Federal Register Vol. 83, No.144,

Title: Importation of Peppers From Certain Central American Countries.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0274.

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

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests, including fruit flies, into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations promulgated under the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-83).

In accordance with § 319.56-40, peppers from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama are subject to certain conditions before entering the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require the use of information collection activities, which include inspections by national plant protection organization (NPPO) officials of the country of export; bilateral workplans; production site registration; fruit fly trapping, monitoring, quality control programs, and recordkeeping; box labeling; phytosanitary certificates; and emergency action notifications.

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

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

(1) Evaluate whether the 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 our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.005 hours per response.

Respondents: Exporters and importers of peppers from certain Central American countries and NPPOs from the exporting countries.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 36.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 21,986.

Estimated annual number of responses: 791,479.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 4,285 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Title: Movement of Plants and Plant Products From Hawaii and the Territories.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0346.

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

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which administers regulations to implement the PPA.

Under the regulations in “Subpart—Regulated Articles From Hawaii and the Territories” (7 CFR 318.13-1 through 318.13-26), APHIS prohibits or restricts the interstate movement of plants and plant products into the continental United States from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to prevent plant pests and noxious weeds from being introduced into and spread within the continental United States.

The regulations contain requirements for a performance-based process for approving the interstate movement of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more designated phytosanitary measures and for acknowledging pest-free areas. These requirements involve information collection activities, including limited permits, inspections to issue limited permits, inspections of production areas, transit permits, compliance agreements, inspection and certification, labeling for fruits and vegetables produced in pest free areas, written requests for facility approvals, trapping and surveillance, and recordkeeping. In addition, the interstate movement of sweet potatoes from Hawaii include activities such as packaging, marking, identification, and certification.

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

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

(1) Evaluate whether the 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 our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.38 hours per response.

Respondents: Wholesalers and producers of plants and plant products; growers, shippers, and exporters in Hawaii and the Territories; State plant regulatory officials; and irradiation facility personnel.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 188.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 114.

Estimated annual number of responses: 21,433.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 8,261 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Title: Importation of Peppers from the Republic of Korea.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0282.

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

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-83).

In accordance with § 319.56-42, peppers from the Republic of Korea are subject to certain conditions before entering the continental United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations include requirements for greenhouse registration and inspection by officials of the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the Republic of Korea, a phytosanitary certificate with a declaration by NPPO officials stating the peppers were grown in greenhouses in accordance with the regulations and inspected and found free of the listed plant pests, and emergency action notifications.

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

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

(1) Evaluate whether the 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 our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.8 hours per response.

Respondents: Businesses and the NPPO of the Republic of Korea.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 2.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 11.

Estimated annual number of responses: 21.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 17 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

The Census Bureau proposes an extension of the Age Search Service Program. The Age Search is a service provided by the U.S. Census Bureau for persons who need official transcripts of personal data as proof of age for pensions, retirement plans, Medicare, and Social Security. The transcripts are also used as proof of citizenship to obtain passports or to provide evidence of family relationship for rights of inheritance. The Age Search forms are used by the public in order to provide the Census Bureau with the necessary information to conduct a search of historical population decennial census records in order to provide the requested transcript. The Age Search service is self-supporting and is funded by the fees collected from the individuals requesting the service.

The Form BC-600, Application for Search of Census Records, is a paper public-use form that is submitted by applicants requesting information from the decennial census records. This application form is available online in PDF format for individuals to download and complete. Applicants must enclose the appropriate fee by check or money order with the completed and signed Form BC-600 or BC-600(SP) and return by mail to the U.S. Census Bureau, Post Office Box 1545, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47131.

The Form BC-649(L), which is called a Not Found Letter, advises the applicant that the search for information from the census records was unsuccessful. The BC-658(L) is sent to the applicant when insufficient information has been received on which to base a search of the census records. These two forms request additional information from the applicant to aid in the search of census records.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0117.

Form Numbers: BC-600, BC-600(SP), BC-649(L), and BC-658(L).

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,885 total respondents.

Estimated Time per Response:

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 531 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $167,394. The Age Search processing fee is $65.00 per case. An additional charge of $20 per case for expedited requests requiring results within one day is also available. It is expected that 485 individuals will request the expedited service.

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

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., section 8.

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.

Background

On December 4, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from Taiwan for the period December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017.1 On December 27, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), Commerce received a timely request from the petitioner 2 to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from Taiwan manufactured or exported by Charles Enterprise Co., Ltd; Gee Ten Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Inmall Enterprises Co., Ltd.; Mindful Life and Coaching Co., Ltd.; 3 Ocean Concept Corporation; Su-Chia International Ltd.; Taiwan Hanger Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; and Young Max Enterprises Co. Ltd.4

On February 23, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order.5 This administrative review covers Charles Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Gee Ten Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Inmall Enterprises Co., Ltd.; Mindful Life and Coaching Co., Ltd.; Ocean Concept Corporation; Su-Chia International Ltd.; Taiwan Hanger Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; and Young Max Enterprises Co. Ltd. for the period of December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017. On June 29, 2018, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for an administrative review for all companies under review.6

In the Federal Register of June 26, 2018, in FR Doc. 83 FR 29746, on pages 29746-29747, corrections were made to the deadline for submitting information for consideration to the Council in the Dates sections (under the DOCUMENT DETAILS and DATES) and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section (9th paragraph). The deadline has been corrected to Friday, August 24, 2018, and the corrections should read:

(1) DOCUMENT DETAILS—Dates: All applications for immediate consideration for appointment must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Friday, August 24, 2018. After that date, applications will be accepted under this notice for a period of up to two years from the deadline to fill any vacancies that may arise.

(2) DATES: All applications for immediate consideration for appointment must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Friday, August 24, 2018. After that date, applications will be accepted under this notice for a period of up to two years from the deadline to fill any vacancies that may arise.

(3) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To be considered for membership, submit the following information by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, August 24, 2018 to the email address listed in the ADDRESSES section.

On February 1, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from China for the POR.1 Commerce received a timely request from Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. (Kangfa), in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), to conduct an administrative review of this antidumping duty order.2

On April 16, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation with respect to Kangfa.3 On June 14, 2018, Kangfa timely withdrew its request for an administrative review.4

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Kangfa withdrew its request for review by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of this order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mushrooms from China covering the period February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Purpose of Program: The School Climate Transformation Grant Program—State Educational Agency Grants provides competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) to develop, enhance, or expand statewide systems of support for, and technical assistance to, local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools implementing an evidence-based (as defined in this notice), multitiered behavioral framework for improving behavioral outcomes and learning conditions for all students.

Background: Research demonstrates that the implementation of an evidence-based, multitiered behavioral framework, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), can help improve overall school climate and safety.1 A key aspect of this multitiered approach is providing differing levels of support and interventions to students based on their needs. Certain supports involve the whole school (e.g., consistent rules, consequences, and reinforcement of appropriate behavior), with more intensive supports for groups of students exhibiting at-risk behavior and individualized services for students who continue to exhibit troubling behavior.

When a multitiered behavioral framework has been implemented with fidelity, studies have found the following statistically significant results: An increase in perceived school safety, reductions in overall problem behaviors, reductions in bullying behaviors,2 and reductions in office discipline referrals and suspensions.3 Studies have also found a correlation between the use of multitiered behavioral frameworks and improved social skills.4 Emerging evidence also links implementing a multitiered behavioral framework with improved academic achievement.5

Under this program, grant funds will help build SEA capacity to assist LEAs develop, enhance, or expand their systems of support for, and technical assistance to, schools implementing evidence-based multitiered behavior frameworks for improving behavioral outcomes and learning conditions for all students.

Priorities: We are establishing these priorities for the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Grants to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to Implement Statewide Systems of Support for Multitiered Behavioral Frameworks to Improve School Climate.

Under this priority, we provide grants to SEAs to develop, enhance, or expand statewide systems of support for, and provide technical assistance to, LEAs implementing a multitiered behavioral framework to improve school climate and behavioral outcomes for all students.

Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(1) we award an additional 5 points to an application that meets this priority. An applicant must clearly indicate in the abstract section of its application that it is applying for the competitive preference priority. The Department may not review or award points under this competitive preference priority for any application that fails to do so.

This priority is:

Technical Assistance Related to Opioid Abuse and Prevention (5 points).

Under this priority, we will provide additional points to an applicant that proposes a high-quality plan to incorporate opioid abuse prevention and mitigation strategies into the menu of evidence-based strategies available to LEAs implementing multitiered behavioral frameworks. The plan should describe how the SEA will incorporate outreach to LEAs with high levels of opioid use to promote adoption of these strategies, as well as how the SEA will track the adoption and effectiveness of these strategies. The plan may also include providing technical assistance to or support for LEAs that implement or plan to implement other relevant, high-quality approaches such as the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) student assessment approach referenced in the 2018 President's Commission on Combatting Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis report. The report can be found be found at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Final_Report_Draft_11-15-2017.pdf. The plan could also address the mental health needs of students who are negatively impacted by family members who are (or have been) abusers. Applicants that receive competitive preference points under this priority and are ultimately awarded a School Climate Transformation Grant will finalize and implement the high-quality plan described in response to this priority post-award.

Requirements: We are establishing these program requirements and application requirements for the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

Program Requirements: Each grantee must implement a plan that—

(a) Builds SEA capacity for supporting the sustained and broad-scale implementation with fidelity of a multitiered behavioral framework by LEAs by—

(1) Improving the skills of SEA personnel to assist LEA implementation of the components of a multitiered behavioral framework, such as policies, funding, professional development, coaching, and interagency coordination for providing services;

(2) Developing a cadre of trained and experienced SEA staff to provide training and ongoing coaching to LEA leadership teams on the multitiered behavioral framework; and

(3) Improving the quality, accessibility, and usefulness of statewide data collection and analysis for the purposes related to the State's strategies for improving school climate;

(b) Enhances LEA capacity for implementing with fidelity and sustaining a multitiered behavioral framework by providing training and technical assistance to LEAs on—

(1) Developing or improving the quality, accessibility, and usefulness of LEA data collection and data-based decision making related to improving school climate;

(2) Improving the skills and expertise of LEA personnel to develop, implement with fidelity, and sustain a multitiered behavioral framework; and

(3) Using evidence-based practices and reliable and valid tools and processes for evaluating the fidelity of implementation of the multitiered behavioral framework, and for measuring its outcomes, including reductions in discipline referrals, suspensions, expulsions, and the use of restraints and seclusion; improvements in school climate; increases in instructional time; and improvements in overall academic achievement; and

(c) Coordinates SEA efforts with appropriate Federal, State, and local resources, including the PBIS Technical Assistance Center funded by the Department.

Application Requirements: Applications that fail to meet any one of these requirements will not be read or scored. The applicant must—

(a) Describe the current efforts by the SEA to support implementation of a multitiered behavioral framework in its LEAs and schools, as well as the need to implement, scale-up, and sustain such a framework in additional LEAs and schools. The applicant must present State and local data demonstrating this need, including, but not limited to, the number and types of LEAs and schools that are currently implementing a multitiered behavioral framework;

(b) Describe its plan to build, improve, or enhance SEA capacity to provide effective training, technical assistance, and support to LEAs and their schools on implementing a school-wide multitiered behavioral framework, including: When and where to conduct technical assistance activities; how to garner buy-in from participants and other stakeholders; how to balance the time needed to deliver technical assistance related to this grant with the time needed to deliver other technical assistance and professional development activities; the estimated number of LEAs that will be assisted; and how the SEA will help build capacity for implementation at the local level;

(c) Describe how the proposed project will address the needs of high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice), including those with schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(d)(1) of the ESEA and schools identified for targeted support and improvement under section 1111(d)(2) of the ESEA; and

(d) Explain how the SEA's efforts to build LEA and school capacity to implement, expand, and sustain a multitiered behavioral framework will be coordinated with other SEA and LEA school safety and school improvement efforts such as expanding access to mental health care or reducing cyberbullying.

Definitions: We are establishing the definitions of “high-need LEA” and “multitiered behavioral framework” in this notice for the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). The definition of “evidence-based” is from section 8101 of the ESEA.

Evidence-based, when used with respect to a State, LEA, or school activity, means an activity, strategy, or intervention that—

(i) Demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—

(I) Strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study;

(II) Moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or

(III) Promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or

(ii)(I) Demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and

(II) Includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.

High-need LEA means an LEA (a) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line; or (b) for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line.

Multitiered behavioral framework means a school-wide structure used to improve the integration and implementation of behavioral practices, data-driven decision-making systems, professional development opportunities, school leadership, supportive SEA and LEA policies, and evidence-based instructional strategies.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, definitions, and requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under Title IV, Part F, Subpart 3 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7281) and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities, definitions, and requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, definitions, and requirements will apply to the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $8,000,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 and subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from the competition announced in this notice.

Estimated Range of Awards: $250,000 to $750,000 per year for up to 5 years.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $500,000.

Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $750,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

Estimated Number of Awards: 16.

Project Period: Up to 60 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make awards by the end of FY 2018.

3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all selection criteria is 100 points. The points or weights assigned to each criterion are indicated in parentheses. Non-Federal peer reviewers will evaluate and score each application program narrative against the following selection criteria:

(a) Need for Project (20 points).

The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project. (10 points)

(ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (10 points)

(b) Significance (10 points).

The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies. (10 points)

(c) Quality of the Project Design (30 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (15 points)

(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (15 points)

(d) Quality of the Management Plan (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (20 points)

(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation (20 points).

The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible. (20 points).

2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200 subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

5. Performance Measures: The Department has established the following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 performance measures for the School Climate Transformation Grant Program—State Educational Agency Grants:

(a) The number of training and technical assistance events provided by the SEA School Climate Transformation Grant Program to assist LEAs in implementing a multitiered behavioral framework.

(b) The number and percentage of schools in LEAs provided training or technical assistance by the SEA School Climate Transformation Grant Program that implement a multitiered behavioral framework.

(c) The number and percentage of LEAs provided training or technical assistance by the SEA School Climate Transformation Grant Program that implement a multitiered behavioral framework with fidelity.

These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures. This data will be considered by the Department in making continuation awards.

Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees funded under this program shall comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department.

6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No. 1910-5141;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Department of Energy Better Buildings Challenge, Better Buildings Alliance, and the Better Buildings, Better Plants Voluntary Pledge Program;

(3) Type of Review: Extension with Revision of a Currently Approved Collection

(4) Purpose: This Information Collection Request applies to three Department of Energy (DOE) voluntary leadership initiatives that fall under DOE's Better Buildings Initiative: (1) The Better Buildings Challenge; (2) the Better Buildings, Better Plants Program (Better Plants); and (3) the Better Buildings Alliance. Two new information collection instruments are proposed in order to streamline the application process for a manufacturing leadership awards program under Better Plants. Other pre-existing collection forms are being amended for clarity and to reduce burden on respondents. Also, the total number of respondents and response time for individual program areas is being adjusted to align with practical experience and to account for the program's growth over time. For example, due to improved data quality controls and greater experience observing partners, the hours per response has been increased for the Better Buildings, Better Plants Challenge Annual Reporting Form. The total number of hours associated with the Annual Better Plants Program Pledge Form was decreased to account for the establishment of more efficient internal collection processes as partners gain experience in the program. The number of hours per response for both the Better Buildings, Better Plants Web Profile Development and Water Data Collection forms, respectively, were changed to reflect actual partner response time based on practical experience.

The leadership initiatives in the Better Buildings Initiative covered under this Information Collection Request are intended to drive greater energy and water efficiency in the commercial, public, residential, data center, and industrial marketplace to reduce pollution, cut costs, and create jobs. This is accomplished by highlighting the ways participants overcome market barriers to greater efficiency with replicable solutions. The program showcases real solutions and partners with industry leaders to better understand policy and technical opportunities. There are three types of information to be collected from primary participants, also referred to as “Partners”: (1) Background data, including contact information, a partnership agreement form, logo(s), information needed to support public announcements, updates on participants' showcase projects, and an energy savings goal; (2) Portfolio-wide energy performance information; and (3) Information on market innovations participants are including in their energy efficiency processes. Background data is primarily used to develop website content that is publically available. Portfolio-wide facility-level energy performance information is used by DOE to measure the participants' progress in meeting the goals of the program, as well as to aggregate the change in energy performance and related metrics for the entire program. Information on market innovation is used to highlight successful strategies participants use to overcome challenges, and is made publicly available. Additional background information is being collected from “Allies”, financial and utility organizations that make a public commitment to support the energy efficiency marketplace. Background information including name, dollars committed to the market, and a company logo is also used to develop publically available website content. Responses to the DOE's Information Collection Request are voluntary.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 752, a slight increase over the current ICR's 740, which reflects modest growth in participation across the programs.

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 897, a slight decrease from the current ICR's 933, which is driven by a change in frequency of reporting from biannual to annual for one information collection form.

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 2,232.25, a decrease from the current ICR's 2,709.25, which reflects improved data collection and reporting processes put in place by partners, especially those that have been participating in the programs for multiple years.

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $90,475, a reduction from the current ICR's $106,934.

Statutory Authority: Section 421 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17081); Section 911 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended (42 U.S.C. 16191).

Details About Participating in the Event: The public is invited to speak during the August 7 listening session. Those interested in speaking can sign up for a 3-minute speaking slot on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement. Please check this website for event materials as they become available, including a full agenda, leading up to the event.

The PFAS National Leadership Summit: On May 22-23, 2018, the EPA hosted the PFAS National Leadership Summit. During the summit, participants worked together to share information on ongoing efforts to characterize risks from PFAS, develop monitoring and treatment/cleanup techniques, identify specific near-term actions (beyond those already underway) that are needed to address challenges currently facing states and local communities, and develop risk communication strategies that will help communities to address public concerns regarding PFAS.

The EPA wants to assure the public that their input is valuable and meaningful. Using information from the National Leadership Summit, public docket, and community engagements, the EPA plans to develop a PFAS Management Plan for release later this year. A summary of the Colorado Community Engagement will be made available to the public following the event on the EPA's PFAS Community Engagement website at: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table in Unit IV.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health risk assessments for all pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review decision for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's human health risk assessments for the pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public comment period on the risk assessments.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table in Unit IV. EPA may then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments.

Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

Under each CSAPR trading program where EPA is responsible for determining emission allowance allocations, a portion of each state's emissions budget for the program for each control period is reserved in a NUSA (and in an additional Indian country NUSA in the case of states with Indian country within their borders) for allocation to certain units that would not otherwise receive allowance allocations. The procedures for identifying the eligible units for each control period and for allocating allowances from the NUSAs and Indian country NUSAs to these units are set forth in the CSAPR trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412 (NOX Annual), 97.511(b) and 97.512 (NOX Ozone Season Group 1), 97.611(b) and 97.612 (SO2 Group 1), 97.711(b) and 97.712 (SO2 Group 2), and 97.811(b) and 97.812 (NOX Ozone Season Group 2). Each NUSA allowance allocation process involves up to two rounds of allocations to eligible units, termed “new” units, followed by the allocation to “existing” units of any allowances not allocated to new units. In a NODA published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2018 (83 FR 21772), we provided notice of preliminary calculations for the first-round 2018 NUSA allowance allocations. We also described the process for submitting any objections to the preliminary calculations. This NODA concerns the final calculations for the first round of 2018 NUSA allocations.

EPA received three sets of written objections in response to the May 10, 2018 NODA. For the reasons discussed below, we have concluded that none of the written objections provides a valid basis for altering the preliminary calculations of NUSA allowance allocations.

The first two sets of objections, from Madison Gas & Electric Company (MG&E) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, are substantively identical and raise two issues concerning units U1 and U2 at the West Campus Cogeneration Facility (WCCF) in Madison, Wisconsin. The first objection asserts that January 1, 2017 is the date as of which units U1 and U2 “commenced commercial operation” for CSAPR purposes. EPA has already addressed this specific issue with respect to the WCCF units in response to an objection submitted regarding the 2017 NUSA allocations. Our earlier response, which we are not revising, was published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2018 (83 FR 7034). Briefly, we agree that, according to the information provided by MG&E, January 1, 2017 is the date as of which units U1 and U2 should be considered to have “commenced commercial operation” for CSAPR purposes. Further, we have in fact been using this date for purposes of determining the units' eligibility to receive 2018 NUSA allocations, and that is why units U1 and U2 appear in the preliminary first-round 2018 NUSA allocation spreadsheets. However, we acknowledge that our use of the January 1, 2017 date for this purpose is not clear from the preliminary NUSA allocation spreadsheets which, instead of displaying the January 1, 2017 date, display the 2005 date on which the units commenced commercial operation for other purposes before becoming subject to CSAPR. The final first-round 2018 NUSA allocation spreadsheets display the January 1, 2017 date.

The second objection raised with respect to WCCF units U1 and U2 asserts that EPA's exclusion of reported emissions occurring before July 2017 in calculating the units' NUSA allocations is incorrect. We disagree. For purposes of the NUSA allocation calculations, we have properly used the units' reported emissions occurring on and after their monitor certification deadline of June 30, 2017. We explained the regulatory basis for this approach in a NODA published on July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44882) regarding 2015 NUSA allocations. Briefly, under the CSAPR regulations, only emissions that occur during a “control period” for a unit are used in calculating the amounts of any NUSA allocations to that unit. Because a unit's first control period excludes any period before the unit's monitor certification deadline, any reported emissions occurring before the monitor certification deadline are excluded from the NUSA allocation calculations. A unit's monitor certification deadline is generally 180 days after the date on which the unit commences commercial operation for CSAPR purposes,1 making the monitor certification deadline for WCCF units U1 and U2 June 30, 2017. For further explanation, see the July 28, 2015 Federal Register notice referenced above.

The remaining set of written objections, from Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), also raises two issues. GRDA's first objection concerns the amount of reported 2017 ozone season NOX emissions used to calculate the amount of the first-round 2018 NUSA allocation to unit 3 at Grand River Energy Center (GREC) in Chouteau, Oklahoma. Specifically, GRDA asserts that EPA should not have used 0 tons for this purpose. We disagree. The reported date on which GREC unit 3 commenced commercial operation was March 17, 2017, making the unit's monitor certification deadline September 13, 2017. As discussed above with respect to the WCCF facility, only reported emissions occurring after a unit's monitor certification deadline are used in computing NUSA allocations because any earlier emissions did not occur during a control period for the unit. Although GREC unit 3 reported 66 tons of emissions during the entire 2017 ozone season, the unit reported 0 tons during the portion of the 2017 ozone season on and after September 13, so our use of 0 tons for purposes of calculating unit 3's first-round 2018 NUSA allocation is consistent with the regulations. For further explanation, see the July 28, 2015 Federal Register notice reference above.

GRDA's second objection consists of a request to revise the total amount of the NUSA for Oklahoma under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program. This objection is outside the scope of the May 10, 2018 NODA. EPA's determination regarding the NUSA total amount was made in the CSAPR Update rulemaking, and the NUSA amount is codified in the CSAPR regulations at 40 CFR 97.810(a)(17)(ii). The process of allocating NUSA allowances is strictly an administrative process that implements regulations already in effect. The total amount of the NUSA for Oklahoma can be revised only through another rulemaking, not through this administrative process.

Although no changes were made to the preliminary first-round 2018 NUSA allocations in response to the objections received, based on internal data reviews EPA has determined that several units listed in the preliminary allocation spreadsheets in fact are existing units not eligible to receive 2018 NUSA allocations. Specifically, 14 units in Illinois, Kansas, and Nebraska were incorrectly included in the preliminary first-round NUSA allocation spreadsheet for the SO2 programs, and the Illinois and Nebraska units were also incorrectly included in the preliminary first-round NUSA allocation spreadsheet for the annual NOX program.2 Generally, these units were misidentified as eligible units because of discrepancies between the identification numbers used for the units in different data sets. In addition, 21 units in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas were incorrectly included in the preliminary first-round NUSA allocation spreadsheet for the ozone season NOX programs. Generally, these units were misidentified as eligible units because a screening procedure designed to identify units eligible for NUSA allocations due to relocation between states was executed without setting appropriate limits on the dates of relocation. We have removed all the ineligible units from the final first-round 2018 NUSA allocation spreadsheets.

The detailed unit-by-unit data and final allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2018_NOX_Annual_1st_Round_Final_Data”, “CSAPR_NUSA_2018_NOX_OS_1st_Round_Final_Data”, and “CSAPR_NUSA_2018_SO2_1st_Round_Final_Data,” available on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-compliance-year-2018-nusa-nodas.

EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that under 40 CFR 97.411(c), 97.511(c), 97.611(c), 97.711(c), and 97.811(c), allocations are subject to potential correction if a unit to which allowances have been allocated for a given control period is not actually an affected unit as of the start of that control period.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, requires that EPA develop standards for Underground Storage Tank (UST) systems, as may be necessary, to protect human health and the environment, and procedures for approving state programs in lieu of the federal program. EPA promulgated technical and financial requirements for owners and operators of USTs at 40 CFR part 280, and state program approval procedures at 40 CFR part 281. This ICR is a comprehensive presentation of all information collection requirements contained at 40 CFR parts 280 and 281.

The data collected for new and existing UST system operations and financial requirements are used by owners and operators and/or EPA or the implementing agency to monitor results of testing, inspections, and operation of UST systems, as well as to demonstrate compliance with regulations. EPA believes strongly that if the minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, neither the facilities nor EPA can ensure that UST systems are being managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment.

EPA uses state program applications to determine whether to approve a state program. Before granting approval, EPA must determine that programs will be no less stringent than the federal program and contain adequate enforcement mechanisms.

Form numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Facilities that own and operate underground storage tanks (USTs), states that implement the UST programs, and tribes.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 280).

Estimated number of respondents: 202,830.

Frequency of response: Once, on occasion, annual.

Total estimated burden: 8,722,192 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $679,800,866 (per year), includes $424,720,745 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in estimates: There is an increase of 3,309,061 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This ICR renewal includes several new requirements that became effective as of October 2018, which has resulted in a burden increase (e.g., annual release detection operability testing and recordkeeping, periodic testing and inspection of spill, overfill equipment and containment sumps, operator training, walkthrough inspections, notification of ownership changes, and maintaining records for compatibility). In addition, EPA expects most states to submit state program re-approval applications during the three-year period of this ICR.

On April 3, 2018, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the four consumer financial regulations at issue. 83 FR 14273. No relevant comments were received. The four regulations covered by that and this Notice were and are, respectively:

(1) Regulations promulgated under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. (“ECOA”) (“Regulation B”) (OMB Control Number: 3084-0087);

(2) Regulations promulgated under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. (“EFTA”) (“Regulation E”) (OMB Control Number: 3084-0085);

(3) Regulations promulgated under the Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq. (“CLA”) (“Regulation M”) (OMB Control Number: 3084-0086); and

(4) Regulations promulgated under the Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. (“TILA”) (“Regulation Z”) (OMB Control Number: 3084-0088).

The FTC enforces these statutes as to all businesses engaged in conduct that these laws cover unless the businesses (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions) are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency.

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), almost all rulemaking authority for the ECOA, EFTA, CLA, and TILA transferred from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) on July 21, 2011 (“transfer date”). To implement this transferred authority, the BCFP published interim final rules for new regulations in 12 CFR part 1002 (Regulation B), 12 CFR part 1005 (Regulation E), 12 CFR part 1013 (Regulation M), and 12 CFR 1026 (Regulation Z) for those entities under its rulemaking jurisdiction, which were issued as final rules thereafter.1 Although the Dodd-Frank Act transferred most rulemaking authority under ECOA, EFTA, CLA, and TILA to the BCFP, the Board retained rulemaking authority for certain motor vehicle dealers 2 under these statutes and also for certain interchange-related requirements under EFTA.3

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC and the BCFP generally share the authority to enforce Regulations B, E, M, and Z for entities for which the FTC had enforcement authority before the Act.4 For certain motor vehicle dealers and for certain state-chartered credit unions, the FTC generally has exclusive enforcement jurisdiction.5 The division of PRA burden hours not attributable to motor vehicle dealers and, when appropriate, to state-chartered credit unions, is reflected in the BCFP's PRA clearance requests to OMB, as well as in the FTC's burden estimates below. The burden estimates associated with all motor vehicle dealers and now, when appropriate, the estimated burden estimates associated with state-chartered credit unions, are reflected in the burden summaries below as a “carve-out.” 6

The regulations impose certain recordkeeping and disclosure requirements associated with providing credit or with other financial transactions. Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, Federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

The required recordkeeping and disclosures do not impose PRA burden on some covered entities because they make those disclosures and maintain records in their normal course of activities.7 For other covered entities that do not, their compliance burden will vary widely depending on the extent to which they have developed effective computer-based or electronic systems and procedures to communicate and document required recordkeeping and disclosures.8

Covered entities, may incur some burden associated with ensuring that they do not prematurely dispose of relevant records (i.e., during the time span they must retain records under the applicable regulation).

The regulations also require covered entities to make disclosures to third parties. Related compliance involves set-up/monitoring and transaction-specific costs. “Set-up” burden, incurred only by covered new entrants, includes their identifying the applicable required disclosures, determining how best to comply, and designing and developing compliance systems and procedures. “Monitoring” burden, incurred by all covered entities, includes their time and costs to review changes to regulatory requirements, make necessary revisions to compliance systems and procedures, and to monitor the ongoing operation of systems and procedures to ensure continued compliance. “Transaction-related” burden refers to the time and cost associated with providing the various required disclosures in individual transactions, thus, generally, of much less magnitude than “monitoring” (or “setup”) burden. The FTC's estimates of transaction time and volume are intended as averages.

Calculating the burden associated with the regulations' requirements is very difficult because of the highly diverse group of affected entities. The “respondents” included in the following burden calculations consist of, among others, credit and lease advertisers, creditors, owners (such as purchasers and assignees) of credit obligations, financial institutions, service providers, certain government agencies and others involved in delivering electronic fund transfers (“EFTs”) of government benefits, and lessors.9 The burden estimates represent FTC staff's best assessment, based on its knowledge and expertise relating to the financial services industry, of the average time to complete the aforementioned tasks associated with recordkeeping and disclosure. Staff considered the wide variations in covered entities' (1) size and location; (2) credit or lease products offered, extended, or advertised, and their particular terms; (3) EFT types used; (4) types and frequency of adverse actions taken; (5) types of appraisal reports utilized; and (6) computer systems and electronic features of compliance operations.

The cost estimates that follow relate solely to labor costs, and they include the time necessary to train employees how to comply with the regulations. Staff calculated labor costs by multiplying appropriate hourly wages by the burden hours described above. The hourly wages used were $56 for managerial oversight, $42 for skilled technical services, and $17 for clerical work. These figures are averages drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics data.10 Further, the FTC cost estimates assume the following labor category apportionments, except where otherwise indicated below: Recordkeeping—10% skilled technical, 90% clerical; disclosure—10% managerial, 90% skilled technical.

The applicable PRA requirements impose minimal capital or other non-labor costs. Affected entities generally already have the necessary equipment for other business purposes. Similarly, FTC staff estimates that compliance with these rules entails minimal printing and copying costs beyond that associated with documenting financial transactions in the normal course of business.

The following discussion and tables present FTC estimates under the PRA of recordkeeping and disclosure average time and labor costs, excluding that which the FTC believes entities incur customarily in the normal course of business 11 and information compiled and produced in response to FTC law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.12

The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) is a partnership program created to stimulate innovative research and improved workplace practices. The national agenda is developed and implemented through the NORA sector and cross-sector councils. Each council develops and maintains an agenda for its sector or cross-sector.

Background: The National Occupational Research Agenda for Oil and Gas Extraction is intended to identify the research, information, and actions most urgently needed to prevent occupational injuries. The National Occupational Research Agenda for Oil and Gas Extraction provides a vehicle for stakeholders to describe the most relevant issues, gaps, and safety and health needs for the sector. Each NORA research agenda is meant to guide or promote high priority research efforts on a national level, conducted by various entities, including: Government, higher education, and the private sector.

The first National Occupational Research Agenda for Oil and Gas Extraction was published in 2011 for the second decade of NORA (2006-2016). The revised agenda was developed considering new information about injuries and illnesses, the state of the science, and the probability that new information and approaches will make a difference. As the steward of the NORA process, NIOSH invites comments on the draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Oil and Gas Extraction. Comments expressing support or with specific recommendations to improve the Agenda are requested. A copy of the draft Agenda is available at https://www.regulations.gov (see Docket Number CDC-2018-0065).

Background: The proposed NIOSH document describes the underlying science and general approach used by NIOSH researchers when conducting high quality, scientifically sound assessments of the health risk associated with workplace hazards. The report focuses on chemical risk assessment practices; however, some of these practices may also benefit assessments of other workplace hazards, such as traumatic injury or work stress. Risk assessments are an important tool for informed decision-making on workplace safeguards; therefore, these assessments have supported NIOSH recommendations on limiting chemical exposures. The information provided by the proposed NIOSH document is intended for NIOSH risk assessors, other scientists, stakeholders, and the public to improve their understanding of the NIOSH risk assessment process.

The purpose of the public review of the draft document is to obtain comments on whether the proposed NIOSH draft document (1) adequately, clearly, and concisely explains NIOSH practices in risk assessment; and (2) demonstrates that its practices are consistent with the current scientific knowledge.

To discuss and obtain comments on the draft document, Current Intelligence Bulletin: NIOSH Practices in Occupational Risk Assessment. Special emphasis will be placed on discussion of the following questions for reviewers:

(1) Are the methods presented in the proposed NIOSH document consistent with the current scientific knowledge of toxicology, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, and risk assessment? If not, provide specific information and references that should be considered.

(2) Is there additional scientific information related to the issues of the proposed NIOSH document that should be considered for inclusion? If so, provide information and specify references for consideration. Is there any discussion in the document that should be omitted?

(3) Is information in the proposed NIOSH document explained in a clear and transparent manner? If not, specify (section, page, and line number) where clarification is needed.

The meeting is open to the public, limited only by the number of logins available. The Adobe Connect license accommodates approximately 500 people. In addition, there will be an audio conference for those who cannot log in through a computer. There is no registration fee to attend this public online meeting. However, those wishing to attend are encouraged to register via email to NIOSH Docket Office [email protected] by September 6, 2018. Registrants will be provided with the public meeting login information prior to the meeting. Individuals wishing to speak during the meeting may sign up when registering. Those who have not signed up to present in advance may be allowed to present at the meeting if time allows. Persons wanting to provide oral comments will be permitted up to 20 minutes. If additional time becomes available, presenters will be notified. Oral comments given at the meeting must also be submitted to the docket in writing in order to be considered by the Agency. Priority for attendance will be given to those providing oral comments. Other requests to attend the meeting will then be accommodated on a first-come basis. Unreserved attendees will be admitted as login space allows.

Instructions: All material submitted to the Agency should reference the agency name and docket number [CDC-2018-0060; NIOSH-316]. Each person making a comment will be asked to give his or her name and affiliation, and all comments (including their name and affiliation) will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov. All information received in response to this notice will be available for public examination and copying at the NIOSH Docket Office, Room 155, 1150 Tusculum Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226-1998.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from an Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an ASC. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 416 specify the conditions that an ASC must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services, and the conditions for Medicare payment for ASCs.

Generally, to enter into an agreement, an ASC must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 416 of our Medicare regulations. Thereafter, the ASC is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.

Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we may deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. An AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at § 488.5.

The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, Inc.'s (AAAHC's) current term of approval for its ASC program expires December 20, 2018.

Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of an AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.

The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of AAAHC's request for continued CMS-approval of its ASC accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether AAAHC's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage (CfCs) for ASCs.

AAAHC submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued CMS-approval of its ASC accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on May 24, 2018. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5, our review and evaluation of AAAHC will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

• The equivalency of AAAHC's standards for ASCs as compared with Medicare's CfCs for ASCs.

• AAAHC's survey process to determine the following:

++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.

++ The comparability of AAAHC's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.

++ AAAHC's processes and procedures for monitoring an ASC found out of compliance with AAAHC's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when AAAHC identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c)(1).

++ AAAHC's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.

++ AAAHC's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

++ The adequacy of AAAHC's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.

++ AAAHC's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.

++ AAAHC's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.

++ AAAHC's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).

Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of public comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the Federal Register announcing the result of our evaluation.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Sections 310.306, 314.81(b)(3)(iii), and 600.82 (21 CFR 310.306, 314.81(b)(3)(iii), and 600.82) were modified to implement sections 506C and 506E of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 356c and 356e) as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. Under these sections, applicants with an approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for a covered drug product, manufacturers of a covered drug product marketed without an approved application, and applicants with an approved biologics license application (BLA) for a covered biological product (including certain applications of blood or blood components) must notify FDA in writing of a permanent discontinuance of the manufacture of the drug or biological product, or an interruption in manufacturing of the drug or biological product, that is likely to lead to a meaningful disruption in the applicant's supply (or a significant disruption for blood or blood components) of that product. The notification is required if the drug or biological product is life supporting, life sustaining, or intended for use in the prevention or treatment of a debilitating disease or condition, including use in emergency medical care or during surgery, and if the drug or biological product is not a radiopharmaceutical drug product.

The regulations also require that the notification include the following information: (1) The name of the drug or biological product subject to the notification, including the National Drug Code Directory (NDC) (or, for a biological product that does not have an NDC, an alternative standard for identification and labeling that has been recognized as acceptable by the Center Director); (2) the name of each applicant of the drug or biological product; (3) whether the notification relates to a permanent discontinuance of the drug or biological product or an interruption in manufacturing of the product; (4) a description of the reason for the permanent discontinuance or interruption in manufacturing; and (5) the estimated duration of the interruption in manufacturing. The notification must be submitted to FDA electronically at least 6 months prior to the date of the permanent discontinuance or interruption in manufacturing. If 6 months' advance notice is not possible because the permanent discontinuance or interruption in manufacturing was unanticipated 6 months in advance, the applicant must notify FDA as soon as practicable, but in no case later than 5 business days after the permanent discontinuance or interruption in manufacturing occurs.

If an applicant fails to submit the required notification, FDA will issue a letter informing the applicant or manufacturer of its noncompliance. The applicant must submit to FDA, not later than 30 calendar days after FDA issues the letter, a written response setting forth the basis for noncompliance and providing the required notification.

Description of Respondents: Applicants of prescription drugs and biological products subject to an approved NDA, ANDA, or BLA, and manufacturers of prescription drug products marketed without an approved ANDA or NDA, if the product is life supporting, life sustaining, or intended for use in the prevention or treatment of a debilitating disease or condition, including use in emergency medical care or during surgery, or is not a radiopharmaceutical product. If the BLA applicant is a manufacturer of blood or blood components, it is only subject to these regulations if it manufactures a significant percentage of the nation's blood supply.

Burden Estimates: Based on the number of drug and biological product shortage related notifications we have seen in the past 12 months, we estimate that annually a total of approximately 75 respondents (“No. of Respondents” in table 1) will notify us of a permanent discontinuance of the manufacture of a drug or biological product or an interruption in manufacturing of a drug or biological product that is likely to lead to a meaningful disruption in the respondent's supply of that product. We estimate that these respondents will submit annually a total of approximately 352.5 notifications as required under §§ 310.306, 314.81(b)(3)(iii), and 600.82. We estimate 4.7 notifications per respondent, because a respondent may experience multiple discontinuances or interruptions in manufacturing in a year that requires notification (“No. of Responses per Respondent” in table 1). We also estimate that preparing and submitting these notifications to FDA will take approximately 2 hours per respondent (“Average Burden per Response” in table 1).

In the Federal Register of April 13, 2018, (83 FR 16108), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

The ACCV was established by section 2119 of the Public Health Service Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 300aa-19), as enacted by Public Law (Pub. L.) 99-660, and as subsequently amended, and advises the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) on issues related to implementation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Other activities of the ACCV include: Recommending changes in the Vaccine Injury Table at its own initiative or as the result of the filing of a petition; advising the Secretary in implementing section 2127 of the Act regarding the need for childhood vaccination products that result in fewer or no significant adverse reactions; surveying federal, state, and local programs and activities related to gathering information on injuries associated with the administration of childhood vaccines, including the adverse reaction reporting requirements of section 2125(b) of the Act; advising the Secretary on the methods of obtaining, compiling, publishing, and using credible data related to the frequency and severity of adverse reactions associated with childhood vaccines; consulting on the development or revision of Vaccine Information Statements; and recommending to the Director of the National Vaccine Program research related to vaccine injuries which should be conducted to carry out the VICP.

The charter renewal for ACCV was approved on July 20, 2018, which will also stand as the filing date. Renewal of the ACCV charter gives authorization for the Commission to operate until July 20, 2020.

A copy of the ACCV charter is available on the VICP website at: https://www.hrsa.gov/advisory-committees/vaccines/index.html. A copy of the charter also can be obtained by accessing the FACA database that is maintained by the Committee Management Secretariat under the General Services Administration. The website address for the FACA database is http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

I. Background

HOTMA was signed into law on July 29, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-201, 130 Stat. 782). Section 103 of HOTMA amends section 16(a) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437n(a)) (1937 Act) to place an income limitation on a public housing tenancy for families. The law requires that after a family's income has exceeded 120 percent of the area median income (AMI) (or a different limitation established by the Secretary) for two consecutive years, a public housing agency (PHA) must terminate the family's tenancy within 6 months of the second income determination or charge the family a monthly rent equal to the greater of (1) the applicable Fair Market Rent (FMR); or (2) the amount of monthly subsidy for the unit including amounts from the operating and capital fund, as determined by regulations. For purposes of this notice, the income limit established by HOTMA will be referred to as the “over-income limit”. A PHA must notify a family of the potential changes to monthly rent after one year of the family's income exceeding the over-income limit. Pursuant to section 3(a)(5) of the 1937 Act, the over-income limit does not apply to PHAs operating fewer than 250 public housing units that are renting to families with income exceeding the over-income limit, if the PHAs are renting to those families because there are no income-eligible families on the PHA's waiting list. Each PHA must submit a report annually to HUD about the number of families residing in public housing with incomes exceeding the over-income limit and the number of families on the waiting lists for admission to public housing projects. Such reports must be publicly available.

The new language in section 16(a)(5) of the 1937 Act sets the over-income limit at 120 percent of the AMI. However, HUD has the ability to adjust the over-income limit if the Secretary determines that it is necessary due to prevailing levels of construction costs or unusually high or low family incomes, vacancy rates, or rental costs.

On November 29, 2016, at 81 FR 85996, HUD published a notice soliciting public input on a proposal to determine the over-income limit by using the very low-income (VLI) level for the applicable area as the baseline and multiplying it by 2.4. Because VLI is preliminarily calculated as 50 percent of the estimated AMI for the family, in most cases this would result in a figure matching 120 percent AMI. However, in areas where the VLI has been adjusted to account for high or low housing costs or to prevent it from being lower than 50 percent of the State non-metro median family income, the final amount would result in an adjusted eligibility income limit, as well.

HUD's income limits were developed by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research and are updated annually. Information about HUD's income limits and HUD's methodology for adjusting income limits as part of the income limit calculation can be found at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il16/index_il2016.html.

This notice finalizes how the over-income limit is determined and informs PHAs how to begin implementing the statutory income limit for public housing. However, this notice does not address how a PHA is to determine the monthly subsidy to use in setting rents for over-income families that the PHA has allowed to remain in public housing. Section 103 of HOTMA requires HUD to issue a regulation on that determination, and HUD will follow this notice with a proposed rule, which will also include guidelines for how PHAs are to set their policies for addressing over-income families after the 2-year grace period has ended. Additionally, this notice does not make effective the requirement to submit the annual report on the number of over-income families and the number of families on the public housing waiting lists. HUD intends to make this reporting requirement effective through a forthcoming notice.

The regulations at 24 CFR 960.261 provide discretion to PHAs to evict or terminate assistance to families whose income exceeds the local low-income limit, except for families with a valid Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) contract, or families where at least one family member is receiving the Earned Income Disregard benefit. The statutory changes in section 103 of HOTMA do not address the treatment of families whose income exceeds the local low-income limit but is below the applicable over-income limit established in HOTMA. As such, the requirements and flexibilities provided through the regulations at 24 CFR 960.216 continue to apply for families with incomes above the local low-income limit but below the over-income limit established in this notice.

In response to the November 29, 2017, notice, HUD received 11 comments.

1. Commenters stated that HUD should never adjust the over-income limit downward (below 120 percent AMI), but rather use it as a floor for all areas and only adjust upward for high-cost areas. Others stated that it is necessary to keep as many higher-income families in public housing as possible to subsidize the lower-income families, particularly in light of reduced public housing funding.

HUD Response: HUD disagrees with the suggestion that 120 percent of AMI should be a floor for over-income families. Section 16(a)(5) of the 1937 Act provides discretion to HUD to establish income limits higher or lower than 120 percent of AMI to account for several factors including construction costs, family incomes, vacancy rates, or rental costs. HUD's methodology considers several of these factors and makes proportional adjustments. Were HUD to establish a floor of 120 percent, residents in localities with higher housing costs would receive disproportionate treatment than those in lower housing cost areas. HUD believes its methodology adequately makes proportional adjustments—both upward and downward—to reflect the factors required by the statute.

HUD also recognizes the concern that higher-income families allow PHAs to more deeply subsidize lower-income families. The statute allows PHAs to continue to house over-income families without providing them subsidy, if the PHA opts to do so. HUD will issue further guidance to PHAs on how to set their over-income policies.

2. Commenters asked that HUD include adjustments based on construction costs and vacancy rates, as those are two cost categories included in the statute but not contemplated in HUD's proposal. Some stated that HUD should include local vacancy rates in adjusting the income limit. Others also asked that HUD should include factors for increasing the limit for larger families and should consider family composition so as not to penalize families with an adult child beginning to work who will soon leave the household.

HUD Response: HUD's methodology takes into account local housing market factors such as construction costs and vacancy rates by using the metropolitan-wide FMR to make adjustments for high and low housing costs. Specifically, HUD develops its FMRs annually using survey data of local gross rents paid, which are based on local housing market factors, including vacancy rates. Therefore, HUD will not make separate adjustments to the over-income limit because the FMR used to adjust income limits where necessary has already factored in such costs in its current methodology.

HUD's program income limits are also adjusted by household size such that a 1-person family has a different income limit value than the value for a 4-person or 8-person family. HUD will annually publish the over-income limits for each locality, specifying over-income limits for each family size. However, HUD has no discretion to consider family composition related to the over-income limit.

3. Commenters stated that using income definitions used for admissions limits may be inappropriate for determining the over-income limit, as factors that are important at very low-income levels may not be important at 120 percent AMI, and vice versa.

HUD Response: HUD disagrees that the factors used to make adjustments to very low-income limits are inappropriate for determining an over-income limit. The factors HUD uses for the very low-income limits consider local family incomes and local housing costs. HUD adjusts the very low-income limits upward and downward based on changes to family incomes, changes in housing costs, and to account for large spikes in changes to family incomes at the local level. HUD believes that these adjustments are precisely the types of adjustments included in section 16(a)(5) of the 1937 Act and therefore respectfully declines to amend its methodology.

Commenters stated that some PHAs use forms for annual reexaminations instead of forms for a unit change when program participants move units. The commenters asked if whether the two consecutive income reviews specified by HOTMA to judge whether a family has been over the income limit means two subsequent Annual 50058s or 24 months of 50058s reporting that the family is over the income threshold.

HUD Response: HUD intends to provide guidance on how to notify families, track over-income families, and report into HUD systems. However, to this specific question, the statute requires that a household must have maintained an income above the limit for two consecutive years before a PHA may terminate or raise rents on that household. If a PHA becomes aware, through an annual reexamination or an interim reexamination for an increase in income, that a family has reached the over-income limit, that will be the point in time for which the two-year clock will start.

Commenters asked if HUD was going to impose a 5 percent cap on changes to the over-income limit that would be on top of caps on changes already in place related to program income limits and, if so, asked HUD to provide additional justification for and examples of this policy. Others stated that HUD should eliminate the 5 percent ceiling for increase in the very low-income limit to account for expensive rental markets, but only for the purpose of determining the over-income limits.

HUD Response: HUD does not intend to impose additional adjustments beyond those adjustments made by HUD to the very low-income limits, which includes a 5 percent cap on annual changes to such income limits. Specifically, HUD's current cap on income limit increases is the greater of 5 percent or twice the increase in national median income growth. Because there is a two-year process to declare a family ineligible for public housing subsidy under section 16(a)(5) of the 1937 Act, large increases to the over-income limit for higher rental markets may result in families who are over-income in one year not being considered over-income in the second year as the over-income limit is adjusted upward in subsequent years.

1. Commenters pointed out that the notice states that PHAs housing families with incomes over 120 percent AMI under section 3(a)(5) of the 1937 Act are exempt from the income limit in HOTMA, but that the statutory provision was directed at individual families and did not seem to encompass the entire PHA.

HUD Response: Section 3(a)(5) of the 1937 Act permits PHAs operating fewer than 250 units to admit families that are not low-income at the time of admission into the program under certain circumstances as included in 24 CFR 960.503. HOTMA reiterates that families admitted by such PHAs under the circumstances included in section 3(a)(5) are not subject to the over-income limit. The requirements, including those governing rental payments for such families, will continue as established in 24 CFR 960.503. However, families served by PHAs operating fewer than 250 units that were not admitted under the circumstances included in section 3(a)(5) will be subject to the over-income limit established in HOTMA and made effective by this notice.

2. Commenters recommended that HUD include exemptions from the over-income limit for vulnerable populations, including seniors and disabled individuals and those that face specific financial constraints (e.g., large families). Some stated that HUD should provide an explicit exemption to over-income limits for families participating in self-sufficiency programs. Commenters also stated that PHAs should be required to consider whether evicting a family for having an income that exceeds the over-income limit would create a hardship (such as for a household member caring for a relative close to the home or if a household member is ill). Others asked that HUD allow PHAs the ability to apply for an exception to the over-income limit entirely, based on the local market and conditions.