suggest that resistance in N. gonorrhoeae might develop initially in non-genital anatomic sites, such as the pharynx. It has also been hypothesized that susceptibility patterns may be different among women. Upon receiving OMB approval of the revision request, CDC plans to begin including isolates from the pharynx and other anatomic sites, as well as from women. These changes are expected to support public health efforts to detect and respond to resistance more quickly.

    GISP surveillance can also be strengthened by ensuring that GISP surveillance is only being conducted on N. gonorrhoeae and not on other similar bacteria. Neisseria meningitidis can cause clinical syndromes that are indistinguishable from gonorrhea. Using nucleic acid amplification tests (a more specific diagnostic test) in conjunction with bacterial culture from all anatomic sites can ensure that non-gonococcal bacteria are excluded from GISP data. This is expected to strengthen the accuracy and usefulness of GISP data.

    Historically, healthcare providers at approximately 30 participating sentinel sites (i.e., STD clinic or multiple STD clinics affiliated with a single public health department) obtain urethral N. gonorrhoeae isolates from the first 25 men with urethral gonorrhea each month with occasional month-to-month variability. With this revision, we are now asking for a subset of sentinel sites (10 out of 30 sites) to conduct enhanced surveillance activities, collecting additional isolates (including from the pharynx, rectum, and cervix of exposed persons) with a limited number of additional data elements. We anticipate that approximately 50 additional isolates per month will be collected by each of these 10 sites (total of approximately 70 isolates per month per enhanced surveillance site). All isolates will be shipped each month to a regional laboratory for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. When isolates that appear to be bacteria other than N. gonorrhoeae are identified at one of the ten sentinel sites conducting enhanced surveillance, the isolate will be shipped to the regional laboratory and then to CDC. Based on informal discussions with current GISP sentinel sites, we anticipate that approximately 10 such isolates will be identified at each site per year. Sentinel sites that are not part of this small subset will continue to function as they already are.

    Under this revision, the data collection and reporting processes have been streamlined to minimize burden. All demographic/clinical data from the sentinel sites, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing results from the regional laboratories, will be submitted electronically (1) directly from the sentinel site to the GISP data manager at CDC through a secure data portal, (2) through a secure GISP-web based application, or (3) through the CDC Secure Access Management Services partner portal. To minimize burden, comma-separated values (csv) files that provide standardized structure of the electronic data are provided to sentinel sites and laboratories. Additionally, to further minimize burden, the regional laboratories will be able to extract electronic data from electronic laboratory information systems instead of hand entering data and will no longer be required to report control strain testing results.

    This project will not collect name, social security number, or date of birth. A Patient ID, a unique patient identifier assigned by the site that allows for linking of multiple isolates from a single person at a single clinic visit and across multiple clinic visits, is requested and will be provided to CDC for purposes of enhanced surveillance. Sensitive information such as sex of sex partners, HIV status, sex work exposure, and injection drug use are collected. Patient data are obtained through review of medical records by the clinic staff and included in collection reporting of demographic/clinical information. All personally identifiable information (PII) is retained by the STD clinics that treated the patient and is not recorded with data sent to CDC or regional laboratories. At sites where enhanced surveillance will not occur isolates are collected from patients as part of their routine care when a gonorrhea infection is suspected. The electronic GISP database is stored on the CDC mainframe computer and only approved Division of STD Prevention (DSTDP) staff have access rights to the data. As part of the revision, we will continue to systematically identify the risks and potential effects of collecting, maintaining, and disseminating PII and to examine and evaluate alternative processes for handling that information to mitigate potential privacy risks and risks to confidentiality.

    The CDC has designated N. gonorrhoeae as one of three “urgent” antibiotic resistance threats in the United States. The CDC is requesting a three-year OMB approval for this revision, which directly responds to the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria by improving and strengthening surveillance of antimicrobial resistance through GISP. This GISP data can help monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of public health interventions conducted to support the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Sentinel sites and regional laboratories voluntarily apply to participate in the GISP cooperative agreement program. Once funded, participation in the GISP information collection and isolate processing plan is required. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 11,376. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of
  • respondents
  • Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Sentinel site conducting core surveillance Demographic/Clinical Data 20 240 11/60 Sentinel site conducting enhanced surveillance Demographic/Clinical Data 10 840 12/60 Regional laboratory Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Results 4 3,300 40/60 Regional laboratory Control Strain Susceptibility Testing 4 48 5/60
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15525 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-18-18AMQ; Docket No. CDC-2018-0061] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Assessing impact of the NIOSH research. The goal of the generic information collection request is to improve the ability of NIOSH to assess and demonstrate the extent to which its various research efforts are likely to or have led to improvements in workplace safety and health.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before September 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0061 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. 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;

    2. 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;

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

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Assessing impact of the NIOSH research—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is responsible for conducting research and making recommendations to prevent worker injury and illness, as authorized in Section 20(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 669). NIOSH is strongly committed to program evaluation as a way to maximize its contributions to improved occupational safety and health. NIOSH is requesting a new generic information collection request for a three-year period that will support the timely information collection needed for upcoming program evaluation activities, such as external reviews of NIOSH research programs (which fulfill a Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requirement, studies to understand the economic value of NIOSH research, process evaluations of NIOSH programs, and evaluations of large research projects. NIOSH needs to collect information about research dissemination and achieved outcomes from key audiences (grantees, potential NIOSH research users and relevant safety and health experts) for accountability and program improvement purposes. NIOSH is specifically interested in assessing intermediate outcomes—the use of NIOSH research products and findings by external stakeholders and partners to improve safety and health—as evidence of research impact. Being able to collect information on intermediate outcomes from grantees, as well as past, present and potential future users of NIOSH research would allow us to provide more robust evidence of use or adoption of NIOSH research products or findings.

    The evaluation findings and recommendations from the various program evaluation activities described above will be used as an input for future direction of the programs and incorporated into analyses and reports to either investigate the value of NIOSH's research, or improve program operations to maximize impact. Data will be collected through semi-structured key informant interviews with grantees, potential or known users of NIOSH research and subject matter experts in safety and health. NIOSH estimates that 30 respondents will be involved in phone interviews, which would last between 30-60 minutes. However, participants might be burdened an additional hour reading the invitation email and providing relevant documents such as evidence of research impact. Therefore, the estimated burden for each participant is two hours. The total estimated burden is 60 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Natural science managers Semi-Structured Interview Guide (Subject Matter Experts) 10 1 2 20 Postsecondary Teachers Semi-Structured Interview Guide (Grantees) 12 1 2 24 Industrial production managers Semi-Structured Interview Guide (Research users) 8 1 2 16 Total 60
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15527 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-18-18ANU; Docket No. CDC-2018-0058] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Communities Organized to Prevent Arboviruses: Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Vector Control Practices and Sero-Prevalence and Incidence of Arboviral Infection in Ponce, Puerto Rico (COPA Study). The purpose of this study is to establish longitudinal follow-up of a community cohort and evaluate the impact of vector control interventions in 14 communities in southern Puerto Rico.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before September 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0058 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. 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;

    2. 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;

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

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Communities Organized To Prevent Arboviruses: Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Vector Control Practices and Sero-Prevalence and Incidence of Arboviral Infection in Ponce, Puerto Rico (COPA Study)—NEW—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Recent years have seen the emergence of two epidemic arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) that are transmitted by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Chikungunya virus was introduced into the Caribbean in late 2013, and caused large epidemics of fever with severe joint pain throughout the Caribbean and Americas in 2014. Zika virus was first detected in the Americas in Brazil in 2014, spread throughout the Americas, has since been associated with devastating birth defects, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and is the first arbovirus that can also be transmitted through sexual contact. In addition, the four viruses that cause dengue were introduced to the Americas over the past several hundred years and have since become endemic, and yellow fever virus has recently caused large outbreaks in Brazil and there is risk of importation to other counties in the Americas.

    In all of these cases, the public health response to the spread of these arboviruses throughout the tropics, where their mosquito vectors thrive, has been hampered by a lack of sustainable and effective interventions to prevent infection with any of these arboviruses at the community level. Additionally, the rapid speed with which new arboviruses spread does not often provide the time needed to plan and implement community-level interventions to decrease disease transmission. Although several candidate vaccines for chikungunya and Zika are currently in clinical development, none are yet available. A dengue vaccine has been licensed in several countries, but initial analyses have suggested that decades will be needed before it results in reduction in transmission of dengue virus. In recent years, community based strategies for vector control have been studied and implemented in different countries as an alternative to vertical strategies (e.g. insecticide spraying delivered by government agencies). A new intervention has recently been demonstrated to reduce the rates of infection with common tropical arboviruses transmitted by Ae. aegypti mosquitos (i.e., dengue, chikungunya, and Zika viruses). The Camino Verde approach utilizes community mobilization to motivate clean-up campaigns to reduce rates of dengue virus infections in Nicaragua and Mexico. However, the intervention occurred in small communities, and has not been evaluated in an urban setting. There is therefore, a need to determine the effectiveness of such types of interventions in relatively large, urban communities.

    Research suggests that vector control programs that have substantial community participation can have significant and lasting impacts on vector density, and are more cost-effective than vertically structured programs. In addition, these types of programs have been reported to readily integrate with other health or development programs, promote an enduring sense of pride in the home and community, and make use of politically viable vector control strategies.

    The purpose of this study is to establish longitudinal follow-up of a community cohort and evaluate the impact of vector control interventions in 14 communities in southern Puerto Rico. The study investigators have prior experience working in these communities; however, there is minimal available information regarding the prevalence or incidence of infection with tropical arboviruses, density of Ae. aegypti mosquitos, or community members' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding behaviors intended to avoid mosquitos. Such information will be needed to inform decision-making regarding the location, design, and content of interventions to be implemented and evaluated to reduce the burden of these pathogens.

    The questionnaire section will vary depending on age and day of birth of each participant. A questionnaire with general household questions will be administered to one household representative in each home with one or more participants. This representative should be 21 years or older or an emancipated minor. If all eligible household members are unemancipated minors, a household member over the age of 50 may act as household representative and complete this section of the survey only. A questionnaire on socio-demographic information will be administered to all participants. The assessment of knowledge, attitudes, and practices questionnaire will be administered to all participants seven years and older with questions adapted for ages: 7-11 (younger child), 12-13 (older child), 14-50 (adult). A vector control tools questionnaire will be administered to all participants 21 years or older born on an odd numbered day of the month. The questionnaire will be administered after written consent and verbal assent (when appropriate) from those present in the household at the time of the visit. The knowledge, attitudes, and practices questionnaire will be focused on vector control, healthcare-seeking behavior, and disease occurrence. We will collect demographic information (e.g., age, sex, duration of time residing in Puerto Rico), travel history, and information on recent illnesses from all participants via household (and individual) questionnaires. Parents or guardians will serve as proxy respondents for children aged <7 years. The questionnaires will be administered after written consent and verbal assent (when appropriate) from those present in the household at the time of the visit. GPS coordinates will also be collected for each household visited to later assess for potential clustering of arboviral infections within communities. We will ask participants if they have been ill with arbovirus-like illness (i.e., fever, rash, joint pain, and conjunctivitis) in the past year. If so, we will collect details on the symptoms experienced during their illness. The questionnaires will be administered to all randomly selected residents of the 14 communities in Ponce. At the time of the questionnaire administration, ~15 mL of blood will be collected to conduct serological testing of arboviruses for a sero-survey. The sero-survey and socio-demographic questionnaire will be repeated every 12 months after the initial assessment, up to a period of five years. OMB clearance will be extended after three years. This project will allow the evaluation of a community based approach for vector control strategies in Ponce, Puerto Rico. The information obtained will inform decision making regarding the location, design, and content of future interventions to be implemented and evaluated to reduce the burden of arboviral disease in Puerto Rico. Incidence and prevalence of arboviral disease will be estimated to guide control programs development and fill the current knowledge gaps.

    There is no burden on respondents other than the time needed to participate. Estimated annual burden is 2,416 hours. Authorizing legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Ponce residents Household representative questionnaire 2,506 1 10/60 418 Socio-demographic questionnaire 2,996 1 15/60 749 Knowledge, attitudes, and practices individual questionnaire 2,996 1 15/60 749 Vector control tools questionnaire 600 1 25/60 250 Specimen collection 2,996 1 5/60 250 Total 2,416
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15529 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-18-18TH] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Assessment of a Preventive Service Program in the Context of a Zika Virus Outbreak in Puerto Rico” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 30, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one non-substantive comment to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.

    CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    (a) 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;

    (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

    (d) 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; and

    (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of notice publication.

    Proposed Project

    Assessment of a Preventive Service Program in the Context of a Zika Virus Outbreak in Puerto Rico—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Puerto Rico has reported the highest number of Zika virus infections in the United States, including infections in pregnant women. Zika virus infection during pregnancy has been identified as a cause of microcephaly and other severe brain abnormalities, and has been linked to other problems such as miscarriage, stillbirth, defects of the eye, hearing deficits, limb abnormalities, and impaired growth. One strategy to prevent these devastating outcomes is to prevent unintended pregnancy among women at risk of Zika virus infection. To this end, an initiative was launched in April 2016 to train physicians at clinics across Puerto Rico to provide patient-centered services to women who chose to delay or avoid pregnancy during the Zika virus outbreak.

    As part of the public health response to the Zika virus outbreak, CDC seeks to assess approaches to mitigating the effects of Zika virus infection and determine which approaches have utility. Previous assessment of the prevention program indicated high satisfaction of patients with program services. The specific objectives of this data collection are to assess (1) prevention strategy adherence among patients at approximately 18 months after receipt of program services; and (2) prevention strategy adherence, patient satisfaction, and unmet need for services among participants at approximately 30 months after receipt of program services. The practical utility of the information to be collected as part of this project is to assess services delivered to women in Puerto Rico, monitor outcomes of interest, and determine potential for replication/adaptation in other jurisdictions similarly affected by the Zika virus or during other emergency responses. For the information collection, CDC plans to conduct online surveys with 1,920 patients approximately 18 months after receiving program services and 1,760 patients approximately 30 months after receiving program services. The number of patients surveyed is based on an initial sample of 3,200 patients invited to participate, anticipating a 60% response rate at 18 months and a 55% response rate at 30 months.

    Participation in all data collection activities will be completely voluntary. OMB approval is requested for two years. Total Annualized Burden Hours are estimated to be 259, and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Patients aged 18 years or older Online surveys (18-month follow-up) 960 1 7/60 Patients aged 18 years or older who completed 18 mo survey Online surveys (30-month follow-up) 660 1 10/60 Patients aged 18 years or older who did not complete 18 mo survey Online surveys (30-month follow-up) 220 1 10/60
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15524 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-18-1091] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Using Qualitative Methods to Understand Issues in HIV Prevention, Care and Treatment in the United States” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 13, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received four comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.

    CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    (a) 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;

    (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

    (d) 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; and

    (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of notice publication.

    Proposed Project

    Using Qualitative Methods to Understand Issues in HIV Prevention, Care and Treatment in the United States (OMB No. 0920-1091; expires December 31, 2018)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The CDC's National Center on HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) seeks a three year extension for an existing Generic information collection request (Generic ICR) entitled, “Using Qualitative Methods to Understand Issues in HIV Prevention, Care and Treatment in the United States” (OMB Number: 0920-1091). Specific studies conducted under this extended Generic ICR will be consistent with the national HIV prevention goals, the CDC Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) Strategic Plan, and DHAP's High-impact HIV Prevention approach.

    The purposes for each data collection study supported under this extended Generic ICR will be to understand specific barriers and facilitators to local HIV prevention, care and treatment in the United States and territories. For example, each study will seek to identify ways to improve programmatic activities along the continuum of HIV prevention, treatment and care for different populations residing in different geographic settings with greatest burden of HIV.

    The target populations for studies included in this extended Generic ICR include, but are not limited to: Persons living with HIV who are in treatment; persons living with HIV who are out of treatment and who may or may not be seeking treatment at healthcare facilities; persons at high risk for HIV acquisition (HIV negative) and HIV transmission (HIV positive); persons from groups at high risk for HIV including gay, bisexual and other MSM, transgender persons, and injection and non-injection drug users; persons from racial and ethnic minorities; and healthcare providers or other professionals who provide HIV prevention, care and treatment services. Other populations may include individuals who provide non-HIV services or otherwise interact with persons living with HIV or persons at risk for HIV acquisition.

    Studies will only provide local contextual information about the barriers and facilitators to HIV prevention, care, and treatment experienced by specific communities at risk for acquiring HIV infection, by HIV-positive persons across the HIV care continuum, and by organizations or individuals providing HIV prevention, care, treatment, and related support services.

    Data collection methods used in any of the specific studies primarily will consist of rapid qualitative assessment methodologies, such as semi-structured and in-depth qualitative interviews, focus groups; direct observations; document reviews; and short structured surveys. Data will be analyzed using well-established qualitative analysis methods, such as coding interviews for themes about barriers and successes to HIV prevention, care, and treatment. Structured response surveys will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and other appropriate statistical methods.

    CDC will use the results from each specific data collection study to help to identify ways to improve local programmatic activities for specific communities along the continuum of HIV prevention, treatment and care for populations and areas with the greatest HIV burden. CDC will communicate study outcomes to local stakeholders and organizations in positions to consider and implement site-specific improvements in HIV prevention, care, and treatment for each of the study sites examined. For stakeholders, organizations, or agencies outside the local affected communities, all communications will include clear discussion of the limitations of the region-specific, qualitative methods and the non-generalizability of the study outcomes.

    For a given year, each separate data collection will range from 30 (minimum) to 200 (maximum) respondents based on the nature and scope of the research purposes. For example, if there are three data collections, the maximum combined number of expected respondents is 600. In a given year, CDC anticipates that the need to screen 1600 persons to identify 800 eligible persons, of which 600 persons will agree to participate.

    CDC anticipates that screener forms will take five minutes to complete each, contact information forms will take one minute to complete each, and consent forms will take five minutes to complete each. CDC anticipates 50% of the targeted populations screened will be eligible for the study. Of eligible persons, 75% will agree to participate.

    Brief structured surveys will take 15 minutes to complete. In-depth interviews or focus groups with respondents are expected to take 60 minutes (one hour) to complete. In-depth interviews or focus groups with healthcare providers are expected to take 45 minutes to complete.

    The total annual response burden based on an average of 600 study respondents per year (assuming three large data collections involving 200 participants each) is estimated at 918 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • General Public—Adults Study Screener 1600 1 5/60 General Public—Adults Contact Information Form 600 1 1/60 General Public—Adults Consent Form 600 1 5/60 General Public—Adults Demographic Survey 500 1 15/60 General Public—Adults Interview Guide 500 1 1 General Public—Adults Provider Demographic Survey 100 1 15/60 General Public—Adults Provider Interview Guide 100 1 45/60
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15526 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-2018-18APJ; Docket No. CDC-2018-0062] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Surveillance of Nonfatal Injuries Among On-Duty Law Enforcement Officers.” The purpose of this project is to collect follow-back telephone interview data from injured and exposed law enforcement officers treated in emergency departments (EDs) and produce a descriptive summary of these injuries and exposures.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before September 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0062 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: Submit all Federal comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. 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;

    2. 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;

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

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Surveillance of Nonfatal Injuries Among On-Duty Law Enforcement Officers—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Law enforcement officers have high rates of non-fatal injuries compared to the general worker population. As law enforcement officers undertake many critical public safety activities and are tasked with protecting the safety and health of the public, it follows that understanding and preventing injuries among law enforcement officers will have a benefit reaching beyond the workers to the general public.

    As mandated in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-596), the mission of NIOSH is to conduct research and investigations on occupational safety and health. Related to this mission, the purpose of this project is to conduct research that will provide a detailed description of non-fatal occupational injuries and exposures incurred by law enforcement officers. This information will offer detailed insight into events that lead to the largest number of nonfatal injuries and exposures among law enforcement officers. The project will use two related data sources. The first source is data abstracted from medical records of law enforcement officers treated in a nationally stratified sample of emergency departments. These data are routinely collected through the occupational supplement to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS-Work). The second data source, for which NIOSH is seeking OMB approval for three years, is responses to telephone interview surveys of the injured and exposed law enforcement officers identified within NEISS-Work.

    The proposed telephone interview surveys will supplement NEISS-Work data with an extensive description of law enforcement officers injuries and exposures, including worker characteristics, injury types, injury circumstances, and injury outcomes. Previous reports describing occupational injuries to law enforcement officers provide limited details on specific regions or sub-segments of the population. As compared to these earlier studies, the scope of the telephone interview data will be broader as it includes sampled cases nationwide. Results from the telephone interviews will be weighted and reported as national estimates.

    The sample size for the telephone interview survey is estimated to be approximately 900 law enforcement officers annually for the proposed three year duration of the study. This is based on the number of law enforcement officers identified in previous years of NEISS-Work data and a 30% response rate that is comparable to the rate of previously conducted National Electronic Injury Surveillance System telephone interview studies. Each telephone interview will take approximately 30 minutes to complete, resulting in an annualized burden estimate of 150 hours. Using the routine NEISS-Work data, an analysis of all identified EMS workers will be performed to determine if there are differences between the telephone interview responder and non-responder groups.

    The Division of Safety Research (DSR) within NIOSH is conducting this project. DSR has a strong interest in improving surveillance of law enforcement officer injuries and exposures to provide the information necessary for effectively targeting and implementing prevention efforts and, consequently, reducing occupational injuries to law enforcement officers. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will also contribute to this project, as they are responsible for coordinating the collection of all NEISS-Work data and for overseeing the collection of all telephone interview data. The total estimated burden is 450 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of
  • respondents
  • Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Law enforcement officers Follow-back survey 900 1 30/60 450 Total 450
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15530 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-18-18AJJ; Docket No. CDC-2018-0056] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of US Large Animal Veterinarians Concerning Common Veterinary Infection Control Measures When Working with Animal Obstetric Cases. The goals of this survey are to better describe veterinarians' current knowledge of zoonotic infectious diseases that cause abortion in large animals, determine common veterinary infection control practices when working up obstetric cases, and identify common barriers to personal protective equipment use.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before September 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0056 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Jeffrey Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    1. 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;

    2. 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;

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

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of U.S. Large Animal Veterinarians Concerning Common Veterinary Infection Control Measures When Working with Animal Obstetric Cases—New ICR—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Veterinarians are particularly at risk of contracting zoonotic infectious diseases due to their close proximity to animals, especially during times of injury or illness. Some veterinarians may be unaware of recommended personal protection measures or opt not to participate in measures that would decrease their risk of contracting a zoonotic disease (Wright et al. 2008). In 1977, a survey conducted of 1182 veterinarians showed that approximately 43% of the respondents had contracted an infectious zoonotic disease (Schnurrenberger & Martin 1977). Today, this elevated zoonotic disease risk persists; the seroprevalence of Q fever in U.S. veterinarians is 22% (Whitney, Massung, et al. 2009) and the seroprevalance of leptospirosis is 2.5% (Whitney, Ailes, et al. 2009). Within the veterinary profession, large animal practitioners might have an increased risk of occupational exposure to infectious zoonotic diseases for many reasons, including decreased biosecurity measures available in the field and the limited space available on a mobile practice for PPE.

    The goals of this study are to establish veterinarians' knowledge of zoonotic infectious disease, identify veterinarians' attitudes towards zoonotic infectious disease and personal risk, and determine practices to decrease personal risk of infection. By identifying knowledge gaps in personal protective equipment (PPE) use, transmission risk factors, and disease identification/diagnosis, we aim to determine the best methods for education of veterinarians on relevant abortion-associated zoonotic infectious diseases.

    The purpose of this study is to better describe veterinarians' current knowledge of zoonotic diseases that cause abortion in large animals, determine common veterinary infection control practices when working up obstetric cases, and identify common barriers to PPE use. In order to develop effective messaging strategies, a deeper understanding of the attitudes and barriers to PPE use is needed. The information collected will be used to improve and enhance zoonotic disease education and PPE guidance targeted to veterinarians. The estimated annual burden hours are 125. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Veterinarian 500 1 15/60 125 Total 125
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15528 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier CMS-10675] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    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 18, 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-10675 Evaluation of the CMS Quality Improvement Organizations: Medication Safety and Adverse Drug Event Prevention

    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 of Information Request; Title of Information Collection: Evaluation of the CMS Quality Improvement Organizations: Medication Safety and Adverse Drug Event Prevention; Use: The purpose of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is to collect data to inform the program evaluation of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) current contract known as the 11th Scope of Work (SOW). The current ICR focuses on evaluating one component of the quality improvement activities of the Quality Innovation Network Quality Improvement Organizations (QIN-QIOs) and is part of a larger evaluation of the overall impact of the QIO program. This ICR aims to assess the QIN-QIO Task which focuses on Medication Safety and Adverse Drug Event Prevention. For this evaluation, we are using a mixed-methods design to compare quality improvement activities of pharmacists, physicians, and nursing home administrators or directors of nursing at nursing homes participating in the QIN-QIO program (participating) with those not participating in the QIN-QIO program (non-participating).

    As mandated by Sections 1152-1154 of the Social Security Act, CMS directs the QIO program, which is one of the largest federal programs dedicated to improving health quality for Medicare beneficiaries. QIOs are groups of health quality experts, clinicians, and consumers who work to assist Medicare providers with quality improvement throughout the spectrum of care and to review quality concerns for the protection of beneficiaries and the Medicare Trust Fund. This program is a key component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) National Quality Strategy and the CMS Quality Strategy. The work is aligned with the current HHS and CMS administration priorities to empower patients and doctors to make decisions about their health care; usher in a new era of state flexibility and local leadership; support innovative approaches to improve quality, accessibility, and affordability; and improve the CMS customer experience. In the current SOW, 14 QIN-QIOs coordinate the work in 53 U.S. states and territories.

    CMS evaluates the quality and effectiveness of the QIO program as authorized in Part B of Title XI of the Social Security Act. CMS created the Independent Evaluation Center (IEC) to provide CMS and its stakeholders with an independent and objective program evaluation of the 11th SOW.

    For the program to improve medication safety and prevent adverse drug events (ADEs), QIN-QIOs provide technical assistance to providers, practitioners, organizations offering Medicare Advantage plans under Medicare Part C, and prescription drug sponsors offering drug plans under Part D. ADEs are defined as “injury resulting from medical intervention related to a drug,” and cause the majority of preventable deaths in hospitals. ADEs escalate healthcare costs and utilization, increasing admission and readmission rates, emergency department (ED) visits, and physician visits. ADEs are particularly problematic for older adults who have multiple chronic conditions and interact with many care settings.

    Opioid misuse and overdose is a significant cause of ADEs and was declared a public health emergency by the White House in 2017. In 2016, over 14 million Medicare Part D beneficiaries received opioid prescriptions, and many of these beneficiaries received extreme amounts of the drugs. The Medicare population has one of the highest and fastest-growing rates of diagnosed opioid use disorder.

    As part of the HHS Opioid Initiative launched in March 2015, CMS developed a multipronged approach to combat misuse and promote programs that support treatment and recovery support services for clinicians, beneficiaries, and families. CMS also worked with HHS and other health agencies to develop a National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Prevention (2014). In addition to opioids, the Action Plan focused on ADEs caused by other high-risk medication (HRM) groups: Anticoagulants and diabetic medications. Given the burden of ADEs caused by these three classes of drugs, focusing prevention efforts in these areas could have a significant impact on reducing harm and improving population health among Medicare beneficiaries.

    The QIO program provides technical assistance to reduce ADEs in beneficiaries resulting from polypharmacy, specifically those who use three or more medications including a prescription in a HRM) drug groups. In the 11th SOW, specific interventions include training providers through Learning Action Networks; developing collaborations among local providers across care settings; providing materials and information resources; and helping providers collect data to monitor prescribing practices.

    To evaluate the effectiveness of this program, we will use a mixed method evaluation combining secondary data analysis of Medicare claims with a community provider survey. We plan to conduct an online survey of 1,200 community-based pharmacists, physicians, and nursing home administrators or directors of nursing in nursing homes. These participants were selected based on their role in prescribing HRM and treating ADEs.

    The proposed survey assesses the extent to which the National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Prevention strategies have been used, the level of engagement with the QIO, and other influences that can help explain progress towards the goals of the QIN-QIO SOW. The questions used for these constructs related to program and non-program influences have been adopted from previously used and/or validated instruments, including the IEC Nursing Home Survey that was approved under OMB control number 0938-1330.

    The survey will also provide estimates of the attribution of the QIN-QIO program for improving ADE prevention, and reported impact of the QIN-QIO program from the perspective of healthcare providers. The perceived influence on quality improvement efforts will be quantified and, along with econometric modeling methods, will be used to assess program attribution. Estimating attribution is a contract requirement for the IEC and helps provide evidence of impact of the QIN-QIO program. Since current analytical methods do not adequately address the overlap of quality improvement initiatives targeting medication safety and ADE prevention, the IEC developed an innovative approach, combining survey input with modeling, to estimate the relative importance of the QIN-QIO program. The concept is supported at the highest level of administration for Quality Improvement at CMS and has been presented at national conferences and to CMS/CCSQ leadership. The survey data is an essential component of this analytic method.

    The information collected through the survey will complement the existing data by helping identify factors associated with ADE outcomes of interest from existing data sets such as Medicare claims. For example, claims data can provide information on whether the number of prescriptions for opioids has decreased, but not what has helped to facilitate the decrease. Form Number: CMS-10675 (OMB control number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 1,200; Total Annual Responses: 1,200; Total Annual Hours: 300. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Nancy Sonnenfeld at 410-786-1294.)

    Dated: July 16, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15466 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: ORR-6, ORR Requirements for Refugee Cash Assistance; and Refugee Medical Assistance (45 CFR part 400).

    OMB No.: 0970-0036.

    Description: As required by section 412(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), is requesting the information from Form ORR-6 to determine the effectiveness of the State cash and medical assistance, and social services programs. State-by-State Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) utilization rates derived from Form ORR-6 are calculated for use in formulating program initiatives, priorities, standards, budget requests, and assistance policies. ORR regulations require that State Refugee Resettlement and Wilson-Fish agencies, and local and Tribal governments complete Form ORR-6 in order to participate in the above-mentioned programs.

    Respondents: State governments, Replacement Designees, and Wilson/Fish Alternative Projects.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • ORR-6 Performance Report 57 2 8 912

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 912.

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15537 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-45-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0052] Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice of availability that published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2018. In that document, FDA requested comments on the draft revised guidance for industry (GFI) #197 entitled “Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs.” The Agency is taking this action in response to a request for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

    DATES:

    FDA is extending the comment period on the document published May 21, 2018 (83 FR 23468). Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft revised guidance by October 18, 2018, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time 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-2009-D-0052 for “Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs.” Received comments 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:

    Virginia Recta, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-160), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0840, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of May 21, 2018, FDA published a notice announcing the availability of draft revised GFI #197 entitled “Documenting Electronic Data Files and Statistical Analysis Programs” with a 60-day comment period. We requested comments about informing sponsors of recommendations for documenting electronic data files and statistical analyses submitted to CVM to support new animal drug applications. These recommendations are intended to reduce the number of revisions that may be required for CVM to effectively review data submissions and to simplify submission preparation by providing a recommended documentation framework.

    The Agency has received a request for a 90-day extension of the comment period. The request conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a comprehensive response.

    FDA has considered the request and is extending the comment period for the notice of availability for 90 days, until October 18, 2018. The Agency believes that a 90-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15568 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0500] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products 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 provisions of FDA's requirements on content and format of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 18, 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 18, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of September 18, 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-2008-N-0500 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products.” 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.

    Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products OMB Control Number 0910-0572—Extension

    FDA's regulations governing the content and format of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products were revised in the Federal Register of January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3922) (the 2006 labeling rule) to require that the labeling of new and recently approved products contain highlights of prescribing information, a table of contents for prescribing information, reordering of certain sections, minor content changes, and minimum graphical requirements. These revisions were intended to make it easier for health care practitioners to access, read, and use information in prescription drug labeling; to enhance the safe and effective use of prescription drug products; and to reduce the number of adverse reactions resulting from medication errors because of misunderstood or incorrectly applied drug information.

    Currently, § 201.56 (21 CFR 201.56) requires that prescription drug labeling contain certain information in the format specified in either § 201.57 (21 CFR 201.57) or § 201.80 (21 CFR 201.80), depending on when the drug was approved for marketing. Section 201.56(a) sets forth general labeling requirements applicable to all prescription drugs. Section 201.56(b) specifies the categories of new and more recently approved prescription drugs subject to the revised content and format requirements in §§ 201.56(d) and 201.57. Section 201.56(c) sets forth the schedule for implementing these revised content and format requirements. Section 201.56(e) specifies the sections and subsections, required and optional, for the labeling of older prescription drugs not subject to the revised format and content requirements.

    Section 201.57(a) requires that prescription drug labeling for new and more recently approved prescription drug products include a “Highlights of Prescribing Information” section. The “Highlights” section provides a concise extract of the most important information required under § 201.57(c) (the Full Prescribing Information (FPI)), as well as certain additional information important to prescribers. Section 201.57(b) requires a table of contents to prescribing information entitled “Full Prescribing Information: Contents,” consisting of a list of each heading and subheading along with its identifying number to facilitate health care practitioners' use of labeling information. Section 201.57(c) specifies the contents of the FPI. Section 201.57(d) mandates the minimum specifications for the format of prescription drug labeling and establishes minimum requirements for key graphic elements such as bold type, bullet points, type size, and spacing.

    Older drugs not subject to the revised labeling content and format requirements in § 201.57 are subject to labeling requirements at § 201.80. Section 201.80(f)(2) requires that, within 1 year, any FDA-approved patient labeling be referenced in the “Precautions” section of the labeling of older products and either accompany or be reprinted immediately following the labeling.

    Annual Burden for Prescription Drug Labeling Design, Testing, and Submitting to FDA for New Drug Applications (NDAs) and Biologics License Applications (BLAs) (§§ 201.56 and 201.57)

    New drug product applicants must: (1) Design and create prescription drug labeling containing “Highlights,” “Contents,” and FPI; (2) test the designed labeling (e.g., to ensure that the designed labeling fits into carton-enclosed products); and (3) submit it to FDA for approval. Based on the projected data used in the January 24, 2006, final rule, FDA estimates that it will take applicants approximately 2,327 hours to design, test, and submit prescription drug labeling to FDA as part of a NDA or a BLA under the revised regulations. Currently, approximately 406 applicants submit approximately 541 new applications (NDAs and BLAs) to FDA annually, totaling 1,258,907 hours.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR part and activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent 2
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • Total hours
    Labeling Requirements in §§ 201.56 and 201.57 406 1.332 541 2,327 1,258,907 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Estimates may not sum due to rounding.

    Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of 602,503 hours and a corresponding increase of 345 records. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of submissions we received over the last few years.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15512 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1098] Metered Dose Inhaler and Dry Powder Inhaler Drug Products—Quality Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry; Reopening of the Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; reopening of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is reopening the comment period for the “Metered Dose Inhaler and Dry Powder Inhaler Drug Products—Quality Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry,” published in the Federal Register of April 19, 2018. FDA is reopening the comment period to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

    DATES:

    FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice published April 19, 2018 (83 FR 17420). Submit either electronic or written comments by September 18, 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 18, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of September 18, 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-2018-D-1098 for “Metered Dose Inhaler and Dry Powder Inhaler Drug Products—Quality Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry.” 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.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Lostritto, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4132, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1697, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 19, 2018 (83 FR 17420), FDA announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Metered Dose Inhaler and Dry Powder Inhaler Drug Products—Quality Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry.” Interested persons were originally given until June 18, 2018, to comment on the draft guidance. The Agency believes that reopening the comment period for an additional 60 days from the date of publication of this notice will allow adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying Agency decision making on these important issues.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15508 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Kornak, 240-627-3705, [email protected] Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by communicating with the indicated licensing contact at the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office (TTIPO), 5601 Fishers Lane, Suite 6D, MSC 9804, Rockville, MD 20892, tel: 301-496-2644, fax: 240-627-3117. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of unpublished patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    Inhibition of CD300f Function on Dendritic Cells Promotes Tumor Destruction

    Description of Technology: Cancer immunotherapy aims to enhance the ability of a patient's own immune response to destroy tumors. The magnitude of the immune response is determined by the balance between immune activating signals and negative inhibitory signals. Checkpoint receptors are negative regulators that normally deliver inhibitory signals which limit immune activation. Blockade of immune checkpoints represents an effective strategy to enhance the immune response against cancer cells.

    NIAID researchers have discovered that blocking CD300f function in dendritic cells markedly enhances their ability to phagocytose and process apoptotic tumor cells, leading to substantial inhibition of tumor growth. In this light, CD300f may be viewed as a dendritic cell checkpoint receptor analogous to T cell checkpoint receptors like PD-1 and CTLA-4. As a result, inhibiting CD300f function on dendritic cells could be a promising anti-cancer therapy, especially in the settings where blocking of T cell checkpoint receptors has been ineffective.

    This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.

    Potential Commercial Applications:

    • Cancer immunotherapy

    Competitive Advantages:

    • A novel approach

    Development Stage:

    • Pre-Clinical • Proof-of-concept studies in mouse models

    Inventors: John E. Coligan, Konrad Krzewski, Linjie Tian, Ha-Na Lee, all of NIAID, NIH.

    Publications: Tian, L. et al., Enhanced efferocytosis by dendritic cells underlies memory T-cell expansion and susceptibility to autoimmune disease in CD300f-deficient mice. Cell Death and Differ (2016) 23, 1086-1096.

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-257-2016/0—U.S. Patent Application No. 62/408,596 filed on 10/14/2016;—PCT/US2017/056192 filed on 10/11/2017.

    Licensing Contact: Chris Kornak, 240-627-3705, [email protected]

    Collaborative Research Opportunity: The Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office (TTIPO) is not seeking parties interested in collaborative research to further develop the technology.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Suzanne M. Frisbie, Deputy Director, Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15489 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance To Conduct Voluntary Customer/Partner Surveys (NLM) AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) will publish periodic summaries of propose projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: David Sharlip, National Library of Medicine, Building 38A, Room B2N12, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, or call non-toll-free number 301-827-6361 or Email your request to [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 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; (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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Proposed Collection Title: Generic Clearance to Conduct Voluntary Customer/Partner Surveys (NLM), 0925-0476, Expiration Date 09/30/2018, EXTENSION, National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: In 1994, the NLM was designated a “Federal Reinvention Laboratory” with a major objective of improving its methods of delivering information to the public. At a minimum, necessary elements in improving the delivery of information include: (1) Development of easy-to-use access and delivery mechanisms that promote the public's understanding of health information, drawing on research in lay terminology, graphical and multimedia presentations; (2) assisting those providing health information to the public to make effective use of electronic services through internet connections, training, and other means, with an emphasis on those serving minority groups, low income populations, and seniors; (3) promoting integrations of NLM services with other electronic services covering regional, state, or local health information; and (4) conducting and supporting research, development, and evaluation of the public's health information needs, information seeking behavior and learning styles, information systems that meet the public's needs, and the impact of access to information.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 750.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Table A.12-1 Estimates of annual burden hours Type of collection Type of respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • frequency
  • per response
  • Average time
  • per response
  • (minutes/hour)
  • Total
  • burden hours
  • Customer Satisfaction Surveys General Public 1,000 1 20/60 333 Focus Groups Health Professionals 500 1 15/60 125 Usability and Pilot Testing Librarians 500 1 20/60 167 Interviews or Small Discussion Groups Health Educators 500 1 15/60 125 Total 2,500 2,500 750
    Dated: July 3, 2018. David Sharlip, Project Clearance Liaison, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15490 Filed 7-19-18; 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 Special Emphasis Panel; Review of RFA-AA-18-011—Interaction of HIV Infection and Alcohol Abuse on Central Nervous System Morbidity.

    Date: August 27, 2018.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 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]

    (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: July 16, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15488 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Advisory Council (SAMHSA NAC) AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the meeting on August 2, 2018, of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Advisory Council (SAMHSA NAC).

    DATES:

    August 2, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT, Open.

    ADDRESSES:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Room 5N54.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carlos Castillo, Committee Management Officer and Designated Federal Official, SAMHSA National Advisory Council, Room 18E77A, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (mail), Telephone: (240) 276-2787, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The SAMHSA NAC was established to advise the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, SAMHSA, to improve the provision of treatments and related services to individuals with respect to substance use and to improve prevention services, promote mental health, and protect legal rights of individuals with mental illness and individuals who are substance users.

    The meeting will include remarks from the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use; updates from the Department of Health and Human Services' Operating Divisions; updates from the ex-officio members, and a council discussion.

    The meeting is open to the public and will be held at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Room 5N54, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions must be forwarded to the contact person by July 26, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations must notify the contact person by July 26, 2018. Up to five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.

    The meeting may be accessed via telephone. To attend on site; obtain the call-in number, access code, and/or web access link; submit written or brief oral comments; or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at: http://nac.samhsa.gov/Registration/meetingsRegistration.aspx, or communicate with SAMHSA's Committee Management Officer, CAPT Carlos Castillo.

    Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Council's website at http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/ or by contacting Carlos Castillo. Substantive program information may be obtained after the meeting by accessing the SAMHSA Council's website, http://nac.samhsa.gov/, or by contacting Carlos Castillo.

    Council Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Advisory Council.

    Carlos Castillo, Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15246 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Bog Creek Road Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security and United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides additional time for interested parties to submit comments on the Bog Creek Road Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) concerning the repair and maintenance of Bog Creek Road and closure of certain roads within the Blue-Grass Bear Management Unit in the Selkirk Mountains in Boundary County, Idaho. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA, Forest Service) Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) (collectively, the Agencies) published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register on June 1, 2018, with comments due on or before July 16, 2018. In the interest of receiving well thought out and developed comments from stakeholders, the Agencies are reopening the comment period until July 31, 2018.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the Draft EIS published at 83 FR 25472 on June 1, 2018, is reopened. Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For Obtaining Copies of the Draft EIS: Electronic copies of the Draft EIS are available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41296 and https://www.cbp.gov/document/environmental-assessments/bog-creek-road-project-environmental-impact-statement.

    CD-ROM and print copies are available by sending a request to Paul Enriquez at [email protected] or 949-643-6365 or at the following USDA, Forest Service locations:

    • The IPNF Supervisors Office, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho;

    • Sandpoint Ranger District, 1602 Ontario Street, Sandpoint, Idaho;

    • Bonners Ferry Ranger District, 6286 Main Street, Bonners Ferry, Idaho; and

    • Priest Lake Ranger District, 32203 Highway 57, Priest River, Idaho

    For Submitting Comments: You may submit written comments on the Draft EIS by mail or email. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on the public comment process. Please submit your written comments using one of the following methods:

    Mail: Bog Creek Road EIS, P.O. Box 643, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002-0643;

    Email: [email protected];

    • Hand delivered to any of the USDA, Forest Service locations where CD-ROM and print copies of the Draft EIS are available; or

    FAX: 208-765-7426.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Enriquez, CBP, Border Patrol and Air and Marine Program Management Office, by telephone at 949-643-6365, or email at [email protected] Persons who require assistance accessing information, please contact the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on all aspects of the Draft EIS. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Agencies will reference a specific section of the Draft EIS, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that supports such recommended change. Substantive comments received during the comment period will be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). The Final EIS will be made available to the public through a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register.

    This project is subject to 36 CFR part 218, subparts A and B of the USDA, Forest Service's Project-level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process. Pursuant to 36 CFR part 218, only those who provide timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project during a comment period are eligible to file an objection with the USDA, Forest Service. Comments received regarding this Draft EIS are considered part of the administrative record for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. Within this context, a commenter's personally identifiable information, such as name and contact information, may be released to a third party upon request under the Freedom of Information Act. Comments submitted anonymously, without a name and contact information, will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the commenter with standing to participate in the USDA, Forest Service objection process.

    This process is being conducted pursuant to the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), DHS Directive 023-01 and Instruction 023-01-001-01, and CBP and USDA, Forest Service NEPA guidelines.

    Background

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA, Forest Service) Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) (collectively, the Agencies) published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 25472) on June 1, 2018, announcing the availability of the Bog Creek Road Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). That document solicited public comments and requested that comments be received no later than July 16, 2018.

    Reopening of Comment Period

    Several stakeholders have requested that the Agencies extend the comment period so that they can take additional time t