Federal Register Vol. 83, No.150,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 150 (August 3, 2018)

Page Range38011-38243
FR Document

83_FR_150
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 38036 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology ReviewPDF
83 FR 38023 - Extension of Time To File Certain Information ReturnsPDF
83 FR 38018 - U.S.-India Major Defense Partners: Implementation Under the Export Administration Regulations of India's Membership in the Wassenaar Arrangement and Addition of India to Country Group A:5PDF
83 FR 38141 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 38138 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR) Contaminated Media (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 38139 - Extension of Comment Period for the Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan for NaphthalenePDF
83 FR 38199 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation ProjectsPDF
83 FR 38029 - Regulated Navigation Area; Lake Washington, Seattle, WAPDF
83 FR 38200 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation ProjectsPDF
83 FR 38128 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 38172 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Greater Phoenix Project, Lander County, NVPDF
83 FR 38123 - Denial of Export PrivilegesPDF
83 FR 38199 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 38134 - Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 38130 - Evaluation of Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 38179 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActPDF
83 FR 38133 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 38157 - Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based LinkagesPDF
83 FR 38159 - West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 38099 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duluth Ship Canal, Duluth-Superior Harbor, MNPDF
83 FR 38161 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 38161 - Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 38160 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 38167 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the BLM Carlsbad Field Office, New MexicoPDF
83 FR 38119 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance ProgramPDF
83 FR 38116 - Information Collection; Helicopter Pilot Qualifications and Approval RecordPDF
83 FR 38118 - Inyo National Forest; California; Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Inyo National ForestPDF
83 FR 38161 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Loan/Application RegisterPDF
83 FR 38129 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 38199 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Miraculous Encounters: Pontormo From Drawing to Painting” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 38127 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southeast Region Aquaculture ProgramPDF
83 FR 38162 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HOPE VI Implementation and HOPE VI Main Street Programs: Funding and Program Data CollectionPDF
83 FR 38164 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Texas SnowbellsPDF
83 FR 38085 - Enterprise Capital RequirementsPDF
83 FR 38201 - New Car Assessment ProgramPDF
83 FR 38177 - Certain X-Ray Breast Imaging Devices and Components Thereof Notice of Request for Statements on the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 38073 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured HousingPDF
83 FR 38153 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice and Retail Food Stores Facility TypesPDF
83 FR 38132 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
83 FR 38130 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 38129 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 38131 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Individual Transferable Quota AdministrationPDF
83 FR 38132 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
83 FR 38206 - Agency Information Collection Requirements; Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Release of Non-Public InformationPDF
83 FR 38174 - Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract ActionsPDF
83 FR 38204 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Appraisal Management CompaniesPDF
83 FR 38208 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 38179 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: AMRI Rensselaer, Inc.PDF
83 FR 38143 - Modifications to the Statement of Policy Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act Concerning Participation in the Conduct of the Affairs of an Insured Institution by Persons Who Have Been Convicted of Crimes Involving Dishonesty, Breach of Trust or Money Laundering or Who Have Entered Pretrial Diversion Programs for Such OffensesPDF
83 FR 38138 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 38135 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 38136 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 38136 - Sunrise Pipeline LLC; Notice of Petition For Declaratory OrderPDF
83 FR 38209 - Proposed Information Collection Activity: Application for Burial in a National CemeteryPDF
83 FR 38163 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit ApplicationPDF
83 FR 38102 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Updates to Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program RegulationPDF
83 FR 38104 - Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
83 FR 38184 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Revised Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 38031 - Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Shark River, Neptune, NJPDF
83 FR 38184 - Program-Specific Guidance About Licenses Authorizing Distribution to General Licensees and Program-Specific Guidance About Special Nuclear Material of Less Than Critical Mass LicensesPDF
83 FR 38151 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Device Recall AuthorityPDF
83 FR 38181 - FM Approvals LLC: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and Modification to the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program's List of Appropriate Test StandardsPDF
83 FR 38149 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Food Additive Petitions and Investigational Food Additive ExemptionsPDF
83 FR 38183 - Notice of Request for Information: Establishing a Government Effectiveness Advanced Research (GEAR) CenterPDF
83 FR 38180 - 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
83 FR 38180 - Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2018PDF
83 FR 38021 - Revision of Export and Reexport License Requirements for Republic of South Sudan Under the Export Administration RegulationsPDF
83 FR 38178 - Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Institute a Rescission Proceeding; Temporary Rescission of the Remedial Orders; Termination of the ProceedingPDF
83 FR 38176 - Andean Trade Preference Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Drug Crop Eradication and Crop SubstitutionPDF
83 FR 38011 - Special Conditions: Cirrus Design Corporation; Model SF50 Airplane; Installation of Rechargeable Lithium BatteriesPDF
83 FR 38016 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace for the Following Pennsylvania Towns; Lancaster, PA; Reading, PA; and Williamsport, PAPDF
83 FR 38098 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Cambridge, MDPDF
83 FR 38036 - Addition of a Subsurface Intrusion Component to the Hazard Ranking System; CorrectionsPDF
83 FR 38110 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)PDF
83 FR 38112 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
83 FR 38186 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 38185 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 38125 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization ProjectPDF
83 FR 38195 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 2 To Remove Requirement That a Registered Broker-Dealer Be a Member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. or Another National Securities ExchangePDF
83 FR 38191 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Exchange Rule 11.6, Definitions, To Amend the Operation of the Super Aggressive Order InstructionPDF
83 FR 38187 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Exchange Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing, To Amend the Operation of the Super Aggressive Order InstructionPDF
83 FR 38198 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7300 (Preferenced Orders) To Provide an Additional Allocation Preference to Preferred Market MakersPDF
83 FR 38173 - Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee Notice of Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 38158 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 38158 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 38158 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 38166 - Notice of Public Meeting, Boise District Resource Advisory Council, IdahoPDF
83 FR 38069 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #2 through #11PDF
83 FR 38141 - Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, August 2, 2018PDF
83 FR 38142 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 38096 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 38088 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 38140 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 38212 - Short-Term, Limited-Duration InsurancePDF
83 FR 38051 - 911 Grant ProgramPDF
83 FR 38117 - Snow King Mountain Resort On-mountain Improvements Project Environmental Impact Statement, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson Ranger District, Teton County, WyomingPDF
83 FR 38080 - Rules of Practice and ProcedurePDF
83 FR 38086 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan EnginesPDF
83 FR 38091 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 38014 - Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held By Finmeccanica S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A)PDF
83 FR 38039 - Schedule of Application FeesPDF
83 FR 38114 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; MO; Redesignation of the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Missouri-Illinois Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and Approval of Associated Maintenance PlanPDF
83 FR 38033 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; MO; Redesignation of the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Missouri-Illinois Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and Approval of Associated Maintenance PlanPDF

Issue

83 150 Friday, August 3, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regulated Navigation Area: Lake Washington, Seattle, WA, 38029-38031 2018-16683 Safety Zones: Fireworks Display, Shark River, Neptune, NJ, 38031-38033 2018-16620 PROPOSED RULES Drawbridge Operations: Duluth Ship Canal, Duluth-Superior Harbor, MN, 38099-38101 2018-16669 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 38132-38133 2018-16642 2018-16647 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Appraisal Management Companies, 38204-38206 2018-16639 Release of Non-Public Information, 38206-38208 2018-16641 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Meetings: Defense Health Board, 38133-38134 2018-16672 Defense Science Board, 38134-38135 2018-16676 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Application: AMRI Rensselaer, Inc., 38179 2018-16635 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration RULES Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance, 38212-38243 2018-16568 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Manufactured Housing Standards, 38073-38080 2018-16650
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Addition of Subsurface Intrusion Component to Hazard Ranking System; Corrections, 38036-38039 2018-16605 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri; Redesignation of the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Missouri-Illinois Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan, 38033-38036 2018-16003 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology Review, 38036 C1--2018--15718 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Connecticut; Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 38104-38109 2018-16622 Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan Under 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 38110-38112 2018-16603 Missouri; Redesignation of the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Missouri-Illinois Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan, 38114-38115 2018-16004 New Hampshire; Updates to Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Regulation, 38102-38103 2018-16623 West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 38112-38114 2018-16602 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 38141 2018-16690 Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements Contaminated Media, 38138-38139 2018-16687 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 38140 2018-16572 IRIS Assessment Plan for Naphthalene, 38139-38140 2018-16686 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held By Finmeccanica S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A), 38014-38016 2018-16496 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Pennsylvania Towns; Lancaster, Reading and Williamsport, 38016-38018 2018-16607 Special Conditions: Cirrus Design Corporation; Model SF50 Airplane; Installation of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries, 38011-38014 2018-16609 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 38091-38096 2018-16497 Airbus SAS Airplanes, 38088-38091 2018-16574 General Electric Company Turbofan Engines, 38086-38088 2018-16515 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 38096-38098 2018-16575 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Cambridge, MD, 38098-38099 2018-16606 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Schedule of Application Fees, 38039-38051 2018-16039 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38142-38143 2018-16585 Meetings, 38141-38142 2018-16586 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Rules of Practice and Procedure, 38080-38085 2018-16548 NOTICES Modifications to the Statement of Policy Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act Concerning Participation in the Conduct of the Affairs of an Insured Institution by Persons Who Have Been Convicted of Crimes Involving Dishonesty, Breach of Trust or Money Laundering or Who Have Entered Pretrial Diversion Programs For Such Offenses, 38143-38149 2018-16634 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: Hawaii; Amendment No. 2, 38161 2018-16668 Texas; Amendment No. 1, 38161 2018-16667 West Virginia, 38159 2018-16670 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations, 38160-38161 2018-16666 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 38135-38138 2018-16627 2018-16631 2018-16632 2018-16633 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: Sunrise Pipeline LLC, 38136 2018-16630 Federal Housing Enterprise Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office PROPOSED RULES Enterprise Capital Requirements, 38085-38086 2018-16654 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency PROPOSED RULES Enterprise Capital Requirements, 38085-38086 2018-16654 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Limitations on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects, 38199-38201 2018-16682 2018-16684 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Texas Snowbells, 38164-38166 2018-16655 Permit Applications, 38163-38164 2018-16625 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Food Additive Petitions and Investigational Food Additive Exemptions, 38149-38151 2018-16616 Medical Device Recall Authority, 38151-38153 2018-16618 Survey on Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice and Retail Food Stores Facility Types, 38153-38157 2018-16648 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Helicopter Pilot Qualifications and Approval Record, 38116-38117 2018-16663 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Snow King Mountain Resort On-mountain Improvements Project; Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson Ranger District, Teton County, WY, 38117-38118 2018-16559 Land Management Plan: Inyo National Forest, CA, 38118-38119 2018-16662 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance, 38212-38243 2018-16568 NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages, 38157-38158 2018-16671
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department See

Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Loan/Application Register, 38161-38162 2018-16661 HOPE VI Implementation and HOPE VI Main Street Programs: Funding and Program Data Collection, 38162-38163 2018-16656
Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Boise District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho, 38166 2018-16589 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Revision of Export and Reexport License Requirements for Republic of South Sudan Under the Export Administration Regulations, 38021-38023 2018-16612 U.S.-India Major Defense Partners: Implementation of Membership in the Wassenaar Arrangement and Addition of India to Country Group A:5, 38018-38021 2018-16691 NOTICES Export Privileges; Denials: Narender Sharma and Hydel Engineering Products, 38123-38125 2018-16678 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Extension of Time To File Certain Information Returns, 38023-38029 2018-16717 Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance, 38212-38243 2018-16568 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Andean Trade Preference Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Drug Crop Eradication and Crop Substitution, 38176-38177 2018-16610 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 38178-38179 2018-16611 Request for Statements on the Public Interest: Certain X-Ray Breast Imaging Devices and Components Thereof, 38177-38178 2018-16651 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees Under CERCLA, 38179-38180 2018-16674
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Draft Resource Management Plan, Carlsbad Field Office, NM, 38167-38172 2018-16665 Proposed Greater Phoenix Project, Lander County, NV, 38172-38173 2018-16680 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Requests for Information: Establishing Government Effectiveness Advanced Research Center, 38183-38184 2018-16615 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES 911 Grant Program, 38051-38069 2018-16567 NOTICES New Car Assessment Program, 38201-38204 2018-16653 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 38158 2018-16590 2018-16591 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 38158-38159 2018-16592 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Modifications of West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions 2 Through 11, 38069-38072 2018-16587 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38129-38131 2018-16644 2018-16645 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Southeast Region Aquaculture Program, 38127-38128 2018-16657 Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Individual Transferable Quota Administration, 38131-38132 2018-16643 Meetings: Evaluation of Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, 38130 2018-16675 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 38129-38130 2018-16660 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 38128-38129 2018-16658 2018-16681 Takes of Marine Mammals: Incidental to Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project, 38125-38127 2018-16599 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, 38173-38174 2018-16593 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration RULES 911 Grant Program, 38051-38069 2018-16567 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Guidance: Licenses Authorizing Distribution to General Licensees and Program-Specific Guidance About Special Nuclear Material of Less Than Critical Mass Licenses, 38184 2018-16619 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 38184-38185 2018-16621 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard, 38180-38181 2018-16614 Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories: FM Approvals LLC; Grant of Expansion of Recognition and Modification to the List of Appropriate Test Standards, 38181-38183 2018-16617 Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2018, 38180 2018-16613 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Programs, 38185-38186 2018-16600 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions, 38174-38176 2018-16640 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Request for Applications: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 38119-38123 2018-16664 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38186-38187 2018-16601 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 38198 2018-16595 Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., 38187-38191 2018-16596 Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., 38191-38195 2018-16597 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 38195-38198 2018-16598 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Miraculous Encounters: Pontormo From Drawing to Painting, 38199 2018-16659 Meetings: International Maritime Organization's Sub-Committee on Carriage of Cargoes and Containers, 38199 2018-16677 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 38208-38209 2018-16636
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Burial in a National Cemetery, 38209 2018-16628 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, 38212-38243 2018-16568 Labor Department, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 38212-38243 2018-16568 Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 38212-38243 2018-16568 Reader Aids

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

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

83 150 Friday, August 3, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0697; Special Conditions No. 23-289-SC] Special Conditions: Cirrus Design Corporation; Model SF50 Airplane; Installation of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Cirrus Design Corporation Model SF50 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the installation of a rechargeable lithium battery. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

The effective date of these special conditions is August 3, 2018.

We must receive your comments by September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0697 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Brady, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, AIR-691, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO; telephone (816) 329-4132; facsimile (816) 329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment.

Special conditions No. Company/airplane model 23-15-01-SC 1 Kestrel Aircraft Company/Model K-350. 23-09-02-SC 2 Cessna Aircraft Company/Model 525C (CJ4). 23-08-05-SC 3 Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC/Model 40. Comments Invited

1http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/39B156C006EB842E86257EF3004BB13C?OpenDocument&Highlight=installation%20of%20rechargeable%20lithium%20battery.

2http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/902232309C19F0D4862575CB0045AC0D?OpenDocument&Highlight=installation%20of%20rechargeable%20lithium%20battery.

3http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/28E630294DCC27B986257513005968A3?OpenDocument&Highlight=installation%20of%20rechargeable%20lithium%20battery.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On October 19, 2017, Cirrus Design Corporation (Cirrus) applied for a change to Type Certificate No. A00018CH for installation of rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems in the Model SF50. The SF50 is a normal category single-engine-jet airplane powered by a Williams International Model FJ33-5A turbofan engine capable of carrying eight occupants including one pilot, with a maximum takeoff weight of 6,000 pounds and a maximum operating altitude 28,000 feet.

The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not contain adequate requirements for use of rechargeable lithium batteries in airborne applications. This type of battery possesses certain failure and operational characteristics with maintenance requirements that differ significantly from that of the nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) and lead-acid rechargeable batteries currently approved in other normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. Therefore, the FAA is applying this special condition to address—

• All characteristics of the rechargeable lithium batteries and their installation that could affect safe operation of the modified SF50 airplanes; and

• Appropriate Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) that include maintenance requirements to ensure the availability of electrical power from the batteries when needed.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of § 21.101, Cirrus must show that the SF50 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) No. A00018CH 4 or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in TCDS No. A00018CH are as follows:

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations

14 CFR part 23, effective February 1, 1965, as amended by amendments 23-1 through 23-62.

14 CFR part 34, effective September 10, 1990, as amended by amendments 34-1 through 34-5A.

14 CFR part 36, effective December 1, 1969, as amended by amendments 36-1 through 36-28.

Special Conditions

23-261-SC, issued September 4, 2013, Inflatable Three-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device.

23-267-SC, issued September 14, 2015, Full Authority Digital Engine Control System.

23-272-SC, issued December 2, 2015, Auto Throttle.

23-275-SC, issued July 6, 2016, Whole Airplane Parachute Recovery System.

Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) Findings ELOS No., date and subject Regulation requiring an ELOS ACE-14-06, dated April 10, 2014: Electronic Placards §§ 23.1559, 23.1567. ACE-15-04, dated October 17, 2016: Landing Gear Warning Horn § 23.729(f). ACE-15-14, dated June 25, 2015: Cockpit Control Knob Shape § 23.781(b). TC6444CH-A-F-2, dated July 12, 2016: Spin Requirements § 23.221. TC06444CH-A-F-5, dated July 15, 2016: Amendment 62 Corrections §§ 23.45, 23.51, 23.63, 23.67, 23.73, 23.77, 23.161, 23.181, 23.221, 23.251, 23.253, 23.571, 23.785, 23.831, 23.1195, 23.1197, 23.1199, 23.1201, 23.1527, 23.1545, 23.1583.OW> TC6444CH-A-S-11, dated June 23, 2016: Storage Battery Design and Installation § 23.1353(h). Exemptions

4http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/4ec2ccf1759afb61862581860056ef39/$FILE/A00018CH_Rev_3.pdf.

Exemption No. 9948, dated October 23, 2009, §§ 23.562(b) and 23.785(a), Installation of seats limited to occupants weighing 90 pounds or less.

Exemption No. 11092, dated October 23, 2014, § 23.177(b), Use of electric roll trim for static lateral stability.

Exemption No. 16970, dated June 23, 2016, § 23.1419(a), 61-knot stall speed with critical ice accretions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the SF50 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the SF50 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the models for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to the other model(s).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Cirrus SF50 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The installation of a rechargeable lithium battery as a main or engine start airplane battery.

Discussion

The applicable regulations governing the installation of batteries in general aviation airplanes were derived from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 3 as part of the recodification that established 14 CFR part 23. The battery requirements identified in § 23.1353 were a rewording of the CAR requirements. Additional rulemaking activities—resulting from increased incidents of Ni-Cd battery fire or failures—incorporated § 23.1353(f) and (g), amendments 23-20 and 23-21, respectively. The FAA did not envision the introduction of lithium battery installations at the time these regulations were published.

The proposed use of rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of these existing regulations. We determined the existing regulations do not adequately address the safety of lithium battery installations.

Current experience with rechargeable lithium batteries in commercial or general aviation is limited. However, other users of this technology—ranging from personal computers, to wireless telephone manufacturers, to the electric vehicle industry—have noted safety problems with rechargeable lithium batteries. These problems, as described in the following paragraphs, include overcharging, over-discharging, flammability of cell components, cell internal defects, and hazards resulting from exposure to extreme temperatures.

1. Overcharging: In general, rechargeable lithium batteries are significantly more susceptible than their Ni-Cd or lead-acid counterparts to thermal runway, which is an internal failure that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure. This is especially true for overcharging, which causes heating and destabilization of the components of the cell, leading to the formation (by plating) of highly unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. Finally, the severity of thermal runaway due to overcharging increases with increasing battery capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in large batteries.

2. Over-discharging: Discharge of some types of rechargeable lithium battery cells beyond the manufacturer's recommended specification can cause corrosion of the electrodes of the cell, resulting in loss of battery capacity that cannot be reversed by recharging. This loss of capacity may not be detected by the simple voltage measurements commonly available to flight crews as a means of checking battery status—a problem shared with Ni-Cd batteries. In addition, over-discharging has the potential to lead to an unsafe condition (creation of dendrites that could result in internal short circuit during the recharging cycle).

3. Flammability of Cell Components: Unlike Ni-Cd and lead-acid batteries, some types of rechargeable lithium batteries use liquid electrolytes that are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire, if there is a breach of the battery container.

4. Cell Internal Defects: The rechargeable lithium batteries and rechargeable battery systems have a history of undetected cell internal defects. These defects may or may not be detected during normal operational evaluation, test, and validation. This may lead to an unsafe condition during in-service operation.

5. Extreme Temperatures: Exposure to an extreme temperature environment has the potential to create major hazards. Care must be taken to ensure that the lithium battery remains within the manufacturer's recommended specification.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the SF50 airplane. Should Cirrus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the SF50 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the subject contained herein. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704; Pub. L. 113-53, 127 Stat 584 (49 U.S.C. 44704) note; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Cirrus Design Corporation Model SF50 airplane.

1. Installation of Lithium Battery

In lieu of the requirements in § 23.1353 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), amendment 23-62, rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Cirrus Model SF50 must be designed and installed as follows:

(1) Maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures during—

i. Normal operations;

ii. Any probable failure conditions of charging or discharging or battery monitoring system;

iii. Any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system shown to not be extremely remote.

(2) Prevent explosion or fire in the event of a failure under (1)(ii) and (1)(iii) above.

(3) Prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.

(4) Not emit explosive or toxic gases in hazardous quantities within the airplane either in normal operation or as a result of any failure.

(5) Comply with the requirements of § 23.863(a) through (d) at amendment 23-62.

(6) Escaped corrosive fluids or gases shall not damage surrounding structure or any adjacent systems, equipment, electrical wiring, or the airplane in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in accordance with § 23.1309(c) at amendment 23-62—or commensurate § 23.1309 paragraphs of older amendment—and applicable regulatory guidance.

(7) The maximum amount of heat resulting from a short circuit of the battery or internal cell, or any other failure, shall not have any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems.

(8) Rechargeable lithium battery installations must have a system to automatically control the charging rate of the battery to prevent battery overheating and overcharging, and either—

i. A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or

ii. A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.

(9) Any rechargeable lithium battery installation, the function of which is required for safe operation of the aircraft, must incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state of charge of the batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of the aircraft.

Note 1 to paragraph (9):

Reference § 23.1353(h) for dispatch consideration.

(10) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) required by § 23.1529 must contain maintenance requirements to ensure that the battery has been sufficiently charged at appropriate intervals specified by the battery manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer that contain the rechargeable lithium battery or rechargeable lithium battery system. The lithium rechargeable batteries and lithium rechargeable battery systems must not degrade below specified ampere-hour levels sufficient to power the aircraft system. The ICA must also contain procedures for the maintenance of replacement batteries to prevent the installation of batteries that have degraded charge retention ability or other damage due to prolonged storage at a low state of charge. Replacement batteries must be of the same manufacturer and part number as approved by the FAA.

Note 2 to paragraph (10):

Maintenance requirements include procedures that check battery capacity, charge degradation at manufacturers recommended inspection intervals, and replace batteries at manufacturer's recommended replacement schedule/time to prevent age-related degradation.

Note 3 to paragraph (10):

The term “sufficiently charged” means that the battery must retain enough charge, expressed in ampere-hours, to ensure that the battery cells will not be damaged. A battery cell may be damaged by low charge (i.e., below a certain level), resulting in a reduction in the ability to charge and retain a full charge. This reduction would be greater than the reduction that may result from normal operational degradation.

Note 4 to paragraph (10):

Replacement battery in spares storage may be subject to prolonged storage at a low state of charge.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 25, 2018. Pat Mullen, Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16609 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0720; Product Identifier 2017-SW-012-AD; Amendment 39-19348; AD 2018-16-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held By Finmeccanica S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A) AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Leonardo S.p.A. (Leonardo) Model A109E, A109S, and AW109SP helicopters with an oil cooler fan assembly (fan assembly) installed. This AD requires inspecting each oil cooler system pulley assembly (pulley assembly) bearing and replacing each fan assembly. This AD is prompted by reports of degraded pulley assembly bearings. The actions of this AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective August 20, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by October 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Fax: 202-493-2251.

Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0720; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800- 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric Haight, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222 5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2017-0046-E, dated March 10, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo (previously Finmeccanica S.p.A, AgustaWestland S.p.A.) Model A109E, A109LUH, A109S, and AW109SP helicopters. EASA advises that during inspections of two AW109SP helicopters, degraded bearings, part number (P/N) 109G6320L01-101, were discovered on the engine and transmission oil cooling system pulley assembly, P/N 109G6320A26-101. EASA further states that because of this condition, both fan assemblies could cease to function, resulting in engine power loss, transmission failure, and loss of control of the helicopter. To correct this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires a one-time inspection of each pulley assembly bearing and replacing each fan assembly.

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 109-EP-153 for Model A109E helicopters, EASB No. 109S-075 for Model A109S helicopters, and EASB No. 109SP-112 for Model AW109SP helicopters, all dated March 8, 2017. This service information contains procedures for inspecting each pulley assembly bearing P/N 109G6320L01-101 for grease shield damage or leaking grease and axial and radial play, and freedom of rotation of the bearing. This service information also provides procedures for replacing each fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-103 with a fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-101.

AD Requirements

This AD requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting with a borescope each bearing P/N 109G6320L01-101 grease shield for a crack, position of the grease shield, and leaking grease. If there is a crack or leaking grease or if the grease shield is out of position, this AD requires replacing each fan assembly with fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-101 before further flight.

This AD also requires inspecting each bearing for axial and radial play and freedom of rotation. If there is any axial or radial play, rotation resistance, or binding, this AD requires replacing each fan assembly with fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-101 before further flight. If there is no play, no rotation resistance, and no binding, this AD requires replacing each fan assembly with fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-101 within 20 hours TIS.

Finally, this AD prohibits installing fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-103 on any helicopter.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

The EASA AD applies to Model A109LUH helicopters; this AD does not as this model is a military model and does not have an FAA type certificate.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 127 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, inspecting the bearings will require 1 hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85. Replacing both fan assemblies will require 8 hours and $44,800 for parts. Based on these figures, we estimate a total cost of $45,565 per helicopter and $5,786,755 for the U.S. fleet to comply with this AD.

According to the Leonardo service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Leonardo. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter and the initial required corrective action must be accomplished within 5 hours TIS. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable.

In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-16-08 Leonardo S.p.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held By Finmeccanica S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A): Amendment 39-19348; Docket No. FAA-2018-0720; Product Identifier 2017-SW-012-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.A. (Type Certificate previously held by Finmeccanica S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A) Model A109E, A109S, and AW109SP helicopters with an oil cooler fan assembly (fan assembly) part number (P/N) 109-0455-01-103 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of an oil cooler system pulley assembly (pulley assembly) bearing. This condition could lead to failure of a fan assembly, resulting in engine power loss, transmission failure, and loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 20, 2018.

(d) Compliance

You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

(1) Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), remove the fan belt from each pulley assembly and, using a borescope inspect the grease shield of each bearing P/N 109G6320L01-101 for a crack, leaking grease, and position of the grease shield.

(i) If there is a crack, any leaking grease, or if the grease shield is out of position, before further flight, replace each fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-103 on both sides of the helicopter with a fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-101.

(ii) If there are no cracks, no leaking grease, and the grease shield is correctly positioned, inspect each bearing P/N 109G6320L01-101 for axial and radial play and freedom of rotation.

(A) If there is any axial or radial play, rotation resistance, or binding, before further flight, replace each fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-103 on both sides of the helicopter with a fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-101.

(B) If there is no play, no rotation resistance, and no binding, within 20 hours TIS, replace each fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-103 on both sides of the helicopter with a fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-101.

(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a fan assembly P/N 109-0455-01-103 on any helicopter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Eric Haight, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222 5110; email [email protected]

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

(1) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 109EP-153, EASB No. 109S-075, and EASB No 109SP-112, all dated March 8, 2017, and which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2017-0046-E, dated March 10, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2018-0720.

(h) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6322 Rotorcraft Cooling Fan System.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 26, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16496 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9377; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-8] RIN-2120-AA66 Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace for the Following Pennsylvania Towns; Lancaster, PA; Reading, PA; and Williamsport, PA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace by removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status at Lancaster Airport, Lancaster, PA; Reading Regional Airport/Carl A. Spaatz Field, Reading, PA; and Williamsport Regional Airport, Williamsport, PA. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of these airports and the Picture Rocks navigation aid listed in the associated Class D and E airspace. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Also, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E legal descriptions.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace in the respective Class D and Class E airspace areas at Lancaster Airport, Lancaster, PA; Reading Regional Airport/Carl A. Spaatz Field, Reading, PA; and Williamsport Regional Airport, (formerly Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport), Williamsport, PA, for continued safety and management of IFR operations at these airports.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 16955, April 7, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2016-9377 to amend Class D and Class E airspace at Lancaster Airport, Lancaster, PA; Reading Regional Airport/Carl A. Spaatz Field, Reading, PA; and Williamsport Regional Airport, Williamsport, PA.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received supporting the proposal.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace to remove the NOTAM part-time status of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Lancaster Airport, Lancaster, PA; Reading Regional Airport/Carl A. Spaatz Field, Reading, PA; and Williamsport Regional Airport, Williamsport, PA. These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at these airports. The geographic coordinates of these airports, as well as the Picture Rocks non-directional radio beacon (NDB) are amended in the associated Class D and E airspace to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action also updates the airport name to Williamsport Regional Airport (formerly Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport).

Additionally, an editorial change is made to the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA PA D Lancaster, PA [Amended] Lancaster Airport, PA (Lat. 40°07′21″ N, long. 76°17′40″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,900 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Lancaster Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

AEA PA D Reading, PA [Amended] Reading Regional Airport/Carl A. Spaatz Field, PA (Lat. 40°22′43″ N, long. 75°57′55″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,800 feet MSL within a 4.8-mile radius of Reading Regional/Carl A. Spaatz Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

AEA PA D Williamsport, PA [Amended] Williamsport Regional Airport, PA (Lat. 41°14′30″ N, long. 76°55′19″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. AEA PA E2 Lancaster, PA [Amended] Lancaster Airport, PA (Lat. 40°07′21″ N, long. 76°17′40″ W) Lancaster VORTAC (Lat. 40°07′12″ N, long. 76°17′29″ W)

Within a 4.1-mile radius of Lancaster Airport, and that airspace extending upward from the surface. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

AEA PA E2 Reading, PA [Amended] Reading Regional Airport/Carl A. Spaatz Field, PA (Lat. 40°22′43″ N, long. 75°57′55″ W)

That airspace extending from the surface within a 4.8-mile radius of Reading Regional/Carl A. Spaatz Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

AEA PA E2 Williamsport, PA [Amended] Williamsport Regional Airport, PA (Lat. 41°14′30″ N, long. 76°55′19″ W) Williamsport Regional Airport ILS localizer (Lat. 41°14′17″ N, long. 76°56′17″ W)

Within a 4.2-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA PA E4 Lancaster, PA [Amended] Lancaster Airport, PA (Lat. 40°07′21″ N, long. 76°17′40″ W) Lancaster VORTAC (Lat. 40°07′12″ N, long. 76°17′29″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles each side of the Lancaster VORTAC 260° radial extending from the VORTAC to 7.4 miles west of the VORTAC, and within 2.7 miles each side of the Lancaster VORTAC 128° radial extending from the VORTAC to 7.4 miles southeast of the VORTAC, and within 1.8 miles each side of the Lancaster VORTAC 055° radial extending from the VORTAC to 4.4 miles northeast of the VORTAC.

AEA PA E4 Reading, PA [Amended] Reading Regional Airport/Carl A. Spaatz Field, PA (Lat. 40°22′43″ N, long. 75°57′55″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 4 miles either side of the 172° bearing from Reading Regional/Carl A. Spaatz Field extending from the 4.8-mile radius of the airport to 10.1 miles south of the airport.

AEA PA E4 Williamsport, PA [Amended] Williamsport Regional Airport, PA (Lat. 41°14′30″ N, long. 76°55′19″ W) Williamsport Regional Airport ILS localizer (Lat. 41°14′17″ N, long. 76°56′17″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface from the 4.2-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport extending clockwise from a 270° bearing to the 312° bearing from the airport and within an 11.3-mile radius of the airport extending clockwise from the 312° bearing to the 350° bearing from the airport and within an 11.3-mile radius of the airport extending clockwise from the 004° bearing to the 099° bearing from the airport and within 3.5 miles south of the airport east localizer course extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport east to the 099° bearing from the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA PA E5 Reading, PA [Amended] Reading Regional Airport/Carl A. Spaatz Field, PA (Lat. 40°22′43″ N, long. 75°57′55″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.3-mile radius of Reading Regional/Carl A. Spaatz Field.

AEA PA E5 Williamsport, PA [Amended] Williamsport Regional Airport, PA (Lat. 41°14′30″ N, long. 76°55′19″ W) Picture Rocks NDB (Lat. 41°16′37″ N, long. 76°42′36″ W) Williamsport Hospital, Point In Space Coordinates (Lat. 41°14′43″ N, long. 77°00′04″ W) Williamsport Regional Airport ILS localizer (Lat. 41°14′17″ N, long. 76°56′17″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 17.9-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 025° bearing to the 067° bearing from the airport, and within a 12.6-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 067° bearing to a 099° bearing from the airport, and within a 6.7-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 099° bearing to the 270° bearing from the airport, and within a 17.9-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 270° bearing to the 312° bearing from the airport and within a 19.6-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 312° bearing to the 350° bearing from the airport and within a 6.7-mile radius of Williamsport Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 350° bearing to the 025° bearing from the airport and within 4.4 miles each side of the Williamsport Regional Airport ILS localizer east course extending from the Picture Rocks NDB to 11.3 miles east of the NDB; and that airspace within a 6-mile radius of the point in space (Lat. 41°14′43″ N, long. 77°00′04″ W) serving Williamsport Hospital.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 26, 2018. Shawn Reddinger, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-16607 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 738, 740, 743, 758 and 772 [Docket No. 180228229-8229-01] RIN 0694-AH49 U.S.-India Major Defense Partners: Implementation Under the Export Administration Regulations of India's Membership in the Wassenaar Arrangement and Addition of India to Country Group A:5 AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to formally recognize and implement India's membership in the Wassenaar Arrangement (Wassenaar or WA). Further, BIS removes India from Country Group A:6 and places it in Country Group A:5. This action befits India's status as a Major Defense Partner and recognizes the country's membership in three of the four export control regimes: Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), WA and Australia Group (AG). This rule is another in the series of rules that implement reforms to which the United States and India mutually agreed to promote global nonproliferation, expand high technology cooperation and trade, and ultimately facilitate India's full membership in the four multilateral export control regimes (Nuclear Suppliers Group, MTCR, WA, and AG). This rule also makes conforming amendments.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chantal Lakatos, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, by phone: 202-482-1739 or by email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The United States and India continue their commitment to work together to strengthen the global nonproliferation and export control framework and further transform bilateral export control cooperation to recognize the full potential of the global strategic partnership between the two countries. This commitment has been realized in the two countries' mutually agreed upon steps to expand cooperation in civil space, defense, and other high-technology sectors and the complementary steps of the United States to remove India defense and space-related entities from the Entity List, realign India in U.S. export control regulations, and support India's membership in the four multilateral export control regimes (Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group).

To date, with the effective support of the United States, India has been admitted to three of the four multilateral export control regimes: Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) on June 27, 2016, the Wassenaar Arrangement (Wassenaar or WA) on December 7, 2017 and the Australia Group (AG) on January 19, 2018. These memberships, important to the two countries' global strategic partnership, are enhanced by the United States' recognition of India as a Major Defense Partner in the India-U.S. Joint Statement of June 7, 2016, entitled, “The United States and India: Enduring Global Partners in the 21st Century.” This recognition facilitates and supports India's military modernization efforts with the United States as a reliable provider of advanced defense articles.

Therefore, in this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), formally recognizes under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) India's membership in the WA multilateral export control regimes and revises the EAR accordingly. Further, in this rule, BIS adds India to Country Group A:1 in Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 (Country Groups) of the EAR to implement under the EAR India's status as a member of the WA. In addition, to export control-related benefits for India as a result of prior amendments to the EAR in furtherance of the U.S.-India global strategic partnership, BIS places India in Country Group A:5, which provides the benefit of greater availability of License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) for exports and reexports to, and transfers within India under the EAR.

Countries listed in Country Group A:5 are countries included in STA § 740.20(c)(1), which authorizes exports, reexports and in-country transfers that are subject to multiple reasons for control. With this rule, India becomes the 37th country to join Country Group A:5.

Specific EAR Amendments Recognizing and Implementing India's Membership in Wassenaar and Adding India to Country Group A:5 Part 738

BIS amends Supplement No. 1 to Part 738, Commerce Country Chart, by removing the license requirements for National Security Column 2 (NS2) reasons. Accordingly, this rule removes the “X” in NS Column 2 for India.

Part 740

BIS amends Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 to add, in alphabetical order, India to Country Groups A:1 and A:5.

Conforming Amendments Part 738

Consistent with India's new multilateral export control regime status, this rule also removes the first sentence of footnote 7 to the Commerce Country Chart in Supplement No. 1 to Part 738, related to India. This amendment removes the requirement that exporters file in the Automated Export System when items controlled for Crime Control Columns 1 and 3 reasons, and Regional Stability Column 2 reasons were destined to India. As a conforming change, this rule removes the word “Also” from the second sentence of footnote 7 and capitalizes the “n” in “note” since it begins the sentence.

Also, as a conforming change in Part 738, BIS amends paragraph (b)(3) of § 738.4, related to a sample analysis using the Commerce Control List and Country Chart to determine when a license is required, to remove the name “India” and replace it with the name “Chad.” The sample analysis used India as an example of a country with NS Column 2 controls. That reason for control no longer applies to India but currently applies to Chad.

Part 740

In adding India to Country Group A:5, BIS removes India from Country Group A:6 to avoid creating conflicting eligibility criteria for STA provisions.

Part 743

As a member of Wassenaar, India now is subject to reporting requirements for items controlled under Wassenaar, as set forth in Part 743, Special Reporting and Notification. Specifically, India is added, in alphabetical order, to Supplement No. 1 to Part 743, Wassenaar Arrangement Participating States.

Part 758

Also, consistent with India's achievements and status as a Major Defense Partner, BIS removes the requirement that exporters file certain Electronic Export Information in AES as set forth in § 758.1(b)(9). Specifically, this amendment removes the requirement that exporters file in AES when items controlled for CC Columns 1 and 3 reasons and RS Column 2 reasons are destined to India. This reporting requirement had been instituted when the license requirement for such items was removed (see U.S.-India Bilateral Understanding: Additional Revisions to the U.S. Export and Reexport Controls Under the Export Administration Regulations; January 23, 2015; 80 FR 3463). BIS has determined that this reporting requirement is no longer necessary.

Part 772

In this rule, BIS also adds India, in alphabetical order, to the list of countries under the term Australia Group in § 772.1, Definitions of terms as used in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). This updates the definition consistent with formal recognition of India's membership in the AG in a BIS final rule, entitled “Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and June 2017 Plenary Understandings; Addition of India to the AG” (83 FR 13849, April 2, 2018).

Export Administration Act

Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule involves collections of information approved under OMB control number 0694-0088- Simplified Network Application Processing+ System (SNAP+) and the Multipurpose Export License Application, which carries an annual estimated burden of 31,833 hours; 0694-0137—License Exceptions and Exclusions, which carries an annual estimated burden of 29,998 hours; and 0694-0122—Miscellaneous Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement which carries an annual estimated burden of 104,288 hours. BIS believes that this rule will have no significant impact on those burdens. In fact, because India has been admitted to the MTCR, Wassenaar and AG multilateral regimes and is a Major Defense Partner, it is listed in favored country groups for purposes of license requirements, license application review policy and availability of license exceptions. Membership in favored country groups generally reduces the number of licenses required and increases the number of license exceptions available. Therefore, BIS believes that this rule will reduce the paperwork burden to the public.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, by email at [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). This rule implements decisions of multilateral export control regimes, of which the United States is a supporting member, and the rule furthers the objectives of the strategic commitment established between the United States and India. Delay in implementing this rule to obtain public comment would undermine the foreign policy objectives that the rule is intended to implement. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.

List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 738 and 772

Exports.

15 CFR Parts 740, 743 and 758

Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 15 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter C is amended as follows:

PART 738—COMMERCE CONTROL LIST OVERVIEW AND THE COUNTRY CHART 1. The authority citation for part 738 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017).

2. Section 738.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
§ 738.4 Determining whether a license is required.

(b) * * *

(3) Sample analysis. After consulting the CCL, I determine my item, valued at $10,000, is classified under ECCN 2A000.a. I read that the entire entry is controlled for national security, and anti-terrorism reasons. Because my item is classified under paragraph .a, and not .b, I understand that though nuclear nonproliferation controls apply to a portion of the entry, they do not apply to my item. I note that the appropriate Country Chart column identifiers are NS Column 2 and AT Column 1. Turning to the Country Chart, I locate my specific destination, Chad, and see that an “X” appears in the NS Column 2 cell for Chad, but not in the AT Column 1 cell. I understand that a license is required, unless my transaction qualifies for a License Exception. From the License Exception LVS value listed in the entry, I know immediately that my proposed transaction exceeds the value limitation associated with LVS. Noting that License Exception GBS is “Yes” for this entry, I turn to part 740 of the EAR to review the provisions related to use of GBS.

3. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 revise the entry for India to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 738—Commerce Country Chart [Reason for control] Countries Chemical
  • and
  • biological
  • weapons
  • CB
  • 1
  • CB
  • 2
  • CB
  • 3
  • Nuclear
  • nonproliferation
  • NP 1 NP 2 National
  • security
  • NS 1 NS 2 Missile
  • tech
  • MT 1 Regional
  • stability
  • RS 1 RS 2 Firearms
  • convention
  • FC 1 Crime
  • control
  • CC
  • 1
  • CC
  • 2
  • CC
  • 3
  • Anti-terrorism AT 1 AT 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * India 7 X X X X X *         *         *         *         *         *         * * * * * * 7 Note that a license is still required for items controlled under ECCNs 6A003.b.4.b and 9A515.e for RS column 2 reasons when destined to India.
    PART 740—LICENSE EXCEPTIONS 4. The authority citation for part 740 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017).

    5. In Supplement No. 1 to part 740, in Country Group A, revise the entry for “India” to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 740—Country Groups Country Group A Country [A:1]
  • Wassenaar
  • participating
  • states 1
  • [A:2]
  • Missile
  • technology
  • control
  • regime
  • [A:3]
  • Australia
  • group
  • [A:4]
  • Nuclear
  • suppliers
  • group 2
  • [A:5] [A:6]
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * India X X X X *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Country Group A:1 is a list of the Wassenaar Arrangement Participating States, except for Malta, Russia and Ukraine. 2 Country Group A:4 is a list of the Nuclear Suppliers Group countries, except for the People's Republic of China (PRC).
    PART 743—SPECIAL REPORTING AND NOTIFICATION 6. The authority citation for part 743 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., p. 223; 78 FR 16129; Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017).

    Supplement No. 1 to Part 743 [Amended] 7. Supplement No. 1 to part 743—Wassenaar Arrangement Participating States is amended by adding “India” in alphabetical order after “Hungary”. PART 758—EXPORT CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS 8. The authority citation for part 758 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017).

    § 758.1 [Amended]
    9. Section 758.1 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(9). PART 772—DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 10. The authority citation for part 772 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017).

    § 772.1 [Amended]
    11. Amend the definition of Australia Group in § 772.1 by adding “India”, in alphabetical order, after “Iceland,”. Dated: July 31, 2018. Richard E. Ashooh, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16691 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 740 [Docket No. 180228230-8230-01] RIN 0694-AH52 Revision of Export and Reexport License Requirements for Republic of South Sudan Under the Export Administration Regulations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to conform to the Department of State's (State) amendment of February 14, 2018 to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that placed restrictions on exports of defense articles (and defense services) to the Republic of South Sudan (South Sudan). The State action reflected a policy determination by the Secretary of State that it was in the best interests of U.S. foreign policy to impose such restrictions.

    Consistent with the State action, in this amendment, BIS is updating the EAR to restrict the export and reexport of certain items on the Commerce Control List to South Sudan. Pursuant to established procedure, BIS adds South Sudan to the list of U.S. embargoed countries under the EAR, a list drawn from the list of arms embargoes in the ITAR and State Federal Register notices, and adopts a restrictive license application review policy consistent with State's review policy set forth in the ITAR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Schrader, Foreign Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Phone: 202-482-4252, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In a rule effective July 9, 2011, the date the United States granted formal recognition to South Sudan, BIS amended the EAR to add the new country to the Commerce Country Chart set forth in Supplement No. 1 to part 740 and imposed controls on exports and reexports of items subject to the EAR to the destination. See 76 FR 41046 (July 13, 2011). In that rule, BIS added South Sudan to Country Group B in Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 (Country Groups), a grouping that rendered the country eligible for certain License Exceptions not available to countries in Country Groups D or E.

    In this rule, BIS amends Supplement No.1 to Part 740 (Country Groups) of the EAR to place South Sudan in Country Group D:5—U.S. Embargoed Countries—to conform with a final rule published by State that revised ITAR § 126.1 (Prohibited exports, imports, and sales to or from certain countries) by adding South Sudan in new paragraph (w). See 83 FR 6457 (February 14, 2018). The ITAR amendment reflected a determination by the Secretary of State that it was in the best interests of U.S. foreign policy to impose such restrictions in order to reflect the U.S. government's opposition to the trade of arms to South Sudan and its contribution to the conflict and humanitarian crisis in that country, promote the cessation of hostilities, and to reinforce a unified international response by aligning the United States with existing European Union restrictions on certain exports to South Sudan. As a consequence of the ITAR amendment, a policy of denial applies to applications for licenses or other approvals for the export of defense articles and defense services destined for South Sudan. A license or other approval may be issued on a case-by-case basis for six enumerated categories of defense articles and defense services, as set forth in ITAR § 126.1(w) (South Sudan).

    BIS primarily implements such controls through Country Group D:5. Countries listed in Country Group D:5 are subject to additional restrictions in the EAR, including on de minimis U.S. content, license exception availability, and licensing policy for certain items. License applications for the export or reexport of items classified under 9x515 or “600 series” Export Control Classification Numbers to countries in Country Group D:5 are reviewed consistent with the policies in § 126.1 of the ITAR, as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of § 742.4 (National security) and paragraph (b)(1) of § 742.6 (Regional stability) of the EAR.

    The list of “United States arms embargoed” countries is intended to mirror ITAR § 126.1's list of countries subject to U.S. arms embargoes and track Federal Register notices published by State. BIS amends the list of Country Group D:5 countries as needed to conform to amendments to ITAR § 126.1 that State publishes, including additions or deletions of countries subject to United States arms embargoes. See footnote one to Country Group D:5. In implementing United States embargoes in the EAR, BIS is adopting the policies for each country listed in section 126.1 of the ITAR. See 78 FR 22660, 22675 (April 16, 2013).

    Consistent with new § 126.1(w) (South Sudan) of the ITAR, the BIS licensing policy for the export and reexport of 9x515 and “600 series” items on the Commerce Control List, Supp. No. 1 to part 774, destined for South Sudan is a policy of denial that recognizes six categories of case-by-case approval. See ITAR § 126.1(w)(1)-(6), which describes these categories in detail.

    Specific Amendment Implementing Revisions To Export and Reexport License Requirements for South Sudan Under the EAR Part 740 of the EAR

    BIS amends Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR to place “South Sudan, The Republic of”, in alphabetical order, in Country Group D:5.

    Export Administration Act of 1979

    Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated to be not a significant regulatory action, for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule involves collections of information approved under OMB control number 0694-0088—Simplified Network Application Processing+ System (SNAP+) and the Multipurpose Export License Application, which carries an annual estimated burden of 31,833 hours; and 0694-0137—License Exceptions and Exclusions, which carries an annual estimated burden of 29,998. BIS believes that this rule will have no significant impact on those burdens.

    Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, by email at [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). This rule implements a necessary update of the status of South Sudan as a U.S. embargoed country, consistent with the prohibitions implemented in the ITAR by the Department of State. This rule also serves to prevent confusion by the public as to the current EAR export and reexport license requirements applicable to South Sudan. A delay in the effective date would frustrate the achievement of this goal. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 740

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, part 740 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

    PART 740—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 740 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017).

    2. Amend Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 by adding, in alphabetical order, an entry for “South Sudan, Republic of” under “Country Group D” to read as follows: SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO PART 740—COUNTRY GROUPS ER03AU18.002 Dated: July 26, 2018. Richard E. Ashooh, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16612 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9838] RIN 1545-BM49 Extension of Time To File Certain Information Returns AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains final regulations providing rules regarding the automatic and non-automatic extension of time to file certain information returns. These changes are being implemented to accelerate the filing of the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and forms that report nonemployee compensation (currently Form 1099-MISC with information in box 7) so they are available earlier in the filing season for use in the IRS's identity theft and refund fraud detection processes. In addition, these final regulations update the list of information returns subject to the rules regarding extensions of time to file. These regulations affect filers requesting an extension of time to file the affected information returns.

    DATES:

    Effective date: These regulations are effective on August 3, 2018.

    Applicability date: For dates of applicability, see § 1.6081-8(g).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan R. Black, (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 6081 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding the extension of time to file certain information returns. On August 13, 2015, the IRS published in the Federal Register temporary regulations (TD 9730 (80 FR 48433)) under § 1.6081-8T removing the automatic 30-day extension of time to file the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G, “Certain Gambling Winnings”) and providing a single non-automatic 30-day extension of time to file these forms. The temporary regulations also updated the list of information returns eligible for an extension of time to file. The temporary regulations were applicable for requests for extension of time to file information returns due after December 31, 2016. The temporary regulations were set to expire August 10, 2018, but they are removed by this Treasury Decision.

    A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132075-14 (80 FR 48472)) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register the same day the temporary regulations were published. The notice of proposed rulemaking contains proposed regulations that would remove the automatic 30-day extension of time to file all information returns subject to the rules formerly under § 1.6081-8 and provide a single non-automatic 30-day extension of time to file those information returns. The IRS received comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking, but no public hearing was requested or held. After consideration of the comments, this Treasury Decision adopts the proposed regulations only with respect to the removal of the automatic extension of time to file the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and forms reporting nonemployee compensation (currently Form 1099-MISC, “Miscellaneous Income,” with information in box 7). The automatic extension of time to file is retained for Form W-2G, Form 1042-S, “Foreign Person's U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding,” Form 1094-C, “Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns,” Form 1095-B, “Health Coverage,” Form 1095-C, “Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage,” Form 3921, “Exercise of an Incentive Stock Option Under Section 422(b),” Form 3922, “Transfer of Stock Acquired Through an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Under Section 423(c),” and Form 8027, “Employer's Annual Information Return of Tip Income and Allocated Tips,” the Form 1097 series, Form 1098 series, Form 1099 series (except forms reporting nonemployee compensation), and Form 5498 series.

    I. Extension of Time To File Information Returns

    Section 6081(a) generally provides that the Secretary may grant a reasonable extension of time, not to exceed 6 months, for filing any return, declaration, statement, or other document required by Title 26 or by regulation. The regulations under section 6081 generally provide rules for extensions of time to file returns. The regulations under § 1.6081-8 provide specific rules for extensions of time to file certain information returns.

    For requests for extension of time to file information returns due before January 1, 2017, § 1.6081-8 provided that a person required to file certain information returns (the filer), or the person transmitting the return for the filer (the transmitter), could request an automatic 30-day extension of time to file those information returns by filing a Form 8809, “Application for Extension of Time to File Information Returns” on or before the due date of the information return. A filer or transmitter was not required to sign the Form 8809 or provide an explanation to request the automatic 30-day extension.

    Prior to expiration of the automatic 30-day extension period, a filer or transmitter that obtained an automatic 30-day extension of time to file could request an additional non-automatic 30-day extension of time to file. Under § 1.6081-8, the IRS had the discretion to grant this request if the IRS determined that a further extension was warranted. Unlike a request to obtain an automatic extension, a request for a non-automatic extension was required to be signed by the filer or transmitter under penalties of perjury and include an explanation of why an additional extension of time to file was needed. No further extensions of time to file were permitted under § 1.6081-8.

    II. Temporary and Proposed Regulations

    Identity theft and refund fraud are persistent and evolving threats to the nation's tax system. They place an enormous burden on the tax system and taxpayers. Identity thieves and unscrupulous preparers often claim refunds by electronically filing fraudulent tax returns early in the tax filing season. The IRS uses third-party information returns to increase voluntary compliance, verify accuracy of tax returns, improve collection of taxes, and combat fraud, including refund fraud committed by those using the stolen identities of legitimate taxpayers. Accelerating the receipt of third-party information returns is one way to better enable the IRS to identify and stop fraudulent refund claims before they are paid.

    On August 13, 2015, temporary and proposed regulations under section 6081 were published in the Federal Register to improve the IRS's ability to use third-party information returns to combat identity theft and refund fraud. The temporary regulation under § 1.6081-8T, which replaced the regulation under § 1.6081-8 for requests for extension of time to file certain information returns due after December 31, 2016, removed information returns in the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) from the list of information returns eligible for the automatic 30-day extension of time to file and instead provided a single non-automatic 30-day extension of time to file those information returns.

    Section 1.6081-8T(a) retained the rules under § 1.6081-8 for obtaining an automatic 30-day extension of time to file Form W-2G, Form 1042-S, Form 1095-B, Form 1095-C, Form 8027, the Form 1097 series, Form 1098 series, Form 1099 series, and Form 5498 series. It also retained the additional non-automatic 30-day extension of time to file these information returns.

    In addition, the temporary regulations updated the list of information returns that are eligible for automatic and non-automatic extensions of time to file by adding Form 1094-C, Form 3921, and Form 3922 to the list in § 1.6081-8T(a). As explained in the preamble to the temporary regulations, the addition of these forms merely updated the list to reflect current practice at the time the temporary regulations were published.

    The proposed regulations were broader than the temporary regulations. The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to remove the automatic extension of time to file Forms 1042-S, 1094-C, 1095-B, 1095-C, 3921, 3922, and 8027; to remove the automatic extension of time to file the Form W-2 series (including Form W-2G), Form 1097 series, Form 1098 series, Form 1099 series, and Form 5498 series; and to allow only a single non-automatic 30-day extension of time to file all of these information returns. The proposed non-automatic extension would have been available on the same terms as the non-automatic extension for the Form W-2 series in the temporary regulations. The preamble to the proposed regulations provided that removal of the automatic extension would not apply to information returns (other than the Form W-2 series except Form W-2G) due any earlier than January 1, 2018. See 80 FR 48472.

    III. Statutory Changes to Due Dates and Penalties

    Section 201 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), Public Law 114-113, Div. Q (129 Stat. 3040, 3076), enacted on December 18, 2015, amended section 6071 of the Code to change the due date for filing Form W-2, “Wage and Tax Statement,” and any returns or statements required by the Secretary to report nonemployee compensation. Nonemployee compensation is currently reportable in box 7 of Form 1099-MISC. The amendments are effective for information returns for calendar years beginning after 2015.

    Prior to enactment of the PATH Act, the Form W-2 was required to be filed by the last day of February (February 28 if amounts were not subject to the Federal Insurance Contribution Act), or March 31 if filed electronically. See § 1.6041-2(a)(3)(ii) and § 31.6071(a)-1(a)(3)(i) (as in effect until July 20, 2017). Also prior to the enactment of the PATH Act, the form reporting nonemployee compensation, Form 1099-MISC, was required to be filed by February 28, or March 31 if filed electronically. See § 1.6041-6 (as in effect until July 20, 2017).

    As amended by the PATH Act, section 6071 provides that the due date for filing the Form W-2 and any returns or statements required by the Secretary to report nonemployee compensation is January 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information is being reported, regardless of whether these information returns are filed on paper or electronically. Section 31.6071(a)-1T(a)(3) provides this due date for the entire Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G). The due date for filing Form 1099-MISC that does not report nonemployee compensation was unchanged by the PATH Act amendment to section 6071, and it remains February 28, or March 31 if filed electronically.

    Section 201 of the PATH Act also amended section 6402 to provide that no credit or refund of an overpayment may be made to a taxpayer before the fifteenth day of the second month following the close of the taxable year (February 15 for calendar year taxpayers) if the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) under section 24(d) or the Earned Income Credit (EIC) under section 32 is allowed for such taxable year.

    In addition, section 202 of the PATH Act amended sections 6721 and 6722 of the Code to generally provide a $100 de minimis error threshold ($25 for withholding) under which the penalties for failure to file and failure to furnish accurate information returns and payee statements do not apply. Payees, however, can still elect to receive accurate payee statements, in which case the de minimis threshold does not apply to the penalties for failure to file and furnish. See section 6722(c)(3)(B).

    Summary of Comments

    There were eleven written comments submitted in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. They are available at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request.

    I. Comments Recommending Alternatives To Removing the Automatic Extension of Time To File Information Returns

    Comments stated that the automatic extension of time to file should not be removed for any information returns and instead alternative or complementary steps to reduce fraud should be taken. Those suggested steps include: (1) Delay the start of the filing season or issue refunds only after the Social Security Administration (SSA) has transferred all Form W-2 information to the IRS; (2) require electronic filing of all information returns at issue; (3) reduce the threshold requirement for filing information returns electronically from 250 returns to five returns; and (4) issue an identity protection personal identification number (IP PIN) to each known taxpayer.

    Some of these steps have already been taken. For instance, the PATH Act amended section 6402 so that refunds cannot be issued before February 15 if the EIC or the ACTC is allowed for the taxable year. This amendment has the effect of allowing the IRS to receive more Form W-2 information with respect to these returns before issuing refunds. Other steps, such as requiring electronic filing of all information returns or reducing the electronic filing threshold, require legislation to implement.

    Comments suggesting that the IRS delay the start of the filing season (without regard to the February 15 date if the EIC or the ACTC is allowed) or issue refunds only after receiving Form W-2 information from the SSA were not adopted. Taxpayers who rely on their tax refunds to pay bills for necessary expenses might be unduly burdened by such a delay. Additionally, when Congress amended section 6402 to prevent the IRS from issuing some refunds before February 15, it did not use a later date or delay refunds to all taxpayers, thus indicating a sensitivity to the negative effect that further delaying taxpayer refunds could have on certain taxpayers.

    Regarding the comment that issuing an IP PIN to each known taxpayer would reduce fraud and identity theft and eliminate the need to accelerate receipt of certain information returns, the Treasury Department and the IRS disagree. While the IP PIN has been an effective tool for protecting taxpayers from subsequent refund fraud, it is not a holistic or sustainable solution that can be applied to the more than 150 million returns that are filed annually each year. See TIGTA report 2017-40-026, “Inconsistent Processes and Procedures Result in Many Victims of Identity Theft Not Receiving Identity Protection Personal Identification Numbers,” 20-22. Additionally, even if the IRS implemented such a proposal, the IRS's efforts to reduce fraud and identity theft would be further enhanced by also accelerating receipt of information returns, such as Form W-2 and forms reporting nonemployee compensation. Accordingly, this suggestion has not been adopted.

    Comments also suggested that the IRS extend the filing deadline for individual income tax returns to May 15, rather than limiting the availability of an automatic extension of time to file information returns. Taxpayers may already request an automatic six-month extension of time to file individual income tax returns under § 1.6081-4, effectively extending the filing deadline (but not the deadline by which to pay) as suggested by the comment. However, even if the IRS extended the filing deadline to May 15 for all individual taxpayers, that would do little to prevent fraud because fraudulent filers typically file early in the filing season so that their fraudulent returns are processed before legitimate taxpayers file their tax returns and before the IRS receives information returns.

    II. Comments Recommending Retention of the Automatic Extension of Time To File Information Returns With Low Risk of Fraud

    Comments suggested that the regulations retain the automatic extension of time to file forms other than Form W-2 and forms reporting nonemployee compensation, because the other forms, specifically Form 1099-INT, Form 1099-DIV, Form 1042-S, and the Form 1095 series, are not major sources of withholding or backup withholding information and are not relevant to preventing fraud. The comments cited GAO Report GAO-14-633, “Identity Theft, Additional Actions Could Help IRS Combat the Large, Evolving Threat of Refund Fraud,” for the assertion that information return documents other than Form W-2 do not have a nexus to fraud. The comments also stated that Form 1042-S is not as susceptible to fraud because Form 1040-NR, “U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return,” and Form 1120-F, “U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation,” are already subject to an extensive review by the IRS.

    In contrast, one comment stated that the burden on filers of removing the automatic extension of time to file was a worthwhile tradeoff, given the financial burdens on taxpayers whose refunds are stolen. This comment suggested that filers should be able to verify many of their records prior to the end of the tax year, and that it was their responsibility to maintain accurate records.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that accelerating the filing date for information returns reporting compensation will contribute more to the reduction of refund fraud than accelerating the filing date of other information returns would. This is because refund fraud is most prevalent on individual income tax returns reporting wages or self-employment income. Consistent with this, Congress enacted section 201 of the PATH Act as part of its program integrity measures included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 to accelerate the date by which Form W-2 and statements reporting nonemployee compensation, but not other information returns, must be filed. In addition, § 31.6071(a)-1T(a)(3) provides that the due date implemented by the PATH Act for Form W-2 applies to the entire Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G). Therefore, the comment is adopted, and the final regulations only remove the automatic extension of time to file the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and forms reporting nonemployee compensation (currently Form 1099-MISC with information in box 7). The IRS continues to study the appropriateness of the automatic extension for other information returns.

    III. Comments Regarding Increased Errors as a Result of Removal of the Automatic Extension of Time To File

    Comments stated that removing the automatic extension of time to file would compress the time between the date the payee statements are sent and the information returns are required to be filed with the IRS. This is particularly true in the case of Form 1099-B, “Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions,” and Form 1099-MISC with information in boxes 8 or 14 only (relating to substitute dividends and tax-exempt interest payments reportable by brokers and gross proceeds paid to attorneys), because the due date to furnish statements to payees for those forms is February 15. Without the automatic extension, there is less time before the filing due date for recipients of the payee statements to discover errors and communicate them to the filer, resulting in more errors on filed information returns and the need to file more corrected information returns.

    Comments also stated that this compression is made more acute because the system for filing information returns electronically (FIRE) requires files be in a format different from the format many filers use to prepare the payee statements. Without the automatic extension of time to file there will be less time to accommodate these differences, which could lead to an increase in errors and the need to file corrected information returns.

    The comments also stated that filers' necessary year-end audit practices with respect to information that is ultimately reported on information returns are time-consuming, and the automatic extension of time to file increases the accuracy of filed returns. Finally, the comments stated that removing the automatic extension further compresses the filing season, burdening accounting professionals who already work 60 to 80 hours per week in the months leading up to the filing deadlines.

    One comment supported the proposed regulations generally, but opposed the removal of the automatic extension of time to file the Form 1099 series. The comment stated that the pressure to meet a rigid deadline would lead to more errors for small businesses without full-time bookkeepers and would have a financial impact on those businesses. Small startups would be disproportionately affected because they are more likely to use independent contractors, for which they have to file information returns in the Form 1099 series. The comment requested that the IRS conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis and make it available for public comment if these final regulations remove the automatic extension of time to file the Form 1099 series.

    The comments supporting retention of the automatic extension of time to file most information returns are adopted in the final regulations. However, as discussed above in section II of this Summary of Comments, acceleration of the IRS's receipt of information relating to compensation is an important tool to reduce fraud and noncompliance. Further, the removal of the automatic extension of time to file the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and forms reporting nonemployee compensation is consistent with section 201 of the PATH Act and its supporting regulations under § 31.6071(a)-1T(a)(3), which together accelerated the filing deadline for both the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and forms reporting nonemployee compensation. Accordingly, the final regulations remove the automatic extension of time to file the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and forms reporting nonemployee compensation.

    With regard to the request for a regulatory flexibility analysis in the case of the removal of the automatic extension of time to file the Form 1099 series, the only affected forms are forms reporting nonemployee compensation. As certified in the Special Analyses section of this Treasury Decision, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result of this certification, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    With regard to Form 1094-C and the Form 1095 series, the comments stated that preserving the automatic extension of time to file would allow health insurers to maintain their current processes. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with these comments and, therefore, the final regulations retain the automatic extension of time to file Form 1094-C, Form 1095-B, and Form 1095-C.

    IV. Comments About Forms W-2 and Reliance on Information or Actions by Third Parties

    Comments stated various reasons why the automatic 30-day extension of time to file Form W-2 should be retained. Comments stated that to prepare Form W-2, filers rely on third-party payment information from states on sickness and disability payments that is not due to the filers until January 15, and filers have no control over the timeliness and accuracy of this third-party information. The comments also stated that Form W-2 filers rely on third-party information that they receive after the end of the tax year for nonqualified moving expenses, prizes and awards, the value of company housing and travel, and non-cash fringe benefits.

    As discussed under section II and reiterated under section III of this Summary of Comments, removal of the automatic extension of time to file the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) will contribute to the reduction of refund fraud and is consistent with section 201 of the PATH Act and its supporting regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS understand that there may be some situations that will necessitate filers to seek a non-automatic extension of time to file; for instance, when a filer does not timely receive the statement of sick pay required under § 31.6051-3(a)(1). Removal of the automatic extension, however, will increase the number of Forms W-2 received by the IRS early enough in the filing season for the IRS to verify information and reduce payment of fraudulent refunds.

    V. Comments on Form 1042-S, Reclassification of Distributions, and Additional Burdens

    Comments stated that corrections are sometimes necessary after the statutory deadlines to file certain returns, such as Form 1042-S, because of reclassifications of distributions. Information regarding these reclassifications is not available until sometime between mid-January and the end of February. If Forms 1042-S must be filed without the benefit of an automatic extension of time to file, then it is more likely that they will have to be amended later based on the reclassification information. Comments added that software vendors typically release their software in late February for Form 1042-S, and that there is not enough time to format information and test the software prior to the March 15 statutory due date. Comments also mentioned that filers regularly seek extensions of time to furnish recipient statements for Form 1042-S in addition to extensions of time to file, and the comments advised that the IRS should expect an increase in the filing of both amended information returns and amended income tax returns as a result of the unavailability of the automatic extension, particularly for Form 1042-S. Comments further added that updates to the Form 1099 series resulting from the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, Public Law 111-147, Title V, Subtitle A (124 Stat. 71, 97), and sections 6050W and 6045B require year-end system upgrades and testing, which must be performed by the same people who otherwise implement the year-end compliance processes and therefore increase, rather than decrease, the time needed to file. Finally, the comments mentioned that information that flows from partnership returns or upstream withholding agents is not available until March 15.

    As discussed previously under section II of this Summary of Comments, these final regulations do not remove the automatic extension of time to file information returns other than the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and forms reporting nonemployee compensation. Therefore, the comment that Form 1042-S should remain eligible for the automatic extension of time to file has been adopted. However, the IRS continues to study the appropriateness of the automatic extension of time to file Form 1042-S.

    VI. Comments on Penalties

    One comment suggested that, given filers' potential inability to comply with the statutory filing dates, filers should have reassurances that the IRS will grant the non-automatic extension of time to file so that they do not face penalties. The comment therefore requested that specific criteria for granting the non-automatic extension should be published in the final regulation. The comment also stated that the proposed requirement to show extraordinary circumstances or catastrophe is too strict a standard to impose on the extension process. The comment further stated that penalties would be unreasonable where a request for an extension of time to file was not granted, and the process of seeking relief if penalties were imposed in these situations would be arduous. In addition, the comment stated that despite the new $100 de minimis error threshold exception for penalties, there would still be a substantial number of errors that would exceed the de minimis threshold and require correction. Also, comments noted that the increase in errors in information returns filed with the IRS as a result of not obtaining an extension of time to file might lead to more penalty notices, which would increase the burden on filers seeking relief under reasonable cause. This increase in penalty notices would also increase the burden on the IRS, which would have to handle many more requests for abatements or waivers of the penalty.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS considered these comments and agree that it is appropriate to set forth the specific criteria under which the IRS will grant the non-automatic extension of time to file. Since publication of the temporary and proposed regulations in 2015, Form 8809 has been revised to provide specificity around the criteria for when a non-automatic extension will be granted. When Form 8809 allowed the filer or transmitter to provide a narrative explanation of the need for an extension, it was difficult to review the explanations in a timely manner because of the length of some of the explanations and the various ways that filers or transmitters would describe the reason for the extension request. To eliminate this issue, the form has been revised to provide checkboxes for the filer or transmitter to indicate the reason for the extension request.

    The IRS intends to update Form 8809 in time for the 2019 filing season to provide that a non-automatic extension of time to file will be granted if and only if (1) the business suffered a catastrophic event in a Federally Declared Disaster Area that made the business unable to resume operations or made necessary records unavailable; (2) fire, casualty or natural disaster affected the operation of the business; (3) death, serious illness, or unavoidable absence of the individual responsible for filing the information returns affected the operation of the business; (4) the information return is being filed for the first year the business was established; or (5) the filer did not receive timely data on a third-party payee statement. This third-party payee statement might be a Schedule K-1, “Partner's Share of Current Year Income, Deductions, Credits and Other Items,” Form 1042-S, or the statement of sick pay required under § 31.6051-3(a)(1). Additionally, the extension will be granted even if the filer receives the third-party payee statement by the statutory furnishing deadline, provided that the filer did not receive the statement in time to prepare an accurate information return.

    These five criteria will all be set forth in checkboxes on Form 8809. The first four of these criteria are already present on the form, with non-substantive differences in phrasing, and were derived from the reasons for which the IRS would grant a non-automatic extension of time to file during recent years when a narrative explanation was permitted. The fifth criteria will be added to Form 8809 in response to comments about reliance on third-party information. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on these criteria and welcome comments suggesting additional criteria that should be added to Form 8809 as reasons to grant the non-automatic extension. Interested parties can address the existing criteria and suggest new criteria by submitting comments on Form 8809 at http://www.irs.gov/FormsComments.

    Also, with regard to the comments about the potential increase in errors and penalty notices, penalty abatement may be available for filers who fail to file timely but do not receive an extension of time to file. Although requests for abatement may increase under the new rules, the IRS is prepared to consider those additional requests. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments regarding how the IRS may reduce the burden on filers who request abatement.

    Special Analyses

    These regulations are not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although the regulations may potentially affect a substantial number of small entities, the economic impact on these entities is not expected to be significant. If at least one of the criteria for granting an extension applies, a business may obtain a 30-day extension of time to file by properly completing Form 8809, so many businesses will still obtain an extension of time to file. Prior versions of § 1.6081-8 also required businesses to file Form 8809 to obtain an extension, so no additional economic impact is associated with the requirement to file this form. For businesses that do not qualify for the extension, the regulations do not impose new information reporting requirements, but they do affect whether the filing due date may be extended. Although there may be some additional costs associated with ensuring that information returns filed by their statutory due date, as opposed to the extended due date, are accurate, those costs will not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    In addition, statutory changes have minimized the benefit of the automatic extension of time to file. Prior to these changes, most filers had a due date (without regard to extensions) of March 31 for the information returns currently subject to the rule eliminating the automatic extension of time to file—the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and Form 1099-MISC reporting nonemployee compensation. With the automatic extension, these filers generally had until April 30 to file these information returns. The PATH Act and the accompanying regulations accelerated the due date for the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and Form 1099-MISC reporting nonemployee compensation from March 31 to January 31. Therefore, even if the automatic extension was still available, the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) and Form 1099-MISC reporting nonemployee compensation would be due much earlier than under prior law, so the statutory change under the PATH Act is the primary cause of any additional cost associated with having to file these forms earlier in the filing season. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. No comments were received from the Small Business Administration.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is Jonathan R. Black of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

    Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

    The IRS Revenue Procedure cited in this document is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.6081-8 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.6081-8 Extension of time to file certain information returns.

    (a) Certain information returns eligible for an automatic extension of time to file—(1) Automatic extension of time to file. A person required to file an information return (the filer) on the forms or form series listed in Table 1 will be allowed one automatic 30-day extension of time to file the information return beyond the due date for filing, if the filer or the person transmitting the information return for the filer (the transmitter) files an application in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1) Form or form series Name of form Form W-2G “Certain Gambling Winnings”. Form 1042-S “Foreign Person's U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding”. Form 1094-C “Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns”. Form 1095-B “Health Coverage”. Form 1095-C “Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage”. Form 3921 “Exercise of an Incentive Stock Option Under Section 422(b)”. Form 3922 “Transfer of Stock Acquired Through an Employee Stock Purchase Plan Under Section 423(c)”. Form 8027 “Employer's Annual Information Return of Tip Income and Allocated Tips”. Form 1097 series Form 1098 series Form 1099 series (except forms reporting nonemployee compensation) Form 5498 series

    (2) Non-automatic extension of time to file. One additional 30-day extension of time to file an information return on a form listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be allowed if the filer or transmitter submits a request for the additional extension of time to file before the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension of time to file. No extension of time to file will be granted under this paragraph (a)(2) unless the filer or transmitter has first obtained an automatic extension of time to file under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. To request the additional 30-day extension of time to file, the filer or transmitter must satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. No additional extension of time to file will be allowed for an information return on a form listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section under § 1.6081-1 beyond the extensions of time to file provided by paragraph (a)(1) of this section and this paragraph (a)(2).

    (b) The Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) or forms reporting nonemployee compensation. Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, the filer or transmitter of an information return on the Form W-2 series (except Form W-2G) or a form reporting nonemployee compensation may only request one non-automatic 30-day extension of time to file the information return beyond the due date for filing it. To make such a request, the filer or transmitter must submit an application for an extension of time to file in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section. No additional extension of time to file will be allowed for an information return on a form listed in this paragraph (b) under § 1.6081-1 beyond the 30-day extension of time to file provided by this paragraph (b).

    (c) Requirements—(1) Automatic extension of time to file. To satisfy this paragraph (c)(1), an application must—

    (i) Be submitted on Form 8809, “Request for Extension of Time to File Information Returns,” or in any other manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner; and

    (ii) Be filed with the Internal Revenue Service office designated in the application's instructions on or before the due date for filing the information return.

    (2) Non-automatic extension of time to file. To satisfy this paragraph (c)(2), a filer or transmitter must—

    (i) Submit a complete application on Form 8809, or in any other manner prescribed by the Commissioner, indicating that at least one of the criteria set forth in the forms, instructions, or other guidance for granting an extension applies;

    (ii) File the application with the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance on or before the due date for filing the information return (for purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, determined with regard to the extension of time to file under paragraph (a)(1) of this section); and

    (iii) Sign the application under penalties of perjury.

    (d) Penalties. See sections 6652, 6693, and 6721 through 6724 of the Code for failure to comply with information reporting requirements on information returns described in this section.

    (e) No effect on time to furnish statements. An extension of time to file an information return under this section does not extend the time for furnishing a statement to the person with respect to whom the information is required to be reported.

    (f) Form W-2 filed on expedited basis. This section does not apply to an information return on a form in the W-2 series if the procedures authorized in Rev. Proc. 96-57 (1996-2 CB 389) (or a successor revenue procedure) allow an automatic extension of time to file the information return. See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter.

    (g) Applicability date. This section applies to requests for extensions of time to file information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2018. Section 1.6081-8T (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2018) applies to extensions of time to file information returns required to be filed before January 1, 2019.

    § 1.6081-8T [Removed]
    Par. 3. Section 1.6081-8T is removed. Kirsten Wielobob, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: July 13, 2018. David J. Kautter, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2018-16717 Filed 8-1-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0027] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Lake Washington, Seattle, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated navigation area for certain navigable waters of Lake Washington. The regulated navigation area is intended to protect personnel and vessels moored in the vicinity and other vessel traffic from potential hazards created by vessel wake. Vessels transiting this area will be restricted to speeds that create a minimum wake.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8 p.m. on August 3, 2018, through 11:59 p.m. on August 5, 2018. This rule will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily from August 3, 2018, through August 4, 2018 and from 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on August 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0027 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the extraordinary amount of vessel traffic occurring after Seafair marine events and wake hazards posed to persons and vessels moored to the log booms and other vessel traffic in the regulated navigation area. Wakes created by vessels transiting in the vicinity of the vessels moored to the log boom pose a safety concern to personnel aboard those vessels and damage to property. Prompt action is needed to restrict vessel movement prior to and after Seafair events. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this regulated navigation area by August 3, 2018.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because prompt action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with excessive vessel wake and the hazards posed to personnel and vessels moored in the vicinity, particularly those moored to the log booms on Lake Washington as well as other vessel traffic in the area.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    On July 25, 2018, numerous local entities notified the Coast Guard of potential hazardous conditions associated with increased vessel and swimmer congestion before and after Seafair, which may make routine navigation unsafe for persons and vessels. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The District Commander has determined that potential hazards associated with excessive vessel wake from August 3, 2018, through August 5, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone south of the Interstate 90 Bridge and north of Bailey Peninsula due to extraordinary amount of vessel traffic occurring after Seafair marine events. Wake hazards caused by this anticipated increase in marine traffic will pose significant risk to persons and vessels moored to the log booms and other vessel traffic in the area. This rule is needed to protect persons and vessels in the navigable waters within the regulated navigation area from excessive vessel wake occurring prior to and after Seafair Events.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a regulated navigation area from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily from August 3, 2018, through August 4, 2018 and from 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on August 5, 2018. The regulated navigation area will cover all navigable waters south of the Interstate 90 floating bridge and north of a line between the Bailey peninsula and Mercer Island. The duration of the regulated navigation area is intended to protect personnel and vessels in these navigable waters from excessive wake associated with vessel traffic before and after Seafair events. Vessels transiting the area will be required to create minimum wake at speeds less than 7 miles per hour. Enforcement periods for this rule will occur daily prior to and immediately following Seafair Unlimited Hydroplane Race activities.

    On June 25, 2018 (83 FR 29438), we published a related notice of enforcement of regulation for 33 CFR 100.1301, Seattle Seafair unlimited hydroplane race. That regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. on July 31, 2018, through 8 p.m. on August 6, 2018.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time-of-day of the regulated navigation area. Vessel traffic will be able to transit through the regulated navigation area, only impacting a small designated area of Lake Washington for less than three days. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated navigation area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a regulated navigation area lasting less than 3 days that will restrict vessel speed between the I-90 floating bridge and a line drawn perpendicular from Bailey Peninsula to Mercer Island. It is categorically excluded from further review under L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T13-0027 to read as follows:
    § 165.T13-0027 Regulated Navigation Area; Lake Washington; Seattle, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area: The waters of Lake Washington bounded by the Interstate 90 (Mercer Island/Lacey V. Murrow) Bridge, the western shore of Lake Washington, and the east/west line drawn tangent to Bailey Peninsula and along the shoreline of Mercer Island.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Puget Sound (COTP) in the enforcement of the regulated navigation zone.

    (c) Regulations. All vessels and persons transiting this regulated navigation area shall proceed at a speed which creates minimum wake, 7 miles per hour or less.

    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily from August 3, 2018, through August 4, 2018 and from 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on August 5, 2018.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. D.G. Throop, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16683 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0614] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Shark River, Neptune, NJ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Shark River off Neptune, NJ, from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on August 4, 2018, during the Neptune National Night Out Fireworks Display. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participant vessels, spectators, and the boating public during the event. This regulation prohibits persons and non-participant vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Delaware Bay or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on August 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0614 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST1 Edmund Ofalt, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division; telephone (215) 271-4814, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFRFR Code of Federal Regulations DHSFR Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRMFR Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to do so. There is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period prior to the date of the event. The rule must be in force by August 4, 2018, to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety of spectators and the general public from hazards associated with the fireworks display. Hazards include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on August 4, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the fireworks barge, which will be anchored in approximate position 40°11′ 32.08″ N, 074°01′ 53.06″ W. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels and the public within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on August 4, 2018, on the waters of Shark River off Neptune, NJ, during a fireworks display from a barge. The event is scheduled to take place at approximately 8:45 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone will extend 100 yards around the barge, which will be anchored at approximate position 40°11′ 32.08″ N, 074°01′53.06″ W. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide public notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and by on-scene actual notice from designated representatives.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (2) persons and vessels will still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene actual notice from designated representatives.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable water in the Shark River, for approximately one hour. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T05-0614 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0614 Safety Zone; Fireworks, Shark River, Neptune, NJ.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Shark River off of Neptune, NJ, within 100 yards of the barge anchored in position 40°11′32.08″ N, 074°01′53.06″ W. All coordinates are based on Datum NAD 1983.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard petty officer, warrant or commissioned officer on board a Coast Guard vessel or on board a federal, state, or local law enforcement vessel assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), Delaware Bay in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (2) To seek permission to enter or remain in the zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16 or 215-271-4807. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (3) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in law enforcement, aids to navigation servicing, and emergency response operations.

    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (e) Enforcement period. This zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on August 4, 2018.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. S.E. Anderson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16620 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0734; FRL 9981-29-Region 7] Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; MO; Redesignation of the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Missouri-Illinois Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 5, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) specifically requesting early input and comments on the Agency's interpretation that air quality monitoring data from 2015-2017 support a finding that the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area attains the 1997 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The notice also provided an evaluation of Missouri's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, which includes the 2008 and 2025 NOX and PM2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) and established the 2008 base year emissions inventory. EPA received no comments on the ANPR. EPA is now taking direct final action on three items, consistent with the ANPR. First, EPA is approving the state's request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis MO-IL nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS as the monitoring values demonstrate the area attains the standard. Second, EPA is approving the state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Missouri portion of the area including the motor vehicle emissions budget. Third, EPA is approving Missouri's 2008 base year emissions inventory in accordance with section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective October 2, 2018, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 4, 2018. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0734, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7214, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving actions related to Missouri's request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standards. On September 2, 2011, and subsequently on March 31, 2014, and on September 17, 2014,1 Missouri, through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) submitted requests for EPA to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis MO-IL nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Missouri portion of the area. On January 5, 2018, EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the related actions and received no comments. See 83 FR 636. In this rulemaking action, EPA is taking direct final action to approve the state's request. In addition, EPA is also taking direct final action to approve Missouri's 2008 base year emissions inventory in accordance with section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

    1 The date of the original submission is September 2, 2011. Missouri supplemented and revised their request on March 31, 2014, September 17, 2014, and May 23, 2017. The May 27, 2017, letter requested EPA to take action on the prior submission, but did not include additional documentation. EPA considered all submissions in reviewing this action.

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state's submission has met the public notice requirements for the redesignation request and maintenance plan submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The state held a public comment period from December 30, 2013 to February 6, 2014, and received three comments from the EPA. A public hearing was held on January 30, 2014.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    Consistent with the strategy outlined in the ANPR, published in January 2018, EPA is taking direct final action to approve Missouri's request to redesignate the St. Louis bi-state nonattainment area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Missouri portion of the area, and officially redesignate the area from nonattainment to attainment. EPA is also taking direct final action on Missouri's 2008 emission inventory.

    Missouri submitted their first request to determine attainment and redesignation on September 1, 2011. The state then supplemented and revised their request on March 31, 2014, and on September 17, 2014. In this direct final rule, when EPA refers to Missouri's submission, we are referring to information provided in the 2011 and 2014 submissions and the additional clarifying information together unless otherwise specified.

    EPA evaluated Missouri's request and plan consistent with section 175A of the CAA and EPA's supplemental analysis that the area will continue to maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS following redesignation. The Missouri counties comprising the St. Louis area are Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis. The City of St. Louis is also part of the nonattainment area. Because we did not receive public comments on the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for this action, we are publishing this as a direct final rule as we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

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

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri 2. Revise § 52.1341 to read as follows:
    § 52.1341 Control strategy: Particulate.

    (a) Determination of attainment. EPA has determined, as of May 23, 2011, that the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress, contingency measures, and other plan elements related to attainment of the standards for as long as the area continues to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the three-year period 2007 to 2009, the St. Louis (MO-IL) PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010.

    (b) Redesignation to attainment. On September 1, 2011, and on March 31, 2014 and on September 17, 2014, Missouri submitted requests to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis MO-IL area to attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standard. The Missouri portion of the St. Louis MO-IL area includes Jefferson, Franklin, St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties along with the City of St. Louis. As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted a plan for maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standard through 2025 in the area as required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act.

    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment Status Designations 4. Section 81.326 is amended by revising the entry for “St. Louis MO-IL” in the table entitled “Missouri—1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)” to read as follows:
    § 81.326 Missouri Missouri-1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type St. Louis, MO-IL: Franklin County August 3, 2018 Attainment Jefferson County August 3, 2018 Attainment St. Charles County August 3, 2018 Attainment St. Louis County August 3, 2018 Attainment St. Louis City August 3, 2018 Attainment *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16003 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442; FRL-9981-06-OAR] RIN 2060-AS92 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology Review Correction

    In rule document 2018-15718 beginning on page 35122 in the issue of Wednesday, July 25, 2018, make the following correction:

    Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 [Corrected] On page 35135, the table should read as set forth below: Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63—Applicability of General Provisions Citation Requirement Applies to subpart LLL Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 63.10(e)(3)(v) Due Dates for Excess Emissions and CMS Performance Reports No § 63.1354(b)(9) specifies due date. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. C1-2018-15718 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-1086; FRL-9979-68-OLEM] RIN 2050-AG67 Addition of a Subsurface Intrusion Component to the Hazard Ranking System; Corrections AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 9, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule which added subsurface intrusion component to the Superfund Hazard Ranking System. That document inadvertently failed to update the Table of Contents and contained a few other typographical errors. This document corrects the final regulation.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective August 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email: [email protected], Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is EPA's erratum to the final rule titled Addition of a Subsurface Intrusion Component to the Hazard Ranking System, published January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2760). This is the second set of corrections. The first set of corrections was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2018 (83 FR 4430). This document augments those corrections.

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. See Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 752 (D.C. Cir. 2001). We have determined that there is good cause for making these correcting amendments final without prior proposal and opportunity for public comment. Notice and comment is unnecessary because these administrative or clerical corrections govern the methodology of how EPA, rather than the public or industry, evaluates contaminated sites under the Hazard Ranking System. Similarly, notice and comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the correcting amendments will more quickly ensure that EPA is following the proper procedures to evaluate potential threats to public health from releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Thus, good cause exists to proceed without notice and public comment.

    These correcting amendments are effective immediately upon publication. Section 553(d) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, “except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause,” among other exceptions. The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an agency should “balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.” Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making these correcting amendments effective immediately because, as stated above, the corrections govern how EPA, rather than the public or industry, applies the Hazard Ranking System to evaluate potential threats to public health from releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Accordingly, EPA finds that good cause exists under section 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective immediately upon publication.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: June 29, 2018. Barry N. Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.

    40 CFR part 300 is corrected as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Amend Appendix A to Part 300 by: a. In the Table of Contents revising the entries for “5.0” through “5.3”; and b. Revising Table 2-5, Table 5-16, and Table 7-1.

    The revisions read as follows:

    Appendix A to Part 300—The Hazard Ranking System Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables 5.0 Soil Exposure and Subsurface Intrusion Pathway. 5.0.1 Exposure components. 5.1 Soil exposure component. 5.1.0 General considerations. 5.1.1 Resident population threat. 5.1.1.1 Likelihood of exposure. 5.1.1.2 Waste characteristics. 5.1.1.2.1 Toxicity. 5.1.1.2.2 Hazardous waste quantity. 5.1.1.2.3 Calculation of waste characteristics factor category value. 5.1.1.3 Targets. 5.1.1.3.1 Resident individual. 5.1.1.3.2 Resident population. 5.1.1.3.2.1 Level I concentrations. 5.1.1.3.2.2 Level II concentrations. 5.1.1.3.2.3 Calculation of resident population factor value. 5.1.1.3.3 Workers. 5.1.1.3.4 Resources. 5.1.1.3.5 Terrestrial sensitive environments. 5.1.1.3.6 Calculation of resident population targets factor category value. 5.1.1.4 Calculation of resident population threat score. 5.1.2 Nearby population threat. 5.1.2.1 Likelihood of exposure. 5.1.2.1.1 Attractiveness/accessibility. 5.1.2.1.2 Area of contamination. 5.1.2.1.3 Likelihood of exposure factor category value. 5.1.2.2 Waste characteristics. 5.1.2.2.1 Toxicity. 5.1.2.2.2 Hazardous waste quantity. 5.1.2.2.3 Calculation of waste characteristics factor category value. 5.1.2.3 Targets. 5.1.2.3.1 Nearby individual. 5.1.2.3.2 Population within 1 mile. 5.1.2.3.3 Calculation of nearby population targets factor category value. 5.1.2.4 Calculation of nearby population threat score. 5.1.3 Calculation of soil exposure component score. 5.2 Subsurface intrusion component. 5.2.0 General considerations. 5.2.1 Subsurface intrusion component. 5.2.1.1 Likelihood of exposure. 5.2.1.1.1 Observed exposure. 5.2.1.1.2 Potential for exposure. 5.2.1.1.2.1 Structure containment. 5.2.1.1.2.2 Depth to contamination. 5.2.1.1.2.3 Vertical migration. 5.2.1.1.2.4 Vapor migration potential. 5.2.1.1.2.5 Calculation of potential for exposure factor value. 5.2.1.1.3 Calculation of likelihood of exposure factor category value. 5.2.1.2 Waste characteristics. 5.2.1.2.1 Toxicity/degradation. 5.2.1.2.1.1 Toxicity. 5.2.1.2.1.2 Degradation. 5.2.1.2.1.3 Calculation of toxicity/degradation factor value. 5.2.1.2.2 Hazardous waste quantity. 5.2.1.2.3 Calculation of waste characteristics factor category value. 5.2.1.3 Targets. 5.2.1.3.1 Exposed individual. 5.2.1.3.2 Population. 5.2.1.3.2.1 Level I concentrations. 5.2.1.3.2.2 Level II concentrations. 5.2.1.3.2.3 Population within area(s) of subsurface contamination. 5.2.1.3.2.4 Calculation of population factor value. 5.2.1.3.3 Resources. 5.2.1.3.4 Calculation of targets factor category value. 5.2.2 Calculation of subsurface intrusion component score. 5.3 Calculation of the soil exposure and subsurface intrusion pathway score. Table 2-5—Hazardous Waste Quantity Evaluation Equations Tier Measure Units Equation
  • for assigning
  • value a
  • A Hazardous constituent quantity (C) lb C. B b Hazardous wastestream quantity (W) lb W/5,000. C b Volume (V) Landfill yd3 V/2,500. Surface impoundment yd3 V/2.5. Surface impoundment (buried/backfilled) yd3 V/2.5. Drums c gallon V/500. Tanks and containers other than drums yd3 V/2.5. Contaminated soil yd3 V/2,500. Pile yd3 V/2.5. Other yd3 V/2.5. D b Area (A) Landfill ft2 A/3,400. Surface impoundment ft2 A/13. Surface impoundment (buried/backfilled) ft2 A/13. Land treatment ft2 A/270. Pile d ft2 A/13. Contaminated soil ft2 A/34,000. a Do not round to nearest integer. b Convert volume to mass when necessary: 1 ton = 2,000 pounds = 1 cubic yard = 4 drums = 200 gallons. c If actual volume of drums is unavailable, assume 1 drum=50 gallons. d Use land surface area under pile, not surface area of pile.
    Table 5-16—Values for Vapor Pressure and Henry's Constant Assigned
  • value
  • Vapor Pressure (Torr): Greater than 10 3 1 to 10 2 Less than 1 0 Henry's Constant (atm-m3/mol): Greater than 10  3 3 Greater than 10  4 to 10  3 2 10  5 to 10  4 1 Less than 10  5 0
    Table 7-1—HRS Factors Evaluated Differently for Radionuclides Ground water
  • pathway
  • Status a Surface water pathway Status a Soil exposure
  • component of
  • SESSI pathway
  • Status a Subsurface
  • intrusion
  • component of
  • SESSI pathway
  • Status a Air pathway Status a
    Likelihood of
  • Release
  • Likelihood of
  • Release
  • Likelihood of
  • Exposure
  • Likelihood of
  • Exposure
  • Likelihood of
  • Release
  • Observed Release Yes Observed Release Yes Observed Contamination Yes Observed Exposure Yes Observed Release Yes. Potential to Release No Potential to Release No Attractiveness/Accessibility to Nearby Residents No Potential for Exposure Yes Gas Potential to Release No. Containment No Overland Flow Containment No Area of Contamination No Structure Containment No Gas Containment No. Net Precipitation No Runoff No Depth to Contamination Yes Gas Source Type No. Depth to Aquifer No Distance to Surface water No Vertical migration No Gas Migration Potential No. Travel Time No Flood Frequency No Vapor Migration Potential No Particulate Potential to Release No. Flood Containment No Area of Observed Exposure No Particulate Containment No. Area of Subsurface Contamination No Particulate Source Type No. Particulate Migration Potential No. Waste
  • Characteristics
  • Waste
  • Characteristics
  • Waste
  • Characteristics
  • Waste
  • Characteristics
  • Waste
  • Characteristics
  • Toxicity Yes Toxicity/Ecotoxicity Yes/Yes Toxicity Yes Toxicity/Degradation Yes/Yes Toxicity Yes. Mobility No Persistence/Mobility Yes/No Hazardous Waste Quantity Yes Hazardous Waste Quantity Yes Mobility No. Hazardous Waste Quantity Yes Bioaccumulation Potential No Hazardous Waste Quantity Yes. Hazardous Waste Quantity Yes Targets Targets Targets Targets Targets Nearest Well Yes b Nearest Intake Yes b Resident Individual Yes b Exposed Individual Yes b Nearest Individual Yes.b Population Yes b Drinking Water Population Yes b Resident Population Yes b Population Yes b Population Yes.b Resources No Resources No Workers No Resources No Resources No. Wellhead Protection Area No Sensitive Environments Yes b Resources No Sensitive Environments No. Human Food Chain Individual Yes b Terrestrial Sensitive Environments No Human Food Chain Population Yes b Nearby Individual
  • Population Within 1 Mile
  • No
  • No.
  • a—Factors evaluated differently are denoted by “yes”; factors not evaluated differently are denoted by “no”. b—Difference is in the determination of Level I and Level II concentrations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16605 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [GEN Docket No. 86-285; FCC 18-90] Schedule of Application Fees AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) revises the FY 2018 application fee rates based on increases in the Consumer Price Index.

    DATES:

    Effective September 4, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 18-90, GEN Docket No. 86-285, adopted on July 6, 2018 and released on July 10, 2018. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554. This document is also available in alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact the FCC by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    Synopsis I. Introduction

    1. By this Order, the Commission makes rule changes to part 1 of the Commission's rules, and amends its Schedule of Application Fees, 47 CFR 1.1102 through 1.1109, as listed in the Rule Changes section, to adjust its fees for processing applications and other filings. Section 8(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Commission to “assess and collect application fees at such rates as the Commission shall establish or at such modified rates as it shall establish pursuant to” Section 8(b).1 Section 8(g) contains the Schedule of Charges for a broad range of application categories as well as procedures for modifying and collecting these charges.2 Section 8(b)(1) requires that the Schedule of Application Fees “be reviewed by the Commission every two years after October 1, 1991, and adjusted by the Commission to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.” As required by Section 8(b)(1), this Order increases application fees to reflect the net change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) of 3.7 percent, an increase of 8.825 index points calculated from October 2015 (237.838) to October 2017 (246.663). 3 The adjustments comply with the statutory formula set forth in Section 8(b).

    1 47 U.S.C. 158(a).

    2 The RAY BAUM's Act of 2018 amended Section 8 of the Communications Act and provided an effective date of October 1, 2018 for such changes. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Division P—RAY BAUM's Act of 2018, Title I, FCC Reauthorization, Public Law 115-141 (March 23, 2018). Congress envisioned a transition between fees adopted before and after the effective date of the amendments to Section 8. In particular, Congress provided that application fees in effect on the day before the effective date of the RAY BAUM's Act shall remain in effect until such time as the Commission adjusts or amends such fee. Id. Section 8 fees are revised every even year and the Commission expects that this Order will become effective before October 1, 2018. We also note that in a separate proceeding, the Commission proposed to assess a small satellite application fee of $30,000.00 under the RAY BAUM's Act. See Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 18-86, FCC 18-44, para. 76 (2018). In this Order, the Commission does not address this proposal.

    3 Application fees are calculated based upon the process set forth in 47 U.S.C. 158(b)(1). The increase in the CPI-U between October 2015 (the month used to calculate the last CPI-U adjustment of the Schedule of Application Fees) and October 2017 is 8.825 index points, a 3.7 percent increase. Section 8(b)(1) prescribes that increases or decreases in application fees are to be “determined by the net change in the Consumer Price Index since the date of enactment of this section,” i.e., since December 1989. The actual calculation of fees is based on index points that are averaged over a time period beginning in December 1989. See Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-U Index, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/historical-cpi-u-201710.pdf (showing a CPI-U Index of 237.838 for October 2015 and 246.663 for October 2017).

    2. The methodology and timing of adjustments to application fees are prescribed by statute at 47 U.S.C. 158(b). Because our action implementing the statute leaves us no discretion, prior notice and comment is unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). This Order is also exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Copies of this Order will be sent to Congress and the Comptroller General in compliance with the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. Notification of the fee adjustments made in this Order will be published in the Federal Register.

    3. Reminder Regarding Lockbox Closures. During the past few years, the Commission has been reducing its use of P.O. Boxes for the collection of fees and has encouraged the use of electronic payment systems for all application and regulatory fees.4 The electronic payment of fees for applications, tariffs, and petitions increases the agency's financial efficiency by reducing expenditures, including the annual fee for utilizing the bank's services and the cost of processing each transaction manually, with very little or no inconvenience to the regulatees, applicants, and the public.5 As part of this process, the Commission has closed Lockbox 979092 (used to submit fees and petitions related to services provided by the Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau) and Lockbox 979091 (used to submit fees and petitions related to services provided by the Wireline Competition Bureau).6 Additional closings will occur in coming months. As these Lockboxes are closed, filers will be required to submit payments electronically in accordance with the procedures set forth on the Commission's website, https://www.fcc.gov/licensingdatabases/fees. Payments can be made through the Fee Filer Online System (Fee Filer), accessible at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/fee-filer, although we caution filers that the agency may transition to other secure payment systems in the future, after appropriate public notice and guidance. To file applications, tariffs, and petitions, parties should utilize, as applicable, the Commission's Electronic Tariff Filing System for tariffs, which can be found at https://apps.fcc.gov/etfs/etfsHome.action, or the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), which can be found at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display. Petitions filed in hard copy format should be submitted according to the procedures set forth on the web page of the Commission's Office of the Secretary, https://www.fcc.gov/seretary.

    4 The Commission previously revised its payment rules to encourage electronic payment of application processing fees and require electronic payment of regulatory fees. 47 CFR 1.1112 (application fees) and 1.1158 (regulatory fees). These rules became effective November 30, 2015. 80 FR 66816 (Oct. 30, 2015).

    5See Treasury Financial Manual, Bulletin No. 2017-12, “Agency No-Cash or No-Check Policies,” released on September 18, 2017 (explaining the circumstances under which agencies may decide not to accept payments made in cash or by check), available at https://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v1/bull/17-12.pdf; see also https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-16/pdf/2011-15181.pdf.

    6Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules, Order, MD Docket No. 17-123, 32 FCC Rcd 4203 (2017) (modifying Section 1.1109 of the Commission's rules to delete reference to P.O. Box 979092 at U.S. Bank in St. Louis, Missouri); Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 51, and 61 of the Commission's Rules, Order, MD Docket No. 17-357, 32 FCC Rcd 10565 (2017) (modifying Section 1.1105 of the Commission's rules to delete reference to P.O. Box 979091 at U.S. Bank in St. Louis, Missouri).

    II. Procedural Matters A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    4. This Order is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    5. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    C. Congressional Review Act

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

    III. Ordering Clauses

    7. Accordingly, it is ordered, that, pursuant to 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 8 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 158, the rule changes specified herein ARE ADOPTED and the Schedule of Application Fees, 47 CFR 1.1102 through 1.1109, is amended as set forth in the Rule Changes section.

    8. It is further ordered that the rule changes and amendments to the Schedule of Application Fees made herein shall become effective September 4, 2018.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

    PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 1.1102 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1102 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings in the wireless telecommunications services.

    In the table below, the amounts appearing in the column labeled “Fee Amount” are for application fees only. Those services designated in the table below with an asterisk (*) in the column labeled “Payment Type Code” also have associated regulatory fees that must be paid at the same time the application fee is paid. Please refer to the FY 2017 Wireless Telecommunications Fee Filing Guide (updated and effective 9/26/16) for the corresponding regulatory fee amount located at https://www.fcc.gov/document/wtb-fee-filing-guide-effective-september-26-2016. For additional guidance, please refer to § 1.1152. Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Bureau Applications, P.O. Box 979097, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment type code 1. Marine Coast: a. New; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 PBMR * 601 & 159 $140.00 PBMM b. Modification; Public Coast CMRS; Non-Profit 601 & 159 140.00 PBMM c. Assignment of Authorization 603 & 159 140.00 PBMM d. Transfer of Control Spectrum Leasing for Public Coast 603 & 159 70.00 PATM 608 & 159 70.00 PATM e. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM f. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 200.00 PCMM g. Renewal Only 601 & 159 PBMR * 601 & 159 140.00 PBMM h. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PBMR * 601 & 159 140.00 PBMM i. Renewal Only (Non-Profit; CMRS) 601 & 159 140.00 PBMM j. Renewal (Electronic Filing) Non-profit, CMRS 601 & 159 140.00 PBMM k. Rule Waiver 601, 603, 608 or 609-T & 159 210.00 PDWM l. Modification for Spectrum Leasing for Public Coast Stations 608 & 159 140.00 PBMM m. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 PATM 2. Aviation Ground: a. New; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 PBVR * 601 & 159 140.00 PBVM b. Modification; Non-Profit 601 & 159 140.00 PBVM c. Assignment of Authorization 603 & 159 140.00 PBVM d. Transfer of Control 603 & 159 70.00 PATM e. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM f. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 200.00 PCVM g. Renewal Only 601 & 159 PBVR * 601 & 159 140.00 PBVM h. Renewal Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PBVR * 601 & 159 140.00 PBVM i. Renewal Only Non-Profit 601 & 159 140.00 PBVM j. Renewal Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 140.00 PBVM k. Rule Waiver 601 or 603 & 159 210.00 PDWM 3. Ship: a. New; Renewal/Modification; Renewal Only 605 & 159 PASR * 605 & 159 70.00 PASM b. New; Renewal/Modification; Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159
  • 605 & 159
  • 70.00 PASR *
  • PASM
  • c. Renewal Only Non-profit 605 & 159 70.00 PASM d. Renewal Only Non-profit (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PASM e. Modification; Non-profit 605 & 159 70.00 PASM f. Modification; Non-profit (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PASM g. Duplicate License 605 & 159 70.00 PADM h. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PADM i. Exemption from Ship Station Requirements 605 & 159 210.00 PDWM j. Rule Waiver 605 & 159 210.00 PDWM k. Exemption from Ship Station Requirements (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 210.00 PDWM l. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 210.00 PDWM 4. Aircraft: a. New; Renewal/Modification 605 & 159 PAAR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PAAR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM c. Modification; Non-Profit 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM d. Modification Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM e. Renewal Only 605 & 159 PAAR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PAAR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM g. Renewal Only Non-Profit 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM h. Renewal; Renewal/Modification Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM i. Duplicate License 605 & 159 70.00 PADM j. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PADM k. Rule Waiver 603, 605 & 159 210.00 PDWM l. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 210.00 PDWM 5. Private Operational Fixed Microwave and Private DEMS: a. New; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 PEOR * 601 & 159 305.00 PEOM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PEOR * 601 & 159 305.00 PEOM c. Modification; Consolidate Call Signs; Non-Profit 601 & 159 305.00 PEOM d. Modification; Consolidate Call Signs; Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 305.00 PEOM e. Renewal Only 601 & 159 PEOR * 601 & 159 305.00 PEOM f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PEOR * 601 & 159 305.00 PEOM g. Renewal Only Non-Profit 601 & 159 305.00 PEOM h. Renewal Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 305.00 PEOM i. Assignment 603 & 159 305.00 PEOM j. Assignment (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 305.00 PEOM k. Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing 603 & 159 70.00 PATM 603 & 159 70.00 PATM l. Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 70.00 PATM 603 & 159 70.00 PATM m. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM n. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM o. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 70.00 PAOM p. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PAOM q. Rule Waiver 601, 603 or 210.00 PDWM 608, 609T & 159 210.00 PDWM r. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 601, 603 or 210.00 PDWM 608, 609T & 159 210.00 PDWM s. Modification for Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 305.00 PEOM t. Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 608 & 159 305.00 PEOM u. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 PATM 6. Land Mobile: PMRS; Intelligent Transportation Service 601 & 159 PALR * a. New or Renewal/Modification (Frequencies below 470 MHz (except 220 MHz)) 902-928 MHz & RS 601 & 159 70.00 PALM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Frequencies below 470 MHz (except 220 MHz)) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159
  • 601 & 159
  • 70.00 PALR *
  • PALM
  • c. New; Renewal/Modification (Frequencies 470 MHz and above and 220 MHz Local) 601 & 159
  • 601 & 159
  • 70.00 PALS *
  • PALM
  • d. New; Renewal/Modification (Frequencies 470 MHz and above and 220 MHz Local) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159
  • 601 & 159
  • 70.00 PALS *
  • PALM
  • e. New; Renewal/Modification (220 MHz Nationwide) 601 & 159
  • 601 & 159
  • 70.00 PALT *
  • PALM
  • f. New; Renewal/Modification (220 MHz Nationwide) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159
  • 601 & 159
  • 70.00 PALT *
  • PALM
  • g. Modification; Non-Profit; For Profit Special Emergency and Public Safety; nd CMRS 601 & 159 70.00 PALM h. Modification; Non-Profit; For Profit Special Emergency and Public Safety; and CMRS (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM i. Renewal Only 601 & 159 601 & 159 70.00 PALR * PALM 601 & 159 PALS * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM 601 & 159 70.00 PALT * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM j. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PALR * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM 601 & 159 PALS * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM 601 & 159 PALT * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM k. Renewal Only (Non-Profit; CMRS; For-Profit Special Emergency and Public Safety) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM l. Renewal (Non-Profit; CMRS; For-Profit Special Emergency and Public Safety) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM m. Assignment of Authorization (PMRS & CMRS) 603 & 159 70.00 PALM n. Assignment of Authorization (PMRS & CMRS) (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 70.00 PALM o. Transfer of Control (PMRS & CMRS); Spectrum Leasing 603 & 159
  • 603 & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • PATM
  • PATM
  • p. Transfer of Control (PMRS & CMRS); Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • PATM
  • PATM
  • q. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM r. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM s. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 70.00 PALM t. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM u. Rule Waiver 601, 603 or 608 & 159 210.00 PDWM 601, 603 or 608 & 159 210.00 PDWM v. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 601, 603 or 608, 609T 159 210.00 PDWM 601, 603 or 608, 609T 159 210.00 PDWM w. Consolidate Call Signs 601 & 159 70.00 PALM x. Consolidate Call Signs (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM y. Modification for Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 70.00 PALM z. Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 608 & 159 70.00 PALM aa. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 PATM 7. 218-219 MHz (previously IVDS): a. New; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 PAIR * 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PAIR * 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM c. Modification; Non-Profit 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM d. Modification; Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM e. Renewal Only 601 & 159 PAIR * 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PAIR * 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM g. Assignment of Authorization 603 & 159 70.00 PAIM h. Assignment of Authorization (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 70.00 PAIM i. Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing 603 & 159 70.00 PATM 608 & 159 70.00 PATM j. Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 70.00 PATM 603 & 159 70.00 PATM k. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM l. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM m. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM n. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM o. Modification for Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 70.00 PAIM p. Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 608 & 159 70.00 PAIM q. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 PATM 8. General Mobile Radio (GMRS): a. New; Renewal/Modification 605 & 159 PAZR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PAZR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM c. Modification 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM d. Modification (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM e. Renewal Only 605 & 159 PAZR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PAZR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM g. Duplicate License 605 & 159 70.00 PADM h. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PADM i. Special Temporary Authority 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM j. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM k. Rule Waiver 605 & 159 210.00 PDWM l. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 210.00 PDWM 9. Restricted Radiotelephone: a. New (Lifetime Permit) New (Limited Use) 605 & 159 70.00 PARR 605 & 159 70.00 PARR b. Duplicate/Replacement Permit Duplicate/Replacement Permit (Limited Use) 605 & 159
  • 605 & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • PADM
  • PADM
  • 10. Commercial Radio Operator: a. Renewal Only; Renewal/Modification 605 & 159 70.00 PACS b. Duplicate 605 & 159 70.00 PADM 11. Hearing: Corres & 159 13,225.00 PFHM 12. Common Carrier Microwave: (Pt. To Pt., Local TV Trans. & Millimeter Wave Service) a. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 CJPR * 601 & 159 305.00 CJPM b. Major Modification; Consolidate Call Signs (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 305.00 CJPM c. Renewal (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 CJPR * 601 & 159 305.00 CJPM d. Assignment of Authorization; Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing Additional Stations (Electronic Filing Required) 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 603 or 608 & 159
  • 110.00
  • 110.00
  • 70.00
  • CCPM
  • CCPM
  • CAPM
  • e. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM f. Extension of Construction Authority (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 110.00 CCPM g. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 140.00 CEPM h. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 140.00 CEPM i. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 305.00 CJPM j. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 CAPM 13. Common Carrier Microwave (DEMS): a. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 CJLR * 601 & 159 305.00 CJLM b. Major Modification; Consolidate Call Signs (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 305.00 CJLM c. Renewal (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 CJLR * 601 & 159 305.00 CJLM d. Assignment of Authorization; Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing Additional Stations (Electronic Filing Required) 603 & 159
  • 603 & 159
  • 603 or 608 & 159
  • 110.00
  • 110.00
  • 70.00
  • CCLM
  • CCLM
  • CALM
  • e. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM f. Extension of Construction Authority (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 110.00 CCLM g. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 140.00 CELM h. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 140.00 CELM i. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 305.00 CJLM j. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 CALM 14. Broadcast Auxiliary (Aural and TV Microwave): a. New; Modification; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 170.00 MEA b. New; Modification; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 170.00 MEA c. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 200.00 MGA d. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 200.00 MGA e. Renewal Only 601 & 159 70.00 MAA f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 MAA 15. Broadcast Auxiliary (Remote and Low Power): a. New; Modification; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 170.00 MEA b. New; Modification; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 170.00 MEA c. Renewal Only 601 & 159 70.00 MAA d. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 MAA e. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 200.00 MGA f. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 200.00 MGA 16. Pt 22 Paging & Radiotelephone: a. New; Major Mod; Additional Facility; Major Amendment; Major Renewal/Mod; Fill in Transmitter (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 450.00 CMD b. Minor Mod; Renewal; Minor Renewal/Mod; (Per Call Sign) 900 MHz Nationwide Renewal Net Organ; New Operator (Per Operator/Per City) Notice of Completion of Construction or Extension of Time to Construct (Per Application) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CAD c. Auxiliary Test (Per Transmitter); Consolidate Call Signs (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 395.00 CLD d. Special Temporary Authority (Per Location/Per Frequency) 601 & 159 395.00 CLD e. Special Temporary Authority (Per Location/Per Frequency) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 395.00 CLD f. Assignment of License or Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing (Full or Partial) (Per First Call Sign); Additional Call Signs (Per Call Signs) (Electronic Filing Required) 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 603 or 608 & 159
  • 450.00
  • 450.00
  • 70.00
  • CMD
  • CMD
  • CAD
  • g. Subsidiary Comm. Service (Per Request) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 200.00 CFD h. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 450.00 CMD i. Minor Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 70.00 CAD j. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event First Call Sign on Application 609-T & 159 450.00 CMD k. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event Each Additional Call Sign 609-T & 159 70.00 CAD 17. Cellular: a. New; Major Mod; Additional Facility; Major Renewal/Mod (Per Call Sign) Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 450.00 CMC b. Minor Modification; Minor Renewal/Mod (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 120.00 CDC c. Assignment of License; Transfer of Control (Full or Partial) (Per Call Sign) Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 603 & 159
  • 603 & 159
  • 450.00
  • 450.00
  • CMC
  • CMC
  • d. Notice of Extension of Time to Complete Construction; (Per Request) Renewal (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CAC e. Special Temporary Authority (Per Request) 601 & 159 395.00 CLC f. Special Temporary Authority (Per Request) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 395.00 CLC g. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 450.00 CMC h. Minor Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 120.00 CDC 18. Rural Radio: a. New; Major Renew/Mod; Additional Facility (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159
  • 601 & 159
  • 210.00 CGRR *
  • CGRM
  • b. Major Mod; Major Amendment (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 210.00 CGRM c. Minor Modification; (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CARM d. Assignment of License; Transfer of Control (Full or Partial) (Per Call Sign) Spectrum Leasing Additional Calls (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 603 or 608 & 159
  • 210.00
  • 210.00
  • 70.00
  • CGRM
  • CGRM
  • CARM
  • e. Renewal (Per Call Sign); Minor Renewal/Mod (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159
  • 601 & 159
  • 70.00 CARR *
  • CARM
  • f. Notice of Completion of Construction or Extension of Time to Construct (Per Application) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CARM g. Special Temporary Authority (Per Transmitter) 601 & 159 395.00 CLRM h. Special Temporary Authority (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 395.00 CLRM i. Combining Call Signs (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 395.00 CLRM j. Auxiliary Test Station (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 395.00 CLRM k. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 210.00 CGRM l. Minor Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 70.00 CARM 19. Offshore Radio: a. New; Major Mod; Additional Facility; Major Amendment; Major Renew/Mod; Fill in Transmitters (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 210.00 CGF b. Consolidate Call Signs (Per Call Sign); Auxiliary Test (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 395.00 CLF c. Minor Modification; Minor Renewal/Modification (Per Transmitter); Notice of Completion of Construction or Extension of Time to Construct (Per Application); Renewal (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CAF d. Assignment of License; Transfer of Control (Full or Partial) 603 & 159 210.00 CGF Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 210.00 CGF Additional Calls (Electronic Filing Required) 603 or 608 & 159 70.00 CAF e. Special Temporary Authority (Per Transmitter) 601 & 159 395.00 CLF f. Special Temporary Authority (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 395.00 CLF g. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 210.00 CGF h. Minor Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 70.00 CAF 20. Broadband Radio Service (Previously Multipoint Distribution Service): a. New station/Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 305.00 (Per call sign) CJM b. Major Modification of Licenses (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 305.00 CJM c. Certification of Completion of Construction (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 895.00 (Per call sign) CPM d. License Renewal (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 305.00 CJM e. Assignment of Authorization; Transfer of Control (first station) (Electronic Filing Required) Spectrum Leasing (first station) Additional Station 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 110.00
  • 110.00
  • 70.00
  • CCM
  • CCM
  • CAM
  • f. Extension of Construction Authorization (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 255.00 (Per call sign) CHM g. Special Temporary Authority or Request for Waiver of Prior Construction Authorization (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 140.00 (Per call sign) CEM h. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 140.00 (Per call sign) CEM i. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 305.00 (Per Lease Id.) CJM j. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event First Station on Application 609-T & 159 110.00 CCM k. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event Each Additional Station 609-T & 159 70.00 CAM 21. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) Petitions Correspondence & 159 6,945.00 CALA
    3. Section 1.1103 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1103 Schedule of charges for equipment approval, experimental radio services (or service).

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, OET Services, P.O. Box 979095, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment type code Equipment Approval Service(s) 1. Certification: a. Receivers (except TV and FM) (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 $560.00 EEC b. Devices Under Parts 11, 15 & 18 (except receivers) (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 1,440.00 EGC c. All Other Devices (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 725.00 EFT d. Modifications and Class II Permissive Changes (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 70.00 EAC e. Request for Confidentiality under Certification (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 210.00 EBC f. Class III Permissive Changes (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 725.00 ECC 2. Advance Approval of Subscription TV Systems: Corres & 159 4,415.00 EIS a. Request for Confidentiality For Advance Approval of Subscription TV Systems Corres & 159 210.00 EBS 3. Assignment of Grantee Code: a. For all Application Types, except Subscription TV (Electronic Filing Only—Optional Electronic Payment) Electronic Assignment & Form 159 or Optional Electronic Payment 70.00 EAG 4. Experimental Radio Service(s): a. New Station Authorization 442 & 159 70.00 EAE b. Modification of Authorization 442 & 159 70.00 EAE c. Renewal of Station Authorization 405 & 159 70.00 EAE d. Assignment of License or Transfer of Control 702 & 159 70.00 EAE or 703 & 159 70.00 EAE e. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 70.00 EAE f. Additional fee required for any of the above applications that request withholding from public inspection Corres & 159 70.00 EAE
    4. Section 1.1104 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1104 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for media services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau Services, P.O. Box 979089, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. The asterisk (*) indicates that multiple stations and multiple fee submissions are acceptable within the same post office box.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment type code 1. Commercial TV Services a. New and Major Change Construction Permits (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 $4,960.00 MVT b. Minor Change (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 1,110.00 MPT c. Main Studio Request Corres & 159 1,110.00 MPT d. New License (per application) (Electronic Filing) 302-TV & 159
  • 302-DTV & 159
  • 335.00
  • 335.00
  • MJT
  • MJT
  • e. License Renewal (per application) (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 200.00 MGT f. License Assignment: (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 314 & 159 1,110.00 MPT * (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 160.00 MDT * g. Transfer of Control: (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 315 & 159 1,110.00 MPT * (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 160.00 MDT * h. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 110.00 MBT i. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 MGT j. Petition for Rulemaking for New Community of License (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159
  • 302-TV & 159
  • 3,065.00
  • 3,065.00
  • MRT
  • MRT
  • k. Ownership Report (Electronic Filing) 323 & 159
  • Corres &159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • MAT *
  • MAT *
  • 2. Commercial AM Radio Stations: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 4,415.00 MUR b. Minor Change (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 1,110.00 MPR c. Main Studio Request (per request) Corres & 159 1,110.00 MPR d. New License (per application) (Electronic Filing) 302-AM & 159 725.00 MMR e. AM Directional Antenna (per application) (Electronic Filing) 302-AM & 159 835.00 MOR f. AM Remote Control (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 70.00 MAR g. License Renewal (per application) (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 200.00 MGR h. License Assignment: (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 314 & 159 1,110.00 MPR * (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 160.00 MDR * i. Transfer of Control: (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 315 & 159 1,110.00 MPR * (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 160.00 MDR * j. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 110.00 MBR k. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 MGR l. Ownership Report (Electronic Filing) 323 & 159 or
  • Corres & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • MAR
  • MAR
  • 3. Commercial FM Radio Stations: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 3,975.00 MTR b. Minor Change (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 1,110.00 MPR c. Main Studio Request (per request) Corres & 159 1,110.00 MPR d. New License (Electronic Filing) 302-FM & 159 225.00 MHR e. FM Directional Antenna (Electronic Filing) 302-FM & 159 695.00 MLR f. License Renewal (per application) (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 200.00 MGR g. License Assignment: (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 314 & 159 1,110.00 MPR * (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 160.00 MDR * h. Transfer of Control: (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 315 & 159 1,110.00 MPR * (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 160.00 MDR * i. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 110.00 MBR j. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 MGR k. Petition for Rulemaking for New Community of License or Higher Class Channel (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 or
  • 302-FM & 159
  • 3,065.00
  • 3,065.00
  • MRR
  • MRR
  • l. Ownership Report (Electronic Filing) 323 & 159 or
  • Corres & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • MAR
  • MAR
  • 4. FM Translators: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (Electronic Filing) 349 & 159 835.00 MOF b. New License (Electronic Filing) 350 & 159 170.00 MEF c. License Renewal (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 70.00 MAF d. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 MGF e. License Assignment (Electronic Filing) 345 & 159 160.00 MDF * 314 & 159 160.00 MDF * 316 & 159 160.00 MDF * f. Transfer of Control (Electronic Filing) 345 & 159 160.00 MDF * 315 & 159 160.00 MDF * 316 & 159 160.00 MDF* 5. TV Translators and LPTV Stations: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (per application) (Electronic Filing) 346 & 159 835.00 MOL b. New License (per application) (Electronic Filing) 347 & 159 170.00 MEL c. License Renewal (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 70.00 MAL* d. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 MGL e. License Assignment (Electronic Filing) 345 & 159
  • 314 & 159
  • 316 & 159
  • 160.00
  • 160.00
  • 160.00
  • MDL *
  • MDL *
  • MDL *
  • f. Transfer of Control (Electronic Filing) 345 & 159
  • 315 & 159
  • 316 & 159
  • 160.00
  • 160.00
  • 160.00
  • MDL *
  • MDL *
  • MDL *
  • g. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 110.00 MBT 6. FM Booster Stations: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (Electronic Filing) 349 & 159 835.00 MOF b. New License (Electronic Filing) 350 & 159 170.00 MEF c. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 MGF 7. TV Booster Stations: a. New or Major Change (Electronic Filing) 346 & 159 835.00 MOF b. New License (Electronic Filing) 347 & 159 170.00 MEF c. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 MGF 8. Class A TV Services: a. New and Major Change Construction Permits (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301-CA & 159 4,960.00 MVT b. New License (per application) (Electronic Filing) 302-CA & 159 335.00 MJT c. License Renewal (per application) (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 200.00 MGT d. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 MGT e. License Assignment: (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 314 & 159 1,110.00 MPT * (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 160.00 MDT * f. Transfer of Control: (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 315 & 159 1,110.00 MPT * (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 160.00 MDT * g. Main Studio Request Corres & 159 1,110.00 MPT h. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 110.00 MBT 9. Cable Television Services: a. CARS License 327 & 159 305.00 TIC b. CARS Modifications 327 & 159 305.00 TIC c. CARS License Renewal (Electronic Filing) 327 & 159 305.00 TIC d. CARS License Assignment 327 & 159 305.00 TIC e. CARS Transfer of Control 327 & 159 305.00 TIC f. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 200.00 TGC g. Cable Special Relief Petition Corres & 159 1,550.00 TQC h. Cable Community Registration (Electronic Filing) 322 & 159 70.00 TAC i. Aeronautical Frequency Usage Notifications (Electronic Filing) 321 & 159 70.00 TAC
    5. Section 1.1105 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1105 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the wireline competition services.

    Payments should be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Manual filings and/or payments for these services are no longer accepted.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment type code 1. Domestic 214 Applications Corres & 159 $1,195.00 CDT 2. Tariff Filings: a. Filing Fees (per transmittal or cover letter) Corres & 159 960.00 CQK b. Application for Special Permission Filing (request for waiver of any rule in Part 61 of the Commission's Rules) (per request) Corres & 159 960.00 CQK c. Waiver of Part 69 Tariff Rules (per request) Corres & 159 960.00 CQK 3. Accounting: a. Review of Depreciation Update Study (single state) Corres & 159 40,465.00 BKA (i) Each Additional State Corres & 159 1,335.00 CVA b. Petition for Waiver (per petition) (i) Waiver of Part 69 Accounting Rules & Part 32 Accounting Rules, Part 43 Reporting Requirements, Part 64 Allocation of Costs Rules, Part 65 Rate of Return & Rate Base Rules Corres & 159 9,120.00 BEA (ii) Part 36 Separation Rules Corres & 159 9,120.00 BEB
    6. Section 1.1106 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1106 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the enforcement services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, P.O. Box 979094, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 with the exception of Accounting and Audits, which will be invoiced. Carriers should follow invoice instructions when making payment.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment type code 1. Formal Complaints Corres & 159 $235.00 CIZ 2. Accounting and Audits: a. Field Audit Carriers will be invoiced for the amount due 121,845.00 BMA b. Review of Attest Audit Carriers will be invoiced for the amount due 66,510.00 BLA 3. Development and Review of Agreed upon—Procedures Engagement: Corres & 159 66,510.00 BLA 4. Pole Attachment Complaint Corres & 159 295.00 TPC
    7. Section 1.1107 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1107 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the international services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, International Bureau Applications, P.O. Box 979093, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment type code 1. International Fixed Public Radio (Public & Control Stations). a. Initial Construction Permit (per station) 407 & 159 $1,000.00 CSN b. Assignment or Transfer (per Application) 702 & 159 or
  • 704 & 159
  • 1,000.00
  • 1,000.00
  • CSN
  • CSN
  • c. Renewal (per license ) 405 & 159 725.00 CON d. Modification (per station) 403 & 159 725.00 CON e. Extension of Construction Authorization (per station) 701 & 159 365.00 CKN f. Special Temporary Authority or request for Waiver (per request) Corres & 159 365.00 CKN 2. Section 214 Applications: a. Overseas Cable Construction Corres & 159 17,850.00 BIT b. Cable Landing License: (i) Common Carrier Corres & 159 2,005.00 CXT (ii) Non-Common Carrier Corres & 159 19,855.00 BJT c. All other International 214 Applications Corres & 159 1,195.00 CUT d. Special Temporary Authority (all services) Corres & 159 1,195.00 CUT e. Assignments or transfers (all services) Corres & 159 1,195.00 CUT 3. Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations: a. Initial Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 2,985.00 BAX b. Modification of License (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 210.00 CGX c. Assignment or Transfer: (i) First station 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 590.00 CNX (ii) Each Additional Station Attachment to 312-Schedule A 200.00 CFX d. Renewal of License (per station ) 312-R & 159 210.00 CGX e. Special Temporary Authority (per request) 312 Main & 159 210.00 CGX f. Amendment of Pending Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 210.00 CGX g. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per station) 312 Main & 159 210.00 CGX 4. Fixed Satellite transmit/receive Earth Stations (2 meters or less operating in the 4/6 GHz frequency band): a. Lead Application 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 6,615.00 BDS b. Routine Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 70.00 CAS c. Modification of License (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 210.00 CGS d. Assignment or Transfer: (i) First Station 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 590.00 CNS (ii) Each Additional Station Attachment to 312-Schedule A 70.00 CAS e. Renewal of License (per station) 312-R & 159 210.00 CGS f. Special Temporary Authority (per request) 312 Main & 159 210.00 CGS g. Amendment of Pending Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule A or B & 159 210.00 CGS h. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per station ) 312 & 159 210.00 CGS 5. Receive Only Earth Stations: a. Initial Applications for Registration or License (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 450.00 CMO b. Modification of License or Registration (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 210.00 CGO c. Assignment or Transfer: (i) First Station 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 590.00 CNO (ii) Each Additional Station Attachment to 312-Schedule A 200.00 CFO d. Renewal of License (per station) 312-R & 159 210.00 CGO e. Amendment of Pending Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule A or B & 159 210.00 CGO f. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per station) 312 Main & 159 210.00 CGO g. Waivers (per request) Corres & 159 210.00 CGO 6. Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems: a. Initial Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 11,015.00 BGV b. Modification of License (per system) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 210.00 CGV c. Assignment or Transfer of System 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 2,945.00 CZV d. Renewal of License (per system) 312-R & 159 210.00 CGV e. Special Temporary Authority (per request) 312 & 159 210.00 CGV f. Amendment of Pending Application (per system) 312 Main & Schedule A or B & 159 210.00 CGV g. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per system) 312 & 159 210.00 CGV 7. Mobile Satellite Earth Stations: a. Initial Applications of Blanket Authorization 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 11,015.00 BGB b. Initial Application for Individual Earth Station 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 2,645.00 CYB c. Modification of License (per system) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 210.00 CGB d. Assignment or Transfer (per system) 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 2,945.00 CZB e. Renewal of License (per system) 312-R & 159 210.00 CGB f. Special Temporary Authority (per request) 312 & 159 210.00 CGB g. Amendment of Pending Application (per system) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 210.00 CGB h. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per system) 312 & 159 210.00 CGB 8. Space Stations (Geostationary): a. Application for Authority to Launch & Operate (per satellite): (i) Initial Application 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 136,930.00 BNY (ii) Replacement Satellite 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 136,930.00 BNY b. Assignment or Transfer (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 9,785.00 BFY c. Modification (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S (if needed) & 159 9,785.00 BFY d. Special Temporary Authority (per satellite) 312 & 159 980.00 CRY e. Amendment of Pending Application (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S (if needed) & 159 1,960.00 CWY f. Extension of Launch Authority (per satellite) 312 Main & Corres & 159 980.00 CRY 9. Space Stations (NGSO): a. Application for Authority to Launch & Operate (per system of technically identical satellites) satellites) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 471,575.00 CLW b. Assignment or Transfer (per system) 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 13,480.00 CZW c. Modification (per system) 312 Main & Schedule S (if needed) & 159 33,685.00 CGW d. Special Temporary Authority (per request) Corres & 159 3,375.00 CXW e. Amendment of Pending Application (per request) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 6,740.00 CAW f. Extension of Launch Authority (per system) 312 Main & 159 3,375.00 CXW 10. Direct Broadcast Satellites: a. Authorization to Construct or Major Modification (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 3,975.00 MTD b. Construction Permit and Launch Authority (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 38,555.00 MXD c. License to Operate (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 1,110.00 MPD d. Special Temporary Authority (per satellite) 312 Main & 159 200.00 MGD 11. International Broadcast Stations: a. New Station & Facilities Change Construction Permit (per application) 309 & 159 3,340.00 MSN b. New License (per application) 310 & 159 755.00 MNN c. License Renewal (per application) 311 & 159 190.00 MFN d. License Assignment or Transfer of Control (per station license) 314 & 159 or
  • 315 & 159 or
  • 316 & 159
  • 120.00
  • 120.00
  • 120.00
  • MCN
  • MCN
  • MCN
  • e. Frequency Assignment & Coordination (per frequency hour) Corres & 159 70.00 MAN f. Special Temporary Authorization (per application) Corres & 159 200.00 MGN 12. Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations (per application): a. Commercial Television Stations 308 & 159 110.00 MBT b. Commercial AM or FM Radio Stations 308 & 159 110.00 MBR 13. Recognized Operating Agency (per application) Corres & 159 1,195.00 CUG
    8. Section 1.1108 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1108 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the international telecommunication services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, International Telecommunication Fees, P.O. Box 979096, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment type code 1. Administrative Fee for Collections (per line item) 99 & 99A $2.00 IAT 2. Telecommunication Charges 99 & 99A ITTS
    9. Section 1.1109 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1109 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the Homeland services.

    Payments should be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Manual filings and/or payments for these services are no longer accepted.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment type code 1. Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) Petitions Corres & 159 $6,945.00 CLEA
    [FR Doc. 2018-16039 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 47 CFR Part 400 [Docket No. 170420407-8048-02] RIN 0660-AA33; RIN 2127-AL86 911 Grant Program AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Commerce (DOC); and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action revises the implementing regulations for the 911 Grant Program, as a result of the enactment of the Next Generation 911 (NG911) Advancement Act of 2012. The 911 Grant Program provides grants to improve 911 services, E-911 services, and NG911 services and applications.

    DATES:

    This final rule becomes effective on August 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For program issues: Daniel Phythyon, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4076, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5802; email: [email protected]; or

    Laurie Flaherty, Coordinator, National 911 Program, Office of Emergency Medical Services, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, NPD-400, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-2705; email: [email protected]

    For legal issues: Michael Vasquez, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4713, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1816; email: [email protected]; or

    Megan Brown, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, NCC-300, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-1834; email: [email protected]ot.gov.

    For media inquiries: Stephen F. Yusko, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of Public Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4897, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7002; email: [email protected]; or

    Karen Aldana, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of Communications and Consumer Information, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W52-306, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-3280; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Statutory Requirements III. Comments A. General Comments B. Definitions (400.2) C. Who May Apply (400.3) 1. Tribal Organizations 2. Local Applicants D. Application Requirements (400.4) 1. One Versus Two Step Application Process 2. Other Application Issues E. Approval and Award (400.5) F. Distribution of Grant Funds (400.6) 1. Formula 2. Tribal Organizations G. Eligible Uses for Grant Funds (400.7) 1. NG911 Services 2. Training 3. Planning and Administration 4. Operation of 911 System H. Continuing Compliance (400.8) I. Waiver Authority (400.11) IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Background

    In 2009, NTIA and NHTSA issued regulations implementing the E-911 Grant Program enacted in the Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers Employing 911 (ENHANCE 911) Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-494, codified at 47 U.S.C. 942) (74 FR 26965, June 5, 2009). Accordingly, in 2009, NTIA and NHTSA made more than $40 million in grants available to 30 States and Territories to help 911 call centers nationwide upgrade equipment and operations through the E-911 Grant Program.

    In 2012, the NG911 Advancement Act of 2012 (Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, Title VI, Subtitle E (codified at 47 U.S.C. 942)) enacted changes to the program. The NG911 Advancement Act provides new funding for grants to be used for the implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of NG911 services and applications; the implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services. In 2016, about $115 million from spectrum auction proceeds were deposited into the Public Safety Trust Fund and made available to NTIA and NHTSA for the 911 Grant Program.1 On September 21, 2017, the Agencies published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking public comment on proposed regulations for the 911 Grant Program.2

    1 The Public Safety Trust Fund (TAS 13-12/22-8233) is an account established in the Treasury and managed by NTIA. From this account, NTIA makes available funds for a number of public safety related programs, including the 911 Grant Program. See 47 U.S.C. 1457(b)(6).

    2See NTIA and NHTSA, 911 Grant Program, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 82 FR 44131 (Sept. 21, 2017), available at https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-09-21/pdf/2017-19944.pdf (NPRM).

    For more than 40 years, local and state 911 call centers, also known as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), have served the public in emergencies. PSAPs receive incoming 911 calls from the public and dispatch the appropriate emergency responders, such as police, fire, and emergency medical services, to the scene of emergencies. The purpose of the 911 Grant Program is to provide federal funding to support the transition of PSAPs and their interconnecting 911 network and core services, to facilitate migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of NG911 services and applications.

    There are approximately 6,000 PSAPs nationwide that are responsible for answering and processing 911 calls requiring a response from police, fire, and emergency medical services agencies.3 PSAPs collectively handle more than an estimated 240 million 911 calls each year.4 About 70 percent of all 911 calls annually are placed from wireless phones.5 Besides the public, PSAPs communicate with third-party call centers, other PSAPs, emergency service providers (e.g., dispatch agencies, first responders, and other public safety entities), and State emergency operations centers.6 Most PSAPs rely on decades-old, narrowband, circuit-switched networks capable of carrying only voice calls and very limited amounts of data.7 Advances in consumer technology offering capabilities such as text messaging and video communications have quickly outpaced those of PSAPs, which often cannot support callers who wish to send text messages, images, video, and other communications that utilize large amounts of data (e.g., telematics, sensor information).8

    3 Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Final Report of the Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA) at 15 (Jan. 29, 2016), available at https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_FINALReport_012916.pdf (TFOPA Final Report). The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) estimates that there are 5,874 primary and secondary PSAPs as of January 2017. NENA 9-1-1 Statistics, available at http://www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics.

    4 TFOPA Final Report at 15. See also, NENA 9-1-1 Statistics.

    5Id.

    6 TFOPA Final Report at 15.

    7Id.

    8Id.

    While there are still an estimated 50 counties that are using “Basic” 911 infrastructure, the majority of State and local jurisdictions have completed the process of updating their 911 network's infrastructure since the ENHANCE 911 Act was passed in 2004.9 As of January 2017, data collected by the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) show that 98.6 percent of PSAPs are capable of receiving Phase II E-911 10 calls, providing E-911 service to 98.6 percent of the U.S. population and 96.5 percent of our country's counties.11 With the transition to E-911 essentially completed, State and local jurisdictions are now focused on migrating to NG911 infrastructure.

    9 NENA 9-1-1 Statistics.

    10See 47 CFR 20.18(e), (h) (defining Phase II enhanced 911 service).

    11 NENA 9-1-1 Statistics.

    NG911 is an initiative to modernize today's 911 services so that citizens, first responders, and 911 call-takers can use IP-based, broadband-enabled technologies to coordinate emergency responses.12 Using multiple formats, such as voice, text messages, photos, and video, NG911 enables 911 calls to contain real-time caller location and emergency information, improve coordination among the nation's PSAPs, dynamically re-route calls based on location and PSAP congestion, and connect first responders to key health and government services in the event of an emergency.13

    12 National 911 Program, Next Generation 911 for Leaders in Law Enforcement Educational Supplement at 3 (2013), available at https://www.911.gov/pdf/National_911_Program_NG911_Publication_Leaders_Law_Enforcement_2013.pdf.

    13Id. at 4-5.

    Data collected by the National 911 Profile Database in 2016 show that 20 of the 46 States submitting data have adopted a statewide NG911 plan, 17 of 46 States are installing and testing basic components of the NG911 infrastructure, 10 of 45 States have 100 percent of their PSAPs connected to an Emergency Services IP Network, and 9 of 45 States are using NG911 infrastructure to receive and process 911 voice calls.14 These data suggest that most State and local jurisdictions have already invested in and completed implementation of both basic 911 services and E-911 services and are focused on migration to NG911. The 911 Grant Program now seeks to provide financial support for investment in the forward-looking technology of NG911 as contemplated by the NG911 Advancement Act.

    14 National 911 Program, 2016 National 911 Progress Report at 3, 85, 89 (Dec. 2016), available at https://www.911.gov/pdf/National_911_Program_Profile_Database_Progress_Report_2016.pdf.

    II. Statutory Requirements

    The Agencies' action implements modifications to the E-911 Grant Program as required by the NG911 Advancement Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, Subtitle E, codified at 47 U.S.C. 942). The NG911 Advancement Act modifies the 911 Grant Program to incorporate NG911 services while preserving the basic structure of the program, which provided matching grants to eligible State and local governments and Tribal Organizations for the implementation and operation of Phase II services, E-911 services, or migration to an IP-enabled emergency network.

    The NG911 Advancement Act, however, broadens the eligible uses of funds from the 911 Grant Program to include: Adoption and operation of NG911 services and applications; the implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by NG911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services. The NG911 Advancement Act also increases the maximum Federal share of the cost of a project eligible for a grant from 50 percent to 60 percent.

    States or other taxing jurisdictions that have diverted fees collected for 911 services remain ineligible for grants under the program and a State or jurisdiction that diverts fees during the term of the grant must repay all grant funds awarded. The NG911 Advancement Act further clarifies that prohibited diversion of 911 fees includes elimination of fees as well as redesignation of fees for purposes other than implementation or operation of 911 services, E-911 services, or NG911 services during the term of the grant.

    III. Comments

    The Agencies received submissions from 21 commenters in response to the NPRM. Commenters included the following five State and local agencies: The City of Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications (Chicago OEMC); the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CO PUC); the District of Columbia Office of Unified Communications (DC OUC); the Missouri Department of Public Safety (MO DPS); and the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications (TX CSEC). Four associations and consortiums provided comments: the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials— International, Inc. (APCO); the National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA); the National Emergency Number Association, Inc. (NENA); and the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC). There were two corporate commenters: Carbyne Public Safety Systems (Carbyne) and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola). Ten individual commenters also provided comments: Annabel Cortez; Daniel Ramirez; John Sage; Jonathan Brock; Lara Wood; Lisa Ondatje; S. Bennett; and three anonymous commenters. Of these comments, three were out of the scope of this rulemaking.15

    15 An anonymous commenter commented broadly on EPA grants. Jonathan Brock and the Missouri Department of Public Safety both commented to encourage inter-agency sharing of dark fiber resources at the State level. However, the 911 Grant Program is an implementation grant and does not opine on the technologies used by grantees to implement NG911.

    A. General Comments

    NASNA expressed general agreement with the Agencies' proposal to retain the E911 Grant Program regulations as the basic framework for the 911 Grant Program.16 We address NASNA's specific recommendations in the sections below.

    16 NASNA at 1, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0016.

    APCO recommended consistent use of “the National 911 program office” for purposes of administering the grant program in order to provide simplicity and avoid confusion.17 The regulatory text contains references to the ICO, the Administrator and Assistant Secretary (jointly), the Agencies, and to NHTSA. After reviewing these references, the Agencies have determined that, with the exception of one reference, these designations are appropriate to the roles fulfilled in each case. As a result, the Agencies have changed the reference to “Agencies” in 47 CFR 400.6(a)(2) to “ICO.”

    17 APCO at 5, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0010.

    Three commenters, Lisa Ondatje, Annabel Cortez, and S. Bennett, expressed general support for the importance of implementing NG911 technologies.18 Annabel Cortez further stressed that “[s]tatistics of 911 services are key to accurately measuring current status and implementation across the United States.” 19

    18See generally, Lisa Ondatje, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0007; Annabel Cortez, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0004; S. Bennett, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0003.

    19 Cortez.

    Four commenters discussed interoperability as a primary goal of the 911 Grant Program.20 APCO commented that the standards listed in the SAFECOM Guidance are “very broad, in some cases incomplete, and unlikely to ensure interoperability, at least without costly after-the-fact integrations.” 21 APCO recommended that the Agencies add a definition for “interoperable” and explicitly require that applicants' State 911 plans commit to ensuring that solutions meet clear interoperability requirements.22 Specifically, APCO suggested that the Agencies replace the word “interconnect” in 47 CFR 400.4(a)(1)(i)(B) with the term “interoperable.” 23 The proposed regulatory language in Section 400.4(a)(1)(i)(B) is a direct quote from the statute.24 While the Agencies agree that interoperability is an important goal in the implementation of an NG911 system, the Agencies believe that the statutory term “interconnect” sufficiently covers the goal of interoperability, and make no change to the regulation in response to this comment.

    20See APCO at 1-3; Carbyne, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0008; NENA at 2 (late-filed), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0017; NSGIC at 1, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0009.

    21 APCO at 2.

    22Id. at 3.

    23Id.

    24See 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(1)(B).

    B. Definitions (400.2)

    The DC OUC suggested that the agencies add a definition for “District” or “territories.” 25 The statutory definition for “State,” which the agencies have incorporated into the regulation in its entirety, includes the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories,26 therefore the agencies decline to make this change.

    25 DC OUC, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0005.

    26See 47 U.S.C. 942(e)(8).

    Two commenters requested changes to the definition for “Next Generation 911 services.” NASNA noted that some of the capabilities listed in the definition for Next Generation 911 services do not currently exist, and suggested that the definition be modified to clarify this.27 APCO requested clarification that NG911 services encompass the “operational goal whereby information sent to PSAPs can be received, processed, and acted upon.” 28 The agencies decline to make the requested changes because the regulatory definition incorporates the statutory definition.29 However, in the eligible uses section of the NPRM, the agencies specifically stated that grant recipients may choose to purchase or contract for services that provide the “hardware and software that perform the necessary functions enabling NG911 calls to be received, processed and dispatched.” 30 We reaffirm that here.

    27 NASNA at 1.

    28 APCO at 2.

    29See 47 U.S.C. 942(e)(5).

    30 NPRM, 82 FR 44131, 44135.

    C. Who May Apply (400.3) 1. Tribal Organizations

    Daniel Ramirez, NASNA, NENA, and an anonymous commenter all expressed general support for the Agencies' proposal to allow Tribal Organizations to apply directly for 911 Grant Program funding, noting that the prior regulations only allowed Tribal Organizations to receive grant funding through States and thus did not adequately support tribes.31 The anonymous commenter further noted that Tribal Organizations may have difficulty meeting program requirements, but did not specify which requirements.

    31 Daniel Ramirez, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0006; NASNA at 1-2; NENA at 1; Anonymous Comment One, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0002.

    The CO PUC cautioned the Agencies not to create a “one-size fits all” approach for Tribal Organization applications and participation because Tribal Organizations vary widely in “size, resources, and the current sophistication of their 9-1-1 systems.” 32 The CO PUC further noted that the ability of Tribal Organizations to meet the non-diversion, 911 Coordinator, or match requirements would likely vary by Tribal Organization.33 The Agencies agree that the needs and capacities of Tribal Organizations may vary widely. The Agencies believe that providing Tribal Organizations the option to apply for grant funding either directly or through States accommodates this diversity.

    32 CO PUC at 2, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0012.

    33Id. at 1-2.

    The CO PUC cautioned that if Tribal Organizations are allowed to obtain grant funding both directly and through States, it could lead to waste or duplication of efforts.34 The CO PUC recommended that the Agencies require Tribal Organizations to determine whether to apply individually or to be included in a State's application.35 Similarly, NASNA recommended that the Agencies require any applicant Tribal Organizations to inform the relevant State 911 Coordinator of their application in order to avoid duplication of efforts.36 As in the prior iteration of the program, each State applicant must coordinate its application with local governments, Tribal Organizations, and PSAPs within the State.37 In the course of this coordination—and prior to including a Tribal Organization in its application project budget—the State should determine whether a Tribal Organization within its jurisdiction intends to apply directly for grant funding. An applicant Tribal Organization must certify non-diversion by the State(s) in which it is located; to do so, a Tribal Organization should contact the State(s) in which it is located.38 The Agencies believe that the existing coordination inherent in the application process ensures that a State will not unknowingly account for a Tribal Organization in its grant application if that Tribal Organization has applied independently, and therefore, we do not believe any changes to the regulation are required.

    34Id. at 1.

    35Id.

    36 NASNA at 1-2.

    37 47 CFR 400.4(a)(1)(iii)(A).

    38Id. at § 400.4(b)(5).

    The Agencies specifically asked commenters whether tribal PSAPs collect 911 surcharge fees and/or receive State-provided 911 surcharge funds. The CO PUC responded that 911 surcharges are collected by local 911 governing bodies in Colorado and that one tribe, the Southern Ute Tribe, receives funding from the Emergency Telephone Service Authority of La Plata County. However, the CO PUC stated that it does not have reason to believe that the Southern Ute Tribe will have trouble certifying that it does not divert 911 surcharge fees.39

    39 CO PUC at 2.

    2. Local Applicants

    The Chicago OEMC suggested that cities with large 911 systems be allowed to apply directly for grants due to “the expansive scope of their operations as well as their specialized requirements.” 40 While the Agencies understand this concern, the Agencies continue to believe that limiting the applicant pool to States and Tribal Organizations is necessary in order to minimize administrative costs and to streamline the grant process. However, as in the prior iteration of the program, each applicant State is required to coordinate its application with local governments and PSAPs within the State and to ensure that 90 percent of the grant funds be used for the direct benefit of PSAPs.

    40 Chicago OEMC, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0013.

    D. Application Requirements (400.4) 1. One- Versus Two-Step Application Process

    The Agencies sought comment on whether to retain the one-step application process from the prior E911 Grant Program, or whether to use a proposed two-step application process. Two commenters, Motorola and the MO DPS, requested that the Agencies retain the one-step application process from the prior E911 Grant Program.41 Motorola explained that the one-step application would expedite the grant process and avoid confusion amongst applicants, and argued that the proposed two-step application process is burdensome by requiring 911 authorities to meet two deadlines.42 Four commenters—the CO PUC, NASNA, the TX CSEC, and an anonymous commenter—supported a two-step application process as proposed by the Agencies.43 Based on the comments received, including the more detailed comments described below, the Agencies have determined that a two-step application will provide applicants with the most stable initial funding levels upon which they can prepare project budgets and will ensure the most efficient application process.

    41See Motorola at 4-5, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0015; MO DPS, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0014.

    42See Motorola at 4-5.

    43See CO PUC at 3; NASNA at 2; TX CSEC at 2, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0011; Anonymous Comment One.

    NASNA expressed support for a two-step process, while noting several issues that may still arise under that process.44 NASNA noted that, for example, applicants may make the initial certifications, but later find they are unable to meet the match requirement or certify non-diversion of funds.45 Nonetheless, NASNA stated that “there is practical value to states in knowing exactly how much funding they can apply for.” 46

    44 NASNA at 2.

    45Id.

    46Id.

    The CO PUC noted that the two-step application process would be more efficient because it would not require applicants to submit a supplemental project budget after submitting their original applications.47 The Agencies do note, however, that although a supplemental budget is no longer required, applicants are still advised to submit a supplemental budget in the second step of the application process for use if additional funds become available at any point in the grant program.

    47 CO PUC at 3.

    The TX CSEC requested confirmation on some aspects of the two-step application process.48 The TX CSEC asked whether an applicant that does not submit the certifications by the initial application deadline would be precluded from further participation in the grant program.49 It further asked whether, in the event a State did not submit the initial certifications, “the portion of 911 grant funds that would otherwise be allocated to it by formula would be included in the preliminary funding allocations for certifying Applicants?” 50 In order to participate in the grant program, an applicant must submit the initial certifications by the initial application deadline. Failure to do so will remove that State from the funding pool; the preliminary funding levels will be calculated only for those applicants that submitted initial certifications. Finally, TX CSEC sought confirmation that the option to submit a supplemental project budget is meant to “to account for the possibility that, notwithstanding having submitted an acceptable initial certification, an Applicant may (a) ultimately not submit an application, (b) may submit an application with a budget less than its preliminary funding amount; (c) not be able to use all of its preliminary funding during the grant period, or (d) have to return a portion of grant funds as a result of being unable to provide a complete annual certification regarding or a previous certification was deemed inaccurate.” 51 The Agencies confirm this statement.

    48 TX CSEC at 2-3.

    49Id.

    50Id. at 2.

    51Id. at 2-3.

    The anonymous commenter recommended that the two-step process “should be implemented and run for a trial period,” and that the Agencies make modifications or return to the one-step process if the trial does not work.52 The funds made available from the Public Safety Trust Fund for the 911 Grant Program are available for obligation only until September 30, 2022. The Agencies do not believe that there is sufficient time before that date to undertake a second rulemaking to change the application process.

    52See Anonymous Comment One.

    2. Other Application Issues

    The DC OUC requested that the required State 911 Plan be “defined well,” noting that although DC has an NG911 Plan, it does not have a State 911 Plan because DC only has a single PSAP.53 Without specific concerns from commenters, the Agencies do not believe it is necessary to clarify those requirements further because the application requirements laid out in Section 400.4 provide a detailed description of the required components of a State 911 Plan. The Agencies note that in instances like that of DC where there is a single PSAP in an applicant's jurisdiction, it is not necessary to include multiple PSAPs in the State 911 Plan as described in the regulation.

    53See DC OUC.

    The MO DPS stated that “the requirement to give priority to communities without 911 from the current E-911 Grant Program should not be eliminated.” 54 The ENHANCE 911 Act, as amended by Public Law 110-53,55 directed the Agencies to allow a portion of the E-911 grant funds to be used to give this priority to PSAPs that could not receive 911 calls. The NG911 Advancement Act, however, eliminated that requirement and the Agencies do the same in this regulation.

    54 MO DPS.

    55 Title XXIII, section 2303, Aug. 3, 2007.

    The TX CSEC commented that the certification requirement “obligates each designated State 911 Coordinator (the Coordinator) to certify as to the non-diversion of designated 911 charges for all grant recipients,” including “taxing jurisdictions and grant recipients over whom the Coordinator may have no direct authority.” 56 TX CSEC proposed modifications to Section 400.4(a)(5) and Appendices A and C in order “to allow the State 9-1-1 Coordinator to receive and submit certifications directly from each taxing jurisdiction that will be a grant recipient,” so that the 911 Coordinator could “pass-through the certifications of [these] taxing jurisdictions.” 57 Applicants, through their 911 Coordinator, must certify that neither the State (or Tribal Organization) nor any taxing jurisdiction that directly receives grant funds has diverted or will divert designated 911 charges. The Agencies understand that applicants may not have authority over every taxing jurisdiction which receives grant funds. However, the statutory language and certification requirements are clear that each applicant must sign the certification. Applicants may, if they wish, solicit certifications from grant subrecipients as an internal matter, but the certification submitted to the Agencies must be signed by the 911 Coordinator. The Agencies, therefore, make no modifications to the regulatory language.

    56 TX CSEC at 3.

    57Id. at 3-4.

    APCO recommended that the Agencies allow applicants “that have already expended non-federal funds toward NG911 deployments to count such expenses as in-kind contributions” to satisfy the grant program's 40 percent non-Federal match requirement.58 To allow applicants to match grant funds based on previous investments in 911 would be contrary to the statutory intent. The NG911 Advancement Act mandates a 60 percent Federal share at the project level.59 The Agencies refer all applicants to 2 CFR 200.306 for more details on what is allowable to meet the match requirement.

    58 APCO at 4.

    59 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(2).

    E. Approval and Award (400.5)

    Lara Wood commented that 47 CFR 400.5(c) states that the agencies will announce awards by September 30, 2009, and suggested that the date should read September 30, 2019.60 September 30, 2009, is the date that appeared in the previously published E-911 Grant Program regulations. The new regulatory language does not include a specific award announcement date. Instead, the Agencies intend to provide the expected award date in the Notice of Funding Opportunity.

    60See Lara Wood, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0004.

    F. Distribution of Grant Funds (400.6) 1. Formula

    The Agencies requested comment on whether the existing grant distribution formula factors—population and public road mileage—remain appropriate, and if not, what factors they should consider. The Agencies sought specific comment on how to account for remote and rural areas.

    APCO commented that the Agencies' proposal to apportion “available grant funds across all of the states and tribal organizations, to serve 911, Enhanced 911 (E911), and NG911 purposes” would lead to only marginal enhancements in any given area.61 Instead, APCO suggested that the Agencies give grants for “model NG911 deployments for a few areas.” 62 While the Agencies understand APCO's concerns, the Agencies continue to believe that a formula-based distribution of grant funds to all eligible States is necessary to assist in the implementation of NG911 nationwide, not just in specific locations. The Agencies have set a minimum grant amount in order to ensure that each eligible State and Territory receives a more than de minimis amount of grant funds.

    61 APCO at 1.

    62Id.

    Several commenters—identified in more detail below—recommended additional or substitute factors to use in the funding allocation, including call volume, land area, tourism rates, terrain, cost of needed technological advancements, usage data of call centers, wealth of state/region, access to hospitals/emergency centers, and type of threat experienced by location.

    The MO DPS expressed support for retaining the current formula factors: Population and public road mileage.63 An anonymous commenter expressed support for using population and public road mileage as factors for distribution of funds, and suggested the following additional potential factors: “Data regarding the usage of call centers in those areas, wealth of the state or region and their access to hospitals and emergency centers.” 64 However, the anonymous commenter did not provide any explanation for those factors. NASNA stated that the currently proposed formula may not adequately fund rural areas, but cautioned against choosing a factor that advantages rural states with a large land mass over smaller rural states.65

    63See MO DPS.

    64 Anonymous Comment One.

    65 NASNA at 2.

    The DC OUC and the Chicago OEMC both suggested using call volume as a factor in the funding allocation in order to account for locations that have high tourist and commuter populations.66 Funds for the 911 Grant Program are distributed at the State level, rather than at the PSAP level. The Agencies are concerned that call volume, which might provide useful localized data, would be less useful once aggregated across a State with a mix of urban and rural areas.

    66See DC OUC, Chicago OEMC.

    Similarly, the CO PUC commented that it does not support the currently proposed formula because it is unfair to rural, mountainous states such as Colorado that have large tourist populations.67 The CO PUC agreed that cell towers retain an important role in the transmission of 911 calls to PSAPs, but disagreed with the Agencies' use of road miles as a proxy for cell towers because cell towers in Colorado are often built on mountain peaks far from roads.68 The CO PUC recommended the following formula: 40 percent population, 40 percent land area, and 20 percent tourism rates.69 The CO PUC further recommended that the Agencies consider including terrain as a factor in distributing grant funding.70 The Agencies acknowledge the difficulty of accounting for tourism and terrain differences between states. However, the commenter has not identified a reliable source for State-level tourism rates, nor provided any recommendation for translating terrain into a formula variable.

    67 CO PUC at 4.

    68Id.

    69 CO PUC at 5-6.

    70Id.

    An anonymous commenter supported better accounting for rural areas and advocated a weighted tiered system with individualized factors—including weighted scales to account for the types of threats to safety as well as the cost and type of the technological advancements needed—for determining grant funding amounts in order to provide for more flexibility.71 The commenter further recommended breaking States into geographic regions “so grants can be distributed to areas justifiably with public input.” 72 While the Agencies appreciate the importance of directing grant funds where they are needed most, the Agencies recognize that it is necessary to streamline the grant process in order to provide timely awards. In addition, the Agencies do not have the expertise to make this type of localized determination. The Agencies believe that States are best situated to determine the needs of localities within their borders. The Agencies have, therefore, limited applications to States and Tribal Organizations. The Agencies make no change to the rule in response to this comment.

    71See Anonymous Comment Two, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0005.

    72Id.

    After considering the comments submitted, and consistent with the Agencies' specific responses above, the Agencies have determined that the existing formula, which equally accounts for population and road miles, is the most reliable method for calculating the distribution of 911 Grant Program funds.

    2. Tribal Organizations

    The Agencies specifically sought comment on how to distribute grant funds to Tribal Organizations. Two commenters, the CO PUC and an anonymous commenter, expressed support for applying the same formula to States and Tribal Organizations as proposed by the Agencies.73 The CO PUC further recommended setting a floor level of funding for Tribal Organizations, similar to the minimum grant amounts provided for States and Territories.74 The Agencies decline to set a minimum grant amount for Tribal Organizations because the size of Tribal Organizations varies so widely that a minimum funding level could create inequities and inefficiencies. Therefore, the Agencies will retain the proposed maximum funding level applicable to Tribal Organizations.

    73See CO PUC at 5, Anonymous Comment One.

    74See CO PUC at 5.

    G. Eligible Uses for Grant Funds (400.7)

    The regulatory language of 47 CFR 400.7 lays out the broad parameters of eligible use of 911 Grant Program funds. The Agencies provided additional clarification on certain specific uses of funds in the preamble to the NPRM. The Agencies received several comments relating to these uses. In order to keep the regulatory language broad, and to provide flexibility to grant recipients, the Agencies make no change to the regulatory language in response to these comments, but will address those comments here to provide further clarification.

    1. NG911 Services

    APCO and the CO PUC expressed support for the Agencies' proposal to provide grant recipients the flexibility to determine whether to provide NG911 services directly or through a contract.75 APCO further suggested that the Agencies encourage applicants to “propose forward-thinking solutions for NG911, even if the proposals deviate from traditional approaches to NG911 network architectures.” 76 Provided that the hardware, software, and/or services comply with current NG911 standards, the Agencies do not proscribe specific architecture for a grantee's NG911 system.

    75See APCO at 3, CO PUC at 6-7.

    76 APCO at 3.

    The DC OUC and the MO DPS requested that the Agencies add consulting services to assist with the NG911 transition and deployment as an eligible cost.77 In 47 CFR 400.9(a), the Agencies identified the requirements of 2 CFR part 200, including the cost principles in Subpart E, as applicable to the grants awarded under this program. In accordance with those cost principles, consultant costs are allowable provided that certain conditions are met. Commenters are directed to the applicable cost principle, 2 CFR 200.459—Professional service costs, for detail.

    77See DC OUC, MO DPS.

    NENA supports the Agencies' incorporation of the NG911 standards, as listed in the DHS SAFECOM Guidance, Appendix B, which NENA notes incorporates by reference many NENA standards.78 NENA specifically urged the Agencies to encourage grant recipients to implement i3-based deployments, relying on the NENA i3 standard laid out in “Detailed Functional and Interface Specifications for the NENA i3 Solution.” 79 Similarly, NSGIC commented that the Agencies should more explicitly require applicants to follow NENA's i3 standard, instead of the existing incorporation of the DHS SAFECOM Guidance.80 The Agencies would like to clarify that the SAFECOM Guidance contains a list of acceptable standards which is a vital resource for developing an NG911 system that meets the goal of interoperability. The Agencies reaffirm the requirement for grant recipients to specify that hardware, software, and services comply with current NG911 standards; however, individual products only need to meet the relevant standard(s) within the list of standards in the SAFECOM Guidance. As NENA notes in its comment, the DHS SAFECOM Guidance incorporates by reference the 911 Program's “NG911 Standards Identification and Review,” which in turn lists NENA's i3 standard.

    78See NENA at 2.

    79Id.

    80 NSGIC at 1-2.

    Conversely, the CO PUC recommended that States be able to apply for waivers of the requirement that hardware, software, and services comply with the current NG911 standards listed in DHS's SAFECOM Guidance in certain instances—for example, when unable to find a product that meets all of the listed standards.81 The Agencies do not believe that waivers are the most effective means of addressing the problem of vendors that do not meet existing standards. Rather, any vendor that believes it is impossible to meet existing standards is encouraged to work with the relevant Standards Development Organization (SDO) to revise existing standards.

    81 CO PUC at 7.

    Carbyne expressed support for innovative solutions in NG911 and recommended that “any allocation of grant funds must come with the requirement that software and hardware be able to communicate with different PSAPs based on clearly defined standards that the FCC demands.” 82 The FCC has jurisdiction to regulate the telecommunications service providers that deliver 911 calls from the public to PSAPs, whereas the 911 Grant Program provides funds for the direct benefit of PSAPs to improve the 911 system. FCC standards, therefore, are not applicable to hardware and software purchased using 911 Grant Program funds.

    82 Carbyne.

    NSGIC commented that development and maintenance of geospatial datasets are necessary in order to support the desired NG911 services of call routing and coordinated incident response and management.83 NSGIC provided suggested regulatory language modifications to the definition of Next Generation 911 services (Section 400.2), to the Application requirements section (Section 400.4(a)(1)(i)(B)), and to the Eligible uses section (Section 400.7(b)) to incorporate geographic information system (GIS) data.84 The Agencies agree that GIS data is an integral component of the NG911 system. However, GIS data is already included in the broader terms “software” and “data,” which are used in the specified regulatory provisions. Furthermore, the regulatory provisions to which NSGIC provides recommended modifications are taken directly from the statutory language. Therefore, the Agencies decline to make the suggested modifications.

    83 NSGIC at 1.

    84Id. at 2.

    The CO PUC requested clarification as to what qualifies as an “NG911 application eligible for funding,” and specifically asked whether a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system configured similar to an Emergency Services IP-network, or a CAD or radio system that is interoperable with the NG911 network, would be considered an eligible “NG911 application.” 85 The regulation allows use of funds for “IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by NG911 services.” 86 Whether a CAD or a radio system is an eligible application enabled by NG911 services, therefore, depends on whether the CAD or radio system is IP-enabled.

    85 CO PUC at 6.

    86 47 CFR 400.7(b).

    NENA urged the Agencies to “encourage applicants to include relevant [independent verification and validation testing (IV&V)] for all proposed product, service, and system purchases funded with grant monies, or to fund collaborative, multi-jurisdictional IV&V testing” to ensure interoperability.87 The NG911 Advancement Act was established to facilitate implementation of NG911 services. While IV&V testing may be a useful tool for grantees, the Agencies do not believe that IV&V testing by individual States is an effective or efficient use of the limited grant funds available at this time.

    87 NENA at 1-2.

    2. Training

    The Agencies requested comment on whether they should set a limit on the amount of 911 Grant Program funds that may be used for training and whether training funds should be limited to training designed to meet the “Recommended Minimum Training Guidelines for Telecommunicators,” 88 developed as part of a three-year effort by the National 911 program office. Two commenters, APCO and Motorola, stated that use of 911 Grant Program funds for training should not be limited to training designed to meet the “Recommended Minimum Training Guidelines for Telecommunicators.” 89 APCO recommended that eligible training “should be related to operationalizing NG911 capabilities,” whereas Motorola recommended that “NG9-1-1 grant program funds should therefore be made available to support all levels of 9-1-1 services training.” 90 The CO PUC expressed support for the Minimum Training Guidelines developed by the National 911 Program Office and commented that those guidelines were not unduly burdensome. The CO PUC then stated that it recommends that training expenses “be strictly limited to training pertaining to NG9-1-1 transition and implementation,” but does not believe that there should be a limit on the amount of funds expended on training.91

    88See National 911 Program, “Recommended Minimum Training Guidelines for Telecommunicators” (May 19, 2016), available at http://www.911.gov/pdf/Recommended_Minimum_Training_Guidelines_for_the_911_Telecommunicator_FINAL_May_19_2016.pdf (Minimum Training Guidelines).

    89See APCO at 4, Motorola at 4.

    90 APCO at 4, Motorola at 4.

    91 CO PUC at 7.

    After considering the comments received, the Agencies believe that it is important to retain flexibility for grant recipients while ensuring efficient use of funds to meet the statutory intent to assist implementation of NG911. Therefore, the Agencies will not set a limit on the amount of funds that may be used for training. However, 911 Grant Program funds may only be used for training that is related to NG911 implementation and operations. In order to ensure similar levels of training across the different components of NG911, the “Recommended Minimum Training Guidelines for Telecommunicators” must serve as a base level for training provided.

    In response to the Agencies' request for comment on possible methods of documentation of PSAP compliance with the Minimum Training Guidelines, the CO PUC recommended certification by the 911 coordinator.92 The Agencies' goal is to ensure that training provided using 911 Grant Program funding at least meet the Minimum Training Guidelines with the least burden on grantees. As such, the Agencies will require grantees to submit documentation that describes the training being provided and that identifies the included elements from the Minimum Training Guidelines.

    92See id. at 8.

    The CO PUC recommended that the Agencies allow recipients to use grant funds to “establish an ongoing training program for public safety telecommunicators.” 93 The Agencies believe that establishing an ongoing training program is already an allowable expense under the program, though some costs of establishing such a program may qualify as administrative expenses subject to the 10 percent maximum.

    93Id. at 7.

    3. Planning and Administration

    The Agencies proposed allowing the use of funds for an assessment, using the FCC's “NG911 Readiness Scorecard,” 94 in order to assist States in determining the status of their current 911 systems as part of the NG911 implementation process. APCO and the CO PUC both agreed with the Agencies' proposal to allow grant recipients to use a portion of the 10 percent maximum for administrative costs to perform an assessment of the current 911 system.95 However, APCO stated that “the Office should avoid limiting applicants' self-assessments to any particular tool,” such as the NG911 Readiness Scorecard.96 The NG911 Readiness Scorecard was developed by the Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture, with extensive participation from the 911 stakeholder community, both private and public. One of the most important capacities of 911 systems is interoperability. The Agencies believe that a common assessment will help in this goal. For this reason, the Agencies strongly recommend that grantees complete an assessment using the NG911 Readiness Scorecard, but grantees may choose another basis for their assessments.

    94See FCC, TFOPA Working Group 2 Phase II Supplemental Report: NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard (Dec. 2, 2016), available at https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_WG2_Supplemental_Report-120216.pdf.

    95See APCO at 4, CO PUC at 8.

    96 APCO at 4.

    4. Operation of 911 System

    The MO DPS stated that “[f]or 911-PSAPs that only have basic 911 infrastructure and the legacy enhancements from the 2009 E-911 grant, sustainment and maintenance of those systems should be considered as an eligible cost.” 97 Relatedly, the DC OUC requested that the agencies allow recipients to use grant funds for “continuation or maintenance of NG911” for “early adopters.” 98 However, in order to maximize use of funds to meet the statutory goal of implementation of an NG911 system, the Agencies have determined that grant recipients may only use 911 Grant Program funds to cover the costs of operating the NG911 system during the period when the recipient is also operating the current legacy system. Once the NG911 system is fully operational, the costs of operating the system should be paid for using surcharge fees collected by State and local governments, as anticipated by the NG911 Advancement Act. Grant recipients should already be using designated 911 charges to fund the operation and maintenance of the 911 or E-911 systems.

    97 MO DPS.

    98 DC OUC.

    While expressing agreement with the Agencies' clarification that operation of the NG911 system is an eligible cost while the grantee is still operating its legacy 911 system, the CO PUC stated that it does “not believe the Agencies intend to restrict the use of funds to only operational costs.” 99 The Agencies' clarification regarding operation of the NG911 system was intended to clarify the circumstances in which the costs of operation, as opposed to costs of implementation, of the NG911 system would be allowable. As laid out in the regulation, implementation of the NG911 system—which includes non-recurring and capital expenses related to the NG911 transition—is an eligible cost.

    99 CO PUC at 8.

    H. Continuing Compliance (400.8)

    APCO requested that the Agencies create a clear definition of fee diversion, citing disagreement between the FCC and four States in the most recent FCC report “On State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges.” 100 The FCC's annual report is authorized under the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act), which is separate from the NG911 Advancement Act. As such, the Agencies are not bound by the FCC's interpretation of non-diversion under the NET 911 Act. The NG911 Advancement Act requires applicants to certify that “no portion of any designated 911 charges imposed by a State or other taxing jurisdiction within which the applicant is located are being obligated or expended for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented.” 101 As such, fee diversion is largely dependent upon how the fees in question are designated, which varies by State. Providing a single definition of fee diversion, beyond the description provided by the statute and incorporated in the certifications, would ignore the ability of States to designate 911 charges. The Agencies make no change to the rule in response to this comment.

    100 APCO at 3. FCC, Eighth Annual Report to Congress On State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (Dec. 30, 2016), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-17-61A2.pdf.

    101 47 U.S.C. 942(c)(2).

    Daniel Ramirez submitted a comment that was somewhat unclear, but that the Agencies interpret to state agreement with the non-diversion requirement in the grant.102

    102See Daniel Ramirez.

    I. Waiver Authority (400.11)

    The CO PUC stated general support for allowing waiver requests for discretionary provisions of the grant program regulations.103 APCO stated that certain circumstances could justify a waiver.104 APCO also requested that the Agencies provide an opportunity for notice and comment by the 911 community when considering whether to grant a waiver.105 The Agencies intend to only use this waiver ability in extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, we decline to make a change to the regulation in response to this comment.

    103See CO PUC at 9.

    104 See APCO at 4.

    105See id.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Policies and Procedures)

    This rulemaking has been determined to be significant under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866, and therefore has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    Executive Order 13771

    This rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is a “transfer rule.”

    Administrative Procedure Act

    The effective date of this final rule is the date of publication. The Administrative Procedure Act's required 30-day delay in effective date for substantive rules does not apply here as this rule concerns grants. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce and the Assistant Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration certified to the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy at the proposed rule stage that this final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The majority of potential applicants (56) for 911 grants are U.S. States and Territories, which are not “small entities” for the purposes of the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 601(5). The remaining potential grant applicants are a small number of Tribal Organizations (approximately 13) with a substantial emergency management/public safety presence within their jurisdictions. Like States, Tribal Organizations are not “small entities” for the purposes of the RFA. See Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, S. 1536, 114th Cong. § 2(d) (2015) (proposing to add Tribal Organizations to the RFA's “small governmental jurisdiction” definition, one of three categories of “small entities” in the RFA). Therefore, we have determined under the RFA that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

    Congressional Review Act

    This rulemaking has not been determined to be major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final rule does not contain policies having federalism implications requiring preparations of a Federalism Summary Impact Statement.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, as amended by Executive Order 13175. The Agencies have determined that the final rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Consultation)

    Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. All applicants are required to submit a copy of their applications to their designated State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) offices. See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.

    Executive Order 12630

    This final rule does not contain policies that have takings implications.

    Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribes)

    The Agencies have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13175, and have determined that the action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not preempt tribal law. The program is voluntary and any Tribal Organization that chooses to apply and subsequently qualifies would receive grant funds. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before collecting information from the public. Federal agencies may not collect information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the Agencies' requests to use previously-approved Standard Forms 424 (Application for Federal Assistance), 424A (Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs), 424B (Assurances for Non-Construction Programs), 424C (Budget Information for Construction Programs), 425 (Federal Financial Report), and SF-LLL (Disclosure for Lobbying Activities) under the respective control numbers 4040-0004, 4040-0005, 4040-0006, 4040-0007, 4040-0014, and 4040-0013. OMB pre-approved the Agencies' information collection request for the State 911 Plans and the Annual Performance Reports and assigned it control number 0660-0041.

    The Agencies received no comments in response to their requests to utilize common forms or their information collection request for the State 911 Plans and Annual Performance Reports. The approved requests to use common forms and approved information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. The program is voluntary and States and Tribal Organizations that choose to apply and qualify would receive grant funds. Thus, this rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Agencies have reviewed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The Agencies have determined that this final rule would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. David J. Redl, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Heidi King, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 400

    Grant programs, Telecommunications, Emergency response capabilities (911).

    In consideration of the foregoing, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, revises 47 CFR part 400 to read as follows: PART 400—911 GRANT PROGRAM Sec. 400.1 Purpose. 400.2 Definitions. 400.3 Who may apply. 400.4 Application requirements. 400.5 Approval and award. 400.6 Distribution of grant funds. 400.7 Eligible uses for grant funds. 400.8 Continuing compliance. 400.9 Financial and administrative requirements. 400.10 Closeout. 400.11 Waiver authority. Appendix A to Part 400—Initial Certification for 911 Grant Applicants—States Appendix B to Part 400—Initial Certification for 911 Grant Applicants—Tribal Organizations Appendix C to Part 400—Annual Certification for 911 Grant Recipients—States Appendix D to Part 400—Annual Certification for 911 Grant Recipients—Tribal Organizations Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 942.

    §  400.1 Purpose.

    This part establishes uniform application, approval, award, financial and administrative requirements for the grant program authorized under the “Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers Employing 911 Act of 2004” (ENHANCE 911 Act), as amended by the “Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012” (NG911 Advancement Act).

    §  400.2 Definitions.

    As used in this part—

    911 Coordinator means a single officer or governmental body of the State in which the applicant is located that is responsible for coordinating implementation of 911 services in that State.

    911 services means both E-911 services and Next Generation 911 services.

    Administrator means the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation.

    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

    Designated 911 charges means any taxes, fees, or other charges imposed by a State or other taxing jurisdiction that are designated or presented as dedicated to deliver or improve 911, E-911 or NG911 services.

    E-911 services means both phase I and phase II enhanced 911 services, as described in § 20.18 of this title, as subsequently revised.

    Emergency call refers to any real-time communication with a public safety answering point or other emergency management or response agency, including—

    (1) Through voice, text, or video and related data; and

    (2) Nonhuman-initiated automatic event alerts, such as alarms, telematics, or sensor data, which may also include real-time voice, text, or video communications.

    ICO means the 911 Implementation Coordination Office established under 47 U.S.C. 942 for the administration of the 911 grant program, located at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590.

    Integrated telecommunications services means one or more elements of the provision of multiple 911 systems' or PSAPs' infrastructure, equipment, or utilities, such as voice, data, image, graphics, and video network, customer premises equipment (such as consoles, hardware, or software), or other utilities, which make common use of all or part of the same transmission facilities, switches, signaling, or control devices (e.g., database, cybersecurity).

    IP-enabled emergency network or IP-enabled emergency system means an emergency communications network or system based on a secured infrastructure that allows secured transmission of information, using internet Protocol, among users of the network or system.

    Next Generation 911 services means an IP-based system comprised of hardware, software, data, and operational policies and procedures that—

    (1) Provides standardized interfaces from emergency call and message services to support emergency communications;

    (2) Processes all types of emergency calls, including voice, data, and multimedia information;

    (3) Acquires and integrates additional emergency call data useful to call routing and handling;

    (4) Delivers the emergency calls, messages, and data to the appropriate public safety answering point and other appropriate emergency entities;

    (5) Supports data or video communications needs for coordinated incident response and management; and

    (6) Provides broadband service to public safety answering points or other first responder entities.

    PSAP means a public safety answering point, a facility that has been designated to receive emergency calls and route them to emergency service personnel.

    State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

    Tribal Organization means the recognized governing body of any Indian tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities: Provided, that in any case where a contract is let or grant made to an organization to perform services benefiting more than one Indian tribe, the approval of each such Indian tribe shall be a prerequisite to the letting or making of such contract or grant.

    §  400.3 Who may apply.

    In order to apply for a grant under this part, an applicant must be a State or Tribal Organization as defined in § 400.2.

    §  400.4 Application requirements.

    (a) Contents for a State application. An application for funds for the 911 Grant Program from a State must consist of the following components:

    (1) State 911 plan. A plan that—

    (i) Details the projects and activities proposed to be funded for:

    (A) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;

    (B) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and

    (C) Training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.

    (ii) Establishes metrics and a time table for grant implementation; and

    (iii) Describes the steps the applicant has taken to—

    (A) Coordinate its application with local governments, Tribal Organizations, and PSAPs within the State;

    (B) Ensure that at least 90 percent of the grant funds will be used for the direct benefit of PSAPs and not more than 10 percent of the grant funds will be used for the applicant's administrative expenses related to the 911 Grant Program; and

    (C) Involve integrated telecommunications services in the implementation and delivery of 911 services, E-911 services, and Next Generation 911 services.

    (2) Project budget. A project budget for all proposed projects and activities to be funded by the grant funds. Specifically, for each project or activity, the applicant must:

    (i) Demonstrate that the project or activity meets the eligible use requirement in § 400.7; and

    (ii) Identify the non-Federal sources, which meet the requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, that will fund at least 40 percent of the cost; except that as provided in 48 U.S.C. 1469a, the requirement for non-Federal matching funds (including in-kind contributions) is waived for American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands for grant amounts up to $200,000.

    (3) Supplemental project budget. States that qualify for a grant under the program may also qualify for additional grant funds that may become available. To be eligible for any such additional grant funds that may become available in accordance with § 400.6, a State must submit, with its application, a supplemental project budget that identifies the maximum dollar amount the State is able to match from non-Federal sources meeting the requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, and includes projects or activities for those grant and matching amounts, up to the total amount in the project budget submitted under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This information must be provided to the same level of detail as required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section and be consistent with the State 911 Plan required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    (4) Designated 911 Coordinator. The identification of a single officer or government body to serve as the 911 Coordinator of implementation of 911 services and to sign the certifications required under this part. Such designation need not vest such coordinator with legal authority to implement 911 services, E-911 services, or Next Generation 911 services or to manage emergency communications operations. If a State applicant has established by law or regulation an office or coordinator with the authority to manage 911 services, that office or coordinator must be identified as the designated 911 Coordinator and apply for the grant on behalf of the State. If a State applicant does not have such an office or coordinator established, the Governor of the State must appoint a single officer or governmental body to serve as the 911 Coordinator in order to qualify for a 911 grant. If the designated 911 Coordinator is a governmental body, an official representative of the governmental body shall be identified to sign the certifications for the 911 Coordinator. The State must notify NHTSA in writing within 30 days of any change in appointment of the 911 Coordinator.

    (5) Certifications. The certification in Appendix A of this part, signed by the 911 Coordinator, certifying that the applicant has complied with the required statutory and programmatic conditions in submitting its application. The applicant must certify that during the time period 180 days immediately preceding the date of the initial application, the State has not diverted any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the State for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented, that no taxing jurisdiction in the State that will be a recipient of 911 grant funds has diverted any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented, and that, continuing through the time period during which grant funds are available, neither the State nor any taxing jurisdiction in the State that is a recipient of 911 grant funds will divert designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented.

    (b) Contents for a Tribal Organization application. An application for funds for the 911 Grant Program from a Tribal Organization must consist of the following components:

    (1) Tribal Organization 911 Plan. A plan that—

    (i) Details the projects and activities proposed to be funded for:

    (A) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;

    (B) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and

    (C) Training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.

    (ii) Establishes metrics and a time table for grant implementation; and

    (iii) Describes the steps the applicant has taken to—

    (A) Coordinate its application with PSAPs within the Tribal Organization's jurisdiction;

    (B) Ensure that at least 90 percent of the grant funds will be used for the direct benefit of PSAPs and not more than 10 percent of the grant funds will be used for the applicant's administrative expenses related to the 911 Grant Program; and

    (C) Involve integrated telecommunications services in the implementation and delivery of 911 services, E-911 services, and Next Generation 911 services.

    (2) Project budget. A project budget for all proposed projects and activities to be funded by the grant funds. Specifically, for each project or activity, the applicant must:

    (i) Demonstrate that the project or activity meets the eligible use requirement in § 400.7; and

    (ii) Identify the allowable sources, which meet the requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, that will fund at least 40 percent of the cost.

    (3) Supplemental project budget. Tribal Organizations that qualify for a grant under the program may also qualify for additional grant funds that may become available. To be eligible for any such additional grant funds that may become available in accordance with § 400.6, a Tribal Organization must submit, with its application, a supplemental project budget that identifies the maximum dollar amount the Tribal Organization is able to match from allowable sources meeting the requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, and includes projects or activities for those grant and matching amounts, up to the total amount in the project budget submitted under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. This information must be provided to the same level of detail as required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section and be consistent with the Tribal Organization 911 Plan required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    (4) Designated 911 Coordinator. Written identification of the single State officer or government body serving as the 911 Coordinator of implementation of 911 services in the State (or States) in which the Tribal Organization is located. If a State has not designated an officer or government body to coordinate such services, the Governor of the State must appoint a single officer or governmental body to serve as the 911 Coordinator in order for the Tribal Organization to qualify for a 911 grant. The Tribal Organization must notify NHTSA in writing within 30 days of any change in appointment of the 911 Coordinator.

    (b) Responsible Tribal Organization Official. Written identification of the official responsible for executing the grant agreement and signing the required certifications on behalf of the Tribal Organization.

    (5) Certifications. The certification in Appendix B of this part, signed by the responsible official of the Tribal Organization, certifying that the applicant has complied with the required statutory and programmatic conditions in submitting its application. The applicant must certify that during the time period 180 days immediately preceding the date of the initial application, the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the applicant is located has not diverted any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the applicant is located for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented and that, continuing through the time period during which grant funds are available, the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the applicant is located will not divert designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented.

    (c) Due dates—(1) Initial application deadline. The applicant must submit the certification set forth in Appendix A of this part if a State, or Appendix B of this part if a Tribal Organization, no later than the initial application deadline published in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. Failure to meet this deadline will preclude the applicant from receiving consideration for a 911 grant award.

    (2) Final application deadline. After publication of the funding allocation for the 911 Grant Program in a revision to the Funding Opportunity, applicants that have complied with paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be given additional time in which to submit remaining application documents in compliance with this section, including a supplemental project budget. The revision to the Notice of Funding Opportunity will provide such deadline information. Failure to meet this deadline will preclude the applicant from receiving consideration for a 911 grant award.

    § 400.5 Approval and award.

    (a) The ICO will review each application for compliance with the requirements of this part.

    (b) The ICO may request additional information from the applicant, with respect to any of the application submission requirements of § 400.4, prior to making a recommendation for an award. Failure to submit such additional information may preclude the applicant from further consideration for award.

    (c) The Administrator and Assistant Secretary will jointly approve and announce, in writing, grant awards to qualifying applicants.

    §  400.6 Distribution of grant funds.

    (a) Funding allocation. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section—

    (1) Grant funds for each State that meets the certification requirements set forth in § 400.4 will be allocated—

    (i) 50 percent in the ratio which the population of the State bears to the total population of all the States, as shown by the latest available Federal census; and

    (ii) 50 percent in the ratio which the public road mileage in each State bears to the total public road mileage in all States, as shown by the latest available Federal Highway Administration data.

    (2) Grant funds for each Tribal Organization that meets the certification requirements set forth in § 400.4 will be allocated—

    (i) 50 percent in the ratio to which the population of the Tribal Organization bears to the total population of all Tribal Organizations, as determined by the most recent population data on American Indian/Alaska Native Reservation of Statistical Area; and

    (ii) 50 percent in the ratio which the public road mileage in each Tribal Organization bears to the total public road mileage in tribal areas, using the most recent national tribal transportation facility inventory data.

    (2) Supplemental project budgets. As set forth in § 400.4(a)(3) and (b)(3), the ICO reserves the right to allocate additional funds based on supplemental project budgets.

    (b)(1) Minimum distribution. The distribution to each qualifying State under paragraph (b) of this section shall not be less than $500,000, except that the distribution to American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands shall not be less than $250,000.

    (2) Tribal Organization set-aside. Up to 2 percent of grant funds available under this part will be set aside for distribution to qualifying Tribal Organizations for a 911 grant. The distribution to each qualifying Tribal Organization shall not be more than $250,000. Any remaining funds after distribution to qualifying Tribal Organizations under this subparagraph will be released for distribution to the States consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Additional notices of funding opportunity. Grant funds that are not distributed under paragraph (a) of this section may be made available to States and Tribal Organizations through subsequent Notices of Funding Opportunity.

    § 400.7 Eligible uses for grant funds.

    Grant funds awarded under this part may be used only for:

    (a) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;

    (b) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and

    (c) 911-related training of public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.

    § 400.8 Continuing compliance.

    (a) A grant recipient must submit on an annual basis 30 days after the end of each fiscal year during which grant funds are available, the certification set forth in Appendix C of this part if a State, or Appendix D of this part if a Tribal Organization, making the same certification concerning the diversion of designated 911 charges.

    (b) In accordance with 47 U.S.C. 942(c), where a recipient knowingly provides false or inaccurate information in its certification related to the diversion of designated 911 charges, the recipient shall—

    (1) Not be eligible to receive the grant under this part;

    (2) Return any grant awarded under this part during the time that the certification was not valid; and

    (3) Not be eligible to receive any subsequent grants under this part.

    § 400.9 Financial and administrative requirements.

    (a) General. The requirements of 2 CFR part 200, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, including applicable cost principles referenced at subpart E, govern the implementation and management of grants awarded under this part.

    (b) Reporting requirements—(1) Performance reports. Each grant recipient shall submit an annual performance report to NHTSA, following the procedures of 2 CFR 200.328, within 90 days after each fiscal year that grant funds are available, except when a final report is required under § 400.10(b)(2).

    (2) Financial reports. Each recipient shall submit quarterly financial reports to NHTSA, following the procedures of 2 CFR 200.327, within 30 days after each fiscal quarter that grant funds are available, except when a final voucher is required under § 400.10(b)(1).

    § 400.10 Closeout.

    (a) Expiration of the right to incur costs. The right to incur costs under this part will expire as of the end of the period of performance. The grant recipient and its subrecipients and contractors may not incur costs for Federal reimbursement past the expiration date.

    (b) Final submissions. Within 90 days after the completion of projects and activities funded under this part, but in no event later than the expiration date identified in paragraph (a) of this section, each grant recipient must submit—

    (1) A final voucher for the costs incurred. The final voucher constitutes the final financial reconciliation for the grant award.

    (2) A final report to NHTSA, following the procedures of 2 CFR 200.343(a).

    (c) Disposition of unexpended balances. Any funds that remain unexpended after closeout shall cease to be available to the recipient and shall be returned to the government.

    § 400.11 Waiver authority.

    It is the general intent of the ICO not to waive any of the provisions set forth in this part. However, under extraordinary circumstances and when it is in the best interest of the federal government, the ICO, upon its own initiative or when requested, may waive the provisions in this part. Waivers may only be granted for requirements that are discretionary and not mandated by statute or other applicable law. Any request for a waiver must set forth the extraordinary circumstances for the request.

    ER03AU18.003 ER03AU18.004 ER03AU18.005 ER03AU18.006 ER03AU18.007 ER03AU18.008
    [FR Doc. 2018-16567 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 170831849-8404-01] RIN 0648-XG337 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #2 through #11 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Modification of fishing seasons.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces ten inseason actions in the ocean salmon fisheries. These inseason actions modified the commercial salmon fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border.

    DATES:

    The effective dates for the inseason actions are set out in this document under the heading Inseason Actions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In the 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018), NMFS announced management measures for the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, beginning May 1, 2018, through April 30, 2019. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions). The state management agencies that participated in the consultations described in this document were: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

    Management Areas

    Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: North of Cape Falcon (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). South of Cape Falcon, the area from Humbug Mountain, OR, to Horse Mountain, CA, is the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) and is managed in two subareas, Oregon KMZ and California KMZ, divided at the Oregon/California border. For managing commercial salmon fisheries, the Oregon KMZ is the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon/California border, and the California KMZ is the area from the Oregon/California border to Humboldt South Jetty, CA. The area from Humboldt South Jetty, CA, to Horse Mountain, CA, is closed to commercial salmon fishing in 2018.

    Inseason Actions Inseason Action #2

    Description of action: Inseason action #2 closed the commercial salmon fishery from the U.S./Canada border to Queets River, WA, at 11:59 p.m., May 27, 2018.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #2 took effect on May 27, 2018, and remained in effect until superseded by inseason action #3 on May 31, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: WDFW provided information on salmon landings in the ocean salmon fishery north of Queets River, WA, and recommended that, at the current rate of harvest, the May-June Chinook salmon quota in the area was at risk of being exceeded. The purpose of this action was to avoid exceeding the May-June quota for Chinook salmon in the area. The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator (RA) considered Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the area north of Cape Falcon and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason. The 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018) state that landing limits may be modified inseason to sustain season length and keep harvest within overall quotas. Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #2 occurred on May 25, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, WDFW, ODFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #3

    Description of action: Inseason action #3 superseded inseason action #2 and reopened the commercial salmon fishery from the U.S./Canada border to Queets River, WA, from May 31, 2018, through June 4, 2018, with an open period landing limit of 35 Chinook salmon per vessel.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #3 took effect May 31, 2018, and remained in effect until superseded by inseason action #7 on June 8, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: WDFW reported updated landings for the area north of Cape Falcon and recommended that sufficient quota remained in the area north of the Queets River to reopen the fishery, on a limited basis, for five days with a 35 Chinook salmon per vessel landing limit. This recommendation reduced the open period from seven days per week and the landing limit from 50 Chinook salmon per vessel, set preseason. The RA considered Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the area north of Cape Falcon and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason and to allow commercial salmon fishers to fully access available quota. The 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018) state that landing limits may be modified inseason to sustain season length and keep harvest within overall quotas. Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #3 occurred on May 30, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, WDFW, ODFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #4

    Description of action: Inseason action #4 increased the landing limit in the commercial ocean salmon fishery from Queets River, WA, to Leadbetter Point, WA, from 100 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday) to 200 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

    Effective dates: Inseason action #4 took effect May 31, 2018, and remained in effect through June 30, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: ODFW and WDFW presented information that landings were very low in the north of Cape Falcon fisheries located south of Queets River, WA. The RA considered Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the area and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason and to allow commercial salmon fishers to fully access available quota. The 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018) state that landing limits may be modified inseason to sustain season length and keep harvest within overall quotas. Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #4 occurred on May 30, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, WDFW, ODFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #5

    Description of action: Inseason action #5 increased the landing limit in the commercial ocean salmon fishery from Leadbetter Point, WA, to Cape Falcon, OR, from 50 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday) to 100 Chinook salmon per vessel per landing week (Thursday through Wednesday).

    Effective dates: Inseason action #5 took effect May 31, 2018, and remained in effect through June 30, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: ODFW and WDFW presented information that landings were very low in the north of Cape Falcon fisheries located south of Queets River, WA. The RA considered Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the area and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason and to allow commercial salmon fishers to fully access available quota. The 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018) state that landing limits may be modified inseason to sustain season length and keep harvest within overall quotas. Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #5 occurred on May 30, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, WDFW, ODFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #6

    Description of action: Inseason action #6 adjusted the June quota for the commercial ocean salmon fishery in the California KMZ from 4,000 Chinook salmon to 6,650 Chinook salmon by rolling over unused Chinook salmon quota from May to June on an impact-neutral basis.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #6 took effect June 1, 2018 and remained in effect through June 30, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The May quota for the commercial salmon fishery in the California KMZ was 3,600 Chinook salmon. CDFW estimated May landings at 950 Chinook salmon. Based on the Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the area and the calculations of the Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT) for rolling over quota on an impact-neutral basis for Sacramento and Klamath River fall Chinook salmon stocks, the RA determined that the rollover from May to June would be 2,650 Chinook salmon, resulting in an adjusted June quota of 6,650. The RA further determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason and to allow commercial salmon fishers to fully access available quota. Impact-neutral quota rollover from one month to the next in the California KMZ is permitted under the 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018). Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #6 occurred on May 30, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, CDFW, ODFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #7

    Description of action: Inseason action #7 superseded inseason action #3 and reopened the commercial salmon fishery from the U.S./Canada border to Queets River, WA, from June 8, 2018, through June 11, 2018, with an open period landing limit of 30 Chinook salmon per vessel.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #7 took effect June 8, 2018 and remained in effect through June 30, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: WDFW reported updated landings for the area north of Cape Falcon, and recommended that sufficient quota remained in the area north of the Queets River to reopen the fishery for four days with a 30 Chinook salmon per vessel landing limit. The RA considered Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the area and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason and to allow commercial salmon fishers to fully access available quota. The 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018) state that landing limits may be modified inseason to sustain season length and keep harvest within overall quotas. Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #7 occurred on June 7, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, WDFW, ODFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #8

    Description of action: Inseason action #8 cancelled the scheduled June 16-30, 2018, opening of the commercial ocean salmon fishery in the Oregon KMZ due to attainment of the June quota in that area.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #8 took effect June 16, 2018, and remained in effect through June 30, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: ODFW provided data for June salmon landings in the Oregon KMZ and recommended that insufficient quota remained to support the previously scheduled June 16-30, 2018 opening. The RA considered Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the Oregon KMZ and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason and to prevent exceeding the June quota. The 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018) state that landing limits may be modified inseason to sustain season length and keep harvest within overall quotas. Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #8 occurred on June 14, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, ODFW, CDFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #9

    Description of action: Inseason action #9 adjusted the July quota for the commercial ocean salmon fishery in the California KMZ from 4,000 Chinook salmon to 6,612 Chinook salmon by rolling over unused Chinook salmon quota from June to July on an impact-neutral basis.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #9 took effect July 1, 2018, and remains in effect through July 31, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The June quota for the commercial salmon fishery in the California KMZ, as adjusted under inseason action #6 above, was 6,650 Chinook salmon. CDFW estimated June landings at 2,614 Chinook salmon. Based on the Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the area and the calculations of the STT for rolling over quota on an impact-neutral basis for the Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon stock, the RA determined that the rollover from June to July would be 2,612 Chinook salmon, resulting in an adjusted July quota of 6,612. The RA further determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason and to allow commercial salmon fishers to fully access available quota. Impact-neutral quota rollover from one month to the next in the California KMZ is permitted under the 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018). Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #9 occurred on June 27, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, ODFW, CDFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #10

    Description of action: Inseason action #10 adjusted the July quota for the commercial ocean salmon fishery in the Oregon KMZ from 2,000 Chinook salmon to 1,975 Chinook salmon by deducting, on an impact-neutral basis, Chinook salmon quota that was exceeded in the area in June.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #10 took effect July 1, 2018 and remains in effect through July 31, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The June quota for the commercial salmon fishery in the Oregon KMZ was 1,500 Chinook salmon. ODFW estimated June landings at 1,556 Chinook salmon, exceeding the June quota by 56 Chinook salmon. Based on the Chinook salmon landings and fishery effort in the area and the calculations of the STT for rolling back quota on an impact-neutral basis for the Sacramento and Klamath River fall Chinook salmon stocks, the RA determined that 25 Chinook salmon would be deducted from the July quota in the Oregon KMZ to account for exceeding the June quota, resulting in an adjusted July quota of 1,975 Chinook salmon. The RA further determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set. Impact-neutral quota rollover from one month to the next in the Oregon KMZ is permitted under the 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018). Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #10 occurred on June 27, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, ODFW, CDFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    Inseason Action #11

    Description of action: Inseason action #11 allows retention of halibut caught incidental to the commercial salmon fishery by IPHC license holders to continue past June 30, 2018, with the same landing and possession limits set preseason, due to sufficient halibut allocation remaining. This inseason action applies to commercial salmon fisheries from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #11 took effect July 1, 2018, and remains in effect until superseded by further inseason action.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018) announced the conditions for incidental halibut harvest: “incidental harvest is authorized only during April, May, and June of the 2018 troll seasons, and after June 30 in 2018 if quota remains.” At the time of this consultation, 28 percent of the incidental halibut allocation remained uncaught. The RA considered Chinook salmon and halibut landings and fishery effort in the commercial ocean salmon fishery and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet management objectives set preseason and to allow access to the available halibut allocation, as provided for in the 2018 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018). Flexible inseason management provisions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #11 occurred on June 27, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, ODFW, CDFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2018 ocean salmon fisheries and 2019 salmon fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2019 (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018), and as modified by prior inseason actions.

    The RA determined that the best available information indicated that Chinook salmon and halibut abundance forecasts and expected fishery effort in 2018 supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone consistent with these federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory action was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

    Classification

    NOAA's Assistant Administrator (AA) for NMFS finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory action was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. This action complies with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (83 FR 19005, May 1, 2018), the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and regulations implementing the FMP, 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook salmon and halibut catch and effort projections and abundance forecasts were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information, ensuring that conservation objectives and limits for impacts to salmon species listed under the Endangered Species Act are not exceeded. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of this action would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the FMP and the current management measures.

    This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. Margo Schulze-Haugen, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16587 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 150 Friday, August 3, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 460 [EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021] RIN 1904-AC11 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of data availability; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing this notice of data availability (“NODA”) and soliciting public input regarding data relating to certain aspects in developing energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. These data are likely to help serve as support for DOE's further refinement of certain aspects of its proposed standards for these structures. They may also serve as the basis for DOE's restructuring of its approach in laying out the framework for standards that would apply to manufactured housing. DOE is seeking comment on these data along with several options that it is currently considering that could form an alternative basis for regulating the energy efficiency of manufactured housing. DOE also seeks any additional information that might further inform the agency's views regarding the manner in which to regulate these structures.

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021, by any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: to [email protected] Include EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021 in the subject line of the message.

    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

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

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

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

    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021. The docket web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sofie Miller, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected]

    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority and Background B. Rulemaking History II. Request for Information A. June 2016 Proposal's Analytical Assumptions B. Ownership-Related Costs C. Prescriptive and Performance-Based Standards D. Alternative Approaches E. Compliance Lead-Times III. Submission of Comments I. Introduction

    Manufactured housing comprises a housing category that consists of structures constructed in a factory, built on a permanent chassis, and transportable in one or more sections that are then erected on-site. See 24 CFR 3280.2 This type of housing has traditionally been regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), which has regulated these structures with the purpose of reducing personal injuries, deaths, property damage, and insurance costs, and to improve the quality, durability, safety, and affordability of these homes. See 42 U.S.C. 5401(b). Consistent with its statutory authority, HUD has created a comprehensive regulatory framework to address a variety of aspects related to these structures, including certain elements related to their energy efficiency. See, e.g. 24 CFR 3280.507(a) (specifying thermal insulation requirements) and 24 CFR 3280.508(d) (detailing requirements related to the installation of high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment in manufactured homes). HUD's standards are preemptive nationwide and differ from standards developed under the auspices of (and published by) the International Code Council (“ICC”). The ICC standards, known as the International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”), have been adopted by many state and local governments in establishing minimum design and construction requirements for the energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings. However, due to the preemptive nature of HUD's standards, the ICC standards are not currently applied to manufactured housing. Consistent with this approach and Federal law, DOE is tasked with evaluating whether the adoption of standards based on the most recent version of the IECC would satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.

    A. Authority and Background

    Section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007) (“EISA”) requires DOE to establish by regulation standards for the energy efficiency of manufactured housing. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(1). Prior to establishing these regulations, DOE must satisfy two conditions—(1) provide manufacturers and other interested parties with notice and an opportunity for comment and (2) consult with the Secretary of HUD, who may then “seek further counsel from the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee.” 1 42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(2). These standards must generally be based on the most recent version of the IECC, except where DOE finds that the IECC is not cost effective, or a more stringent standard would be more cost effective. A finding that standards based on the IECC are not cost effective or that standards more stringent than the IECC are cost effective would be based on the impact of the adoption of the IECC standards on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating costs. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1). In establishing its standards, DOE may consider:

    1 HUD describes its Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee as “a statutory Federal Advisory Committee body charged with providing recommendations to the Secretary on the revision and interpretation of HUD's manufactured home construction and safety standards and related procedural and enforcement regulations. The [Committee] is charged with developing proposed model installation standards for the manufactured housing industry.” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/rmra/manufacturedhousings/cc1 (last accessed on July 9, 2018).

    • The design and factory construction techniques of manufactured housing,

    • The climate zones established in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (“the HUD Code”) rather than the climate zones included as part of the IECC, and

    • Alternative practices that result in net estimated energy consumption equal to or less than the specific IECC standards. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2).

    In addition, EISA provides that a manufacturer who violates the regulations established by DOE under 42 U.S.C. 17071(a) “is liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not exceeding 1 percent of the manufacturer's retail list price of the manufactured housing.” See 42 U.S.C. 17071(c).

    B. Rulemaking History

    In the years since EISA became law, DOE has undertaken several steps down the complex regulatory path of fulfilling Section 413's directive for promulgating new regulations under the processes and conditions set forth in the statute. After studying the issue, on February 22, 2010, DOE published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment identifying 13 distinct issues concerning energy efficiency in manufactured housing about which it sought public input. See Energy Standards for Manufactured Housing, 75 FR 7556, 7557 (February 22, 2010). After receiving and considering the submitted comments, DOE prepared a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (“draft NOPR”) and submitted it to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget for review, pursuant to Executive Order 12866. Ultimately, the draft NOPR did not clear the OIRA review process, and DOE withdrew it on March 13, 2014.2

    2 The withdrawn date can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoAdvancedSearch and entering “1904-AC11” for the RIN and checking “Concluded” under “Review Status”. Additionally, while the OIRA review was ongoing, on June 25, 2013, DOE published a request for information in which it sought additional public input regarding four identified issues related to its rulemaking. See Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured Housing, 78 FR 37995, 37996-37997 (June 25, 2013).

    Following the withdrawal of the draft NOPR from OIRA, DOE notified the public of its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group for manufactured housing. DOE believed that this approach would be “better suited to resolving complex technical issues” concerning the standards, among other benefits. 79 FR 33874 (June 13, 2014). The working group was convened and met for a total of 12 days over a three-month period. See Energy Conservation Program: Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured Housing, 80 FR 7550, 7551 (February 11, 2015).3 These meetings led to the adoption of a term sheet detailing numerous technical recommendations for energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing. See Document ID EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0107.4 Also, in accordance with a recommendation from the working group, DOE sought further public comment regarding some technical issues that had arisen in the rulemaking process. See 80 FR 7551-7553. In addition to these extensive efforts to solicit comments from the public and the expertise of the working group, DOE also held meetings with HUD throughout the regulatory process and engaged in discussions with the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee. See 81 FR 39762-39763, 39765. It has also conferred with various other stakeholders. See id. 81 FR 39763, 39765.

    3See also Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC)—Manufactured Housing Working Group, 79 FR 48097 (August 15, 2014); Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC)—Manufactured Housing Working Group, 79 FR 59154 (October 1, 2014).

    4 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0107.

    On June 17, 2016, DOE published in the Federal Register a NOPR, which, in addition to comprehensively describing DOE's analysis, was accompanied by a technical support document detailing DOE's analyses supporting that proposal. See 81 FR 39756. See also Document ID EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0136.5 The agency also prepared a draft environmental assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, on which it sought public input, particularly regarding the impacts of the proposed standards on the indoor air quality of manufactured homes. See Draft Environmental Assessment for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing” With Request for Information on Impacts to Indoor Air Quality, 81 FR 42576 (June 30, 2016). DOE received nearly 50 comments on the proposed rule during the comment period. After considering those comments, DOE prepared a draft final rule governing energy efficiency in manufactured housing and submitted it to OIRA for review under Executive Order 12866. OIRA received the draft final rule on November 1, 2016.6 Again, however, DOE's draft final rule did not clear the OIRA review process and was withdrawn on January 31, 2017.7

    5 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0136.

    6See supra, note 2. On November 9, 2016, DOE also published a notice of proposed rulemaking for test procedures, as a companion to the draft energy efficiency standards rule for manufactured housing. See Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Manufactured Housing, 81 FR 78733 (November 9, 2016). Test procedures specify how those subject to energy efficiency standards are to confirm products are in compliance with such standards.

    7See supra, note 2.

    II. Request for Information

    Since the publication of DOE's proposals, the agency has re-examined its available data and re-evaluated its approach in developing standards for manufactured housing. In particular, HUD made DOE aware of the adverse impacts on manufactured housing affordability that would likely follow if DOE were to adopt the approach laid out in its June 2016 proposal. As a result, and in consideration of specific suggestions offered by HUD, DOE initiated a review of its data and analysis and has begun reconsidering the framework to use in regulating these structures. In particular, DOE had previously considered a regulatory regime similar to the one it administers with regard to appliance and commercial equipment standards, i.e., setting a uniform, minimum mandatory level of efficiency that must be achieved by all subject products. However, DOE's authority to establish energy efficiency standards for appliance standards is separate from its authority to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured homes. Thus, DOE is examining if it must set a single, mandatory level of efficiency. As a result of this re-examination, DOE developed a number of alternatives on which it seeks further input from the public. These alternatives would facilitate a variety of different levels of efficiency. In developing these alternatives, DOE gave careful consideration to a variety of factors, including the first-time costs related to the purchase of these homes. In the following sections, DOE presents a series of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding each of these potential alternatives to the proposed regulatory framework contained in DOE's June 2016 standards proposal.

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

    A. June 2016 Proposal's Analytical Assumptions

    As with any of its appliance and equipment standards rulemaking proposals, DOE made a number of analytical assumptions to determine what minimum level of efficiency it should use in establishing mandatory energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. These assumptions spanned a variety of factors, including affordability, which climate zones to use, which solar heat gain coefficient (“SHGC”) to use in a given climate zone, the price elasticity value to use in DOE's calculation of potential impacts, whether to include certification, compliance, and enforcement costs as part of DOE's analysis, and whether the tightening of a manufactured home's building envelope—which is what the proposed standards were designed to help accomplish—would impact indoor air quality by increasing the likelihood of trapping pollutants inside the building.

    Issue 1: What analytical aspects related to DOE's June 2016 proposal—aside from those specifically noted later in this document—should DOE consider re-examining as part of its ongoing consideration of a final rule for manufactured housing? (Within this context, this request also encompasses whether DOE's analysis sufficiently addresses the cost-effectiveness of standards based on the current IECC code when considering the code's impact on both the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating costs. See 42 U.S.C. 1771(b)(1). Why should DOE reconsider these aspects and what specific changes, if any, should DOE make to them? As part of this request, DOE is interested in any specific supplemental supporting data regarding any changes that commenters may suggest.

    Additionally, in further researching the manufactured housing market, DOE has examined additional information from a variety of sources. Of particular note is information from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which released a report in 2014 that focused on this particular market.8 That report, “Manufactured-Housing Consumer Finance in the United States,” [hereinafter, “CFPB Report”] detailed the characteristics of manufactured housing consumers and the market for manufactured home financing. Key findings from the report include:

    8 See https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_manufactured-housing.pdf.

    • Manufactured home ownership varies widely by region, with the majority of manufactured homes located outside of metropolitan areas;

    • Manufactured home owners tend to have lower incomes and less net worth than their counterparts who own site-built homes;

    • There is an extremely constrained secondary market for manufactured homes, following the collapse of the manufactured home market in the late 1990s through the early 2000s;

    • Most manufactured-housing purchasers who finance their homes obtained a loan of between $10,000 and $80,000, with a median loan value of $55,000.

    These data suggest that manufactured housing purchasers face substantial constraints compared to traditional home purchasers. In turn, these constraints may make purchasers of manufactured homes more price-sensitive to potential changes that would impact the costs to construct (and purchase) a manufactured home.9

    9 The CFPB Report also suggests that manufactured home consumers are particularly cost-driven: “There is evidence that some households who move into manufactured housing are less satisfied with their homes than those who choose to move into site-built housing. These results suggest that for at least some households, the choice to live in a manufactured home may be more cost-driven than quality-driven.” CFPB, Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the United States, at 22 (September 2014) [hereinafter, “CFPB Report”] (available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_manufactured-housing.pdf).

    The CFPB data also point to certain key demographic characteristics. On a regional level, the CFPB noted that manufactured housing is more common in certain regions than others—with this type of housing being more common in the South and the West than in certain Northeastern states. Manufactured homes are also much more prevalent in rural areas, with about 2/3 of all occupied manufactured homes being located outside of metropolitan statistical areas; in these areas, 14% of homes are manufactured homes. Manufactured housing as a proportion of occupied housing units is lowest in Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Massachusetts (1%) and highest in South Carolina, New Mexico, and Mississippi (17%, 16%, and 15%, respectively). See CFPB Report, at 10-12.

    Further, manufactured home owners are more likely to be older and likely to have lower incomes or net worth. The median annual income of families living in manufactured homes is also slightly over $26,000, and the median net worth of these families is $26,000 (a quarter of that of families in site-built homes). See id. at 16-18.

    The CFPB also made a number of other observations with respect to the available financial data it examined.

    First, it indicated that the manufactured home market collapsed in the late 1990s through the early 2000s as consumers experienced loan repayment difficulties driven by low-quality manufactured home lending. Following the collapse, at least eight large lenders exited the manufactured home lending market, some of which drove losses in the secondary market. See generally id. at 26-29. At the time of CFPB's report, sales and production remained depressed with an extremely constrained resale market for manufactured homes. See id. at 6, 26-28, 37.

    Second, most manufactured-housing purchasers finance between $10,000 and $80,000, with a loan median of $55,000. See id. at 30. Owners of manufactured homes finance different amounts depending on whether they finance the costs of only the manufactured home or the costs of both the home and the land on which it is sited. See id. at 21.

    Manufactured home owners who finance their homes tend to pay higher interest rates than their site-built home counterparts. A key reason for this difference is that the vast majority of manufactured housing stock is titled as chattel, and as a result is eligible only for chattel financing. Chattel financing is typically offered to purchasers at a significantly higher interest rate than the rates offered to their site-built home counterparts. While some manufactured home owners who also own the land on which the manufactured home is sited may be eligible for mortgage financing, there is a tradeoff between lower origination costs with significantly higher interest rates (chattel loans) and higher origination costs with significantly lower interest rates and greater consumer protections (mortgage). See id. at 23-25.

    Issue 2: a. DOE seeks comment regarding the CFPB's findings. Are these findings reasonably accurate or are there other factors that DOE should consider when determining the economic impact of energy conservation standards on the ability of purchasers to buy manufactured homes? Assuming that these findings are reasonably accurate, what role, if any, should they play in shaping the standards that DOE ultimately adopts for manufactured housing and why? If the CFPB's findings are not accurate, what specific shortcomings do they have and what assumptions/changes should DOE apply when determining the stringency and types of standards the agency should establish for manufactured housing?

    b. DOE's own data from its Residential Energy Consumption Survey of 2015 suggests that manufactured housing households pay about 60% more for their energy per square foot than the entire housing stock. Is this estimate accurate—and if so, why? What specific factors contribute to this condition? If this estimate is not accurate, why—what specific factors are being overlooked in the survey that contribute to this inaccuracy?

    B. Ownership-Related Costs

    DOE's analysis for its June 2016 proposal considered the economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual manufactured home purchasers. Similar to its approach toward appliance standards, these analyses focused on the prospect of applying a single, uniform minimum standard that all manufactured homes of a given size (single- or multi-section) and in a given climate zone (i.e., region of the country would need to meet. Necessarily, this approach examined the overall economic impacts in a broad fashion by applying a uniform standard to all manufactured housing units within a given climate zone and home size category. However, the approaches that the Department has taken with respect to appliance standards may not be suitable in the case of manufactured housing, which fills a distinct need for housing for a particular subset of consumers. In particular, under the statutory provision requiring the Department to develop standards for manufactured housing, the standards must generally be based on the most recent version of the IECC, except where DOE finds that the IECC is not cost effective, or a more stringent standard would be more cost effective. A finding that standards based on the IECC are not cost effective or that standards more stringent than the IECC are cost effective would be based on the impact of the adoption of the IECC standards on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating costs. As a result, the approach presented by the working group (and adopted by DOE in its proposal) may have inadvertently overlooked certain factors and yielded an incomplete picture regarding the potential impacts flowing from its proposal and whether the standards must be based on the most recent version of the IECC. Consequently, DOE is seeking comment on a variety of issues related to these factors to help further inform its views regarding the economic impacts related to the establishment of energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, and how those impacts effect use of the most recent version of the IECC.

    Issue 3: Manufactured housing owners tend to be lower-income than other homeowners,10 and are also likely to finance their manufactured housing purchase using high-rate chattel loans. As a result, the Department is particularly interested in comments and data regarding the affordability of manufactured housing and how the options outlined in this NODA would affect upfront manufactured housing affordability. DOE also seeks comment on whether and how the different approaches outlined in this NODA would differently affect the affordability of manufactured homes.

    10 “Certain consumer segments are disproportionately represented among owners and renters of manufactured homes, in particular older consumers, consumers that have completed only high school, households with relatively low income, and households with relatively low net worth.” CFPB Report, at 13.

    Additionally, as part of this inquiry, DOE seeks public input on each of the following items:

    a. Affordability is a combination of upfront cost, which may price out some consumers at time of purchase, and operating costs, which will affect all manufactured housing owners over a longer time horizon. The Department seeks comments that provide information on how to weigh these components in defining “affordability,” with particular focus on affordability for low-income consumers.

    b. The Department also seeks comment on what a reasonable payback period might be for efficiency in manufactured homes, and any relevant tradeoffs between upfront cost and payback period that the Department should consider to avoid creating a situation where the upfront cost increases may price consumers out of the market for new homes, even if those costs might be recouped over time. While the cost of site-built home efficiency upgrades may be recouped when an owner sells the home, the same may not be true of manufactured homes because (1) manufactured housing owners have relatively short tenancies  11 and (2) the resale market for manufactured housing is highly constrained,12 such that the original owner will likely not recoup upfront efficiency investments if the payback period exceeds tenancy. DOE seeks additional information from commenters on the manufactured housing resale market that would inform the Department's consideration of what a reasonable payback period would be. If available, the Department also seeks information on the distribution of manufactured housing tenancy rates.

    11See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the United States, September 2014 at 42-43: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_manufactured-housing.pdf.

    12 Kevin Jewell. “Manufactured Housing Appreciation: Stereotypes and Data.” Consumers Union, Southwest Regional Office. May 2003. Page 6. http://consumersunion.org/pdf/manufacturedhousing/Appreciation.pdf.

    c. The Department is also interested in comments that inform whether special consideration should be given to affordability, particularly given that low-income and older consumers are disproportionately represented among manufactured housing owners.13 Executive Order 13563, which reinforces the principles of Executive Order 12866, indicates that agencies “may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts” 14 where appropriate and permitted by law.

    13See footnote 10, supra.

    14 Executive Order 13563, Section 1(c), 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011).

    d. The Department seeks data and information regarding basing standards on the most recent version of the IECC, in particular, whether standards based on the most recent version of the IECC would not be cost effective or that standards more stringent than the most recent version of the IECC would be cost effective, in either case based on the impact of the adoption of the IECC standards on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating costs.

    Issue 4: DOE is aware that efficiency standards for manufactured housing may affect consumers in different regions differently, and seeks information on (1) the disparate regional effects of a standard, and (2) whether these effects are mitigated by use of tiered standards or a tiered labeling program.

    Issue 5: DOE seeks to better understand the market for manufactured homes. Available sources provide information regarding the average or median manufactured housing purchase price 15 or the proportion of manufactured housing owners who borrowed different amounts to finance their manufactured housing purchase,16 but do not directly show the distribution of manufactured housing prices across the market and the percentage of consumers who purchase at each price category. DOE is interested in such information, particularly to the extent that such information could inform the consideration of threshold standards.

    15See U.S. Census Bureau, Cost and Size Comparison: New Manufactured Homes and Single-Family Site Built Homes (2007-2014), for example.

    16See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Manufactured-housing consumer finance in the United States, September 2014, for example.

    C. Prescriptive and Performance-Based Standards

    In DOE's June 2016 standards proposal, the agency laid out two possible approaches it was considering at the time. The first option involved potential prescriptive requirements that would apply to a variety of components used in constructing the thermal envelope of a given manufactured home. These requirements laid out prescribed specifications related to thermal resistance (R-value) for wall, ceiling, and floor insulation, thermal transmittance specifications (U-factor) for windows, skylights, and doors, and glass glazing (SHGC) requirements. See 81 FR 39757. These prescriptive levels would vary based on the climate zone in which the home is located. 81 FR 39766. The second option presented a potential performance-based approach that would establish a maximum overall thermal transmittance for requirement for the building structure's thermal envelope (Uo) and set additional U-factor and SHGC requirements. See id. Like with the prescriptive approach, these requirements would also vary by climate zone.

    In addition to these approaches, DOE also considered including provisions for determining U-factor, R-value, SHGC, and Uo. It also considered establishing prescriptive requirements for installation of insulation and sealing the building's thermal envelope and duct system to limit air leakage, which would in turn reduce potential thermal losses. See id.

    Issue 6: DOE is interested in feedback regarding whether any aspects of its 2016 proposal need further consideration and if so, why. For comments pointing to weaknesses or strengths with respect to DOE's proposal, the agency seeks any supporting data in addition to that which DOE has already made public as part of the manufactured housing standards rulemaking docket.

    D. Alternative Approaches

    DOE is also considering an altogether different approach consisting of incremental packages that maximize energy savings of a manufactured home within certain incremental cost parameters. These options respond to concerns from stakeholders, including HUD, regarding the potentially prohibitive upfront costs of its 2016 proposed standards. As a result, this analysis illustrates packages that maximize energy savings within incremental cost thresholds of $500, $1,000, or $1,500. DOE is seeking comment on whether any of the cost threshold packages presented here (i.e. either $500, $1,000, or $1,500), when applied as a national standard, would address the concerns of stakeholders regarding the high upfront cost of its 2016 proposed standards. Further, DOE developed two sets of cost threshold packages: One set includes envelope and duct sealing as options to include in the cost threshold packages, and one set does not include envelope and duct sealing regardless of cost effectiveness.

    Unlike the tiered standards discussed in this NODA, these cost threshold packages illustrate the costs and benefits of a potential national standard that would apply across the fleet of manufactured homes. However, given the Department's interest in tailoring its standards to consumers with differing preferences and needs, DOE is also soliciting comments on whether it can employ a tiered approach to these standards, wherein the $500, $1,000, and $1,500 cost packages could be applied to, or offered as an option for, various segments of the market for manufactured homes.

    The Department also recognizes the value of providing accurate information on potential energy savings. In addition to being low incremental or additional cost to manufacturers, better informed consumers are empowered to make choices that meet their individual needs for energy savings within their own personal economic circumstances. This approach builds on the guidance in Executive Order 12866, which instructs each agency to identify opportunities to provide information the public can use to make informed choices.17 To this end, the Department is considering a tiered labeling approach that would classify various levels of energy savings based on stringency and categorize these options within certain tiers, such as a Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum tier, wherein the Platinum tier would represent the most efficient products on the market and Brass would represent the least efficient.

    17 Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993) (Section 1(b)(3)).

    Consequently, DOE is evaluating the following options:

    Package 1—This package would maximize the energy savings of a manufactured home at an upfront cost of either $500, $1,000, or $1,500. The accompanying analysis illustrates the associated lifecycle costs and payback period for each potential standard level across climate zones.18 This package would exclude envelope and duct sealing to maximize energy savings under any of the cost threshold options examined.

    18See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0200.

    Package 2—Like Package 1, this package would maximize the energy savings of a manufactured home at an upfront cost of either $500, $1,000, or $1,500. The accompanying analysis illustrates the associated lifecycle costs and payback period for each potential standard level across climate zones.19 Unlike Package 1, this package would allow envelope and duct sealing to maximize energy savings under all of the cost threshold options examined.

    19See footnote 18, supra.

    Package 3—Rather than setting a national standard within a specified cost threshold, this option would create a framework where several different tiers of energy efficiency would be offered to consumers based on their particular needs and pricing sensitivities. These tiers would be based on cost increments, which, for purposes of DOE's current analysis, would be based on $500 increments with a cap at $1,500.

    Package 4—This package would require each manufactured home to include a label prior to sale indicating expected energy use and savings. The labeling system would be tiered in the sense that different levels of energy savings would be labeled differently, such as by being categorized with a Brass, Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum rating. These tiers would be based on potential energy savings. The Department is considering this package in conjunction with any of the other alternatives discussed above or with potential alternatives that may be suggested in response to this request for comment.

    Package 5—Finally, to ensure that manufactured housing continues to be a viable source for affordable housing, this package would exclude all manufactured homes with a cost level and retail purchase price (not including land costs) equal to or less than the loan limit established in accordance with Section 2(b)(1)(C) of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1703(b)(1)(C), plus 5% (Title I Loan Limits). (Currently = $73,162 or 1.05 × $69,678.) Similarly, under this package, DOE would apply a higher price threshold ($294,515) under the same conditions—i.e. cost level and purchase price (not including land costs)—that would encourage (but not require) manufactured housing at a certain price to meet DOE's standards. For all other manufactured housing that exceeds this level, DOE could apply one of the package approaches described under Packages 1 through 4.

    In evaluating these various options, DOE is considering a scenario where manufacturers continue to offer more economical versions of manufactured homes for certain segments of the market that are currently available but that may not necessarily fall into one of the cost incremental categories described above. A regime in which manufacturers continue to offer those manufactured homes that are currently available on the market as well as variants at greater levels of efficiency would allow particularly price sensitive individuals who may not have the financial means to pursue other housing options to maintain their ability to purchase a manufactured home of their choice while also allowing those with greater means who desire increased energy efficiency to purchase a manufactured home that suits their desires. Under any of these scenarios, DOE would consider developing a labeling framework to inform consumers regarding these options. DOE also seeks comment on implementing a tiered labeling system in conjunction with the other options discussed in this document to address any potential information asymmetry and preserve consumer choice.

    Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on whether it should consider and implement a cost-based tier structure with respect to regulating the energy efficiency of manufactured housing. DOE notes that a tiered approach could better address some of the concerns that may exist with respect to the first-time costs that purchasers may encounter with more efficient—but more expensive—manufactured homes. If so, why—and if not, why not?

    Issue 8: Consumers may fail to optimize the efficiency of their homes due to a lack of available information on the benefits of energy savings. Recognizing this, the NODA presents an option that would provide tiered labeling for consumers to compare and contrast information on upfront costs and long-term energy savings across manufactured housing structures. The Department is seeking comments on the benefit of providing consumers with such information, which preserves consumer choice, and the best way to provide consumers with information that they can easily understand and put to use.

    a. What information is available to consumers when they make manufactured housing purchasing decisions, and what additional information would be useful? Further, how can the Department add value in the provision and display of information?

    b. DOE seeks comments regarding whether access to information is a barrier to manufactured housing consumers, and if so, what is the magnitude of this barrier (i.e. to what extent does the lack of information prevent consumers from purchasing efficient homes)?

    Issue 9: DOE is also considering a number of approaches that would increase consumer access to information and increase the efficiency of manufactured homes.

    a. In weighing these approaches, the Department seeks comment on the advantages and disadvantages of using a tiered approach for efficiency standards versus using a single national standard that would apply to all manufactured homes within a single climate zone. DOE also seeks information regarding what a labeling framework would need to consider if a tiered approach were used and what the costs of such an approach would likely be. The Department further seeks comment on the advantages and disadvantages of using a tiered approach to labeling requirements versus a single national labeling standard for manufactured homes.

    b. Within the tiered options discussed above, the Department seeks public input on what the appropriate criteria are to use for establishing thresholds (e.g., price, cost, region, etc.) and how best to define these criteria (e.g., manufacturer added cost, retail price, etc.). DOE also seeks public input on other factors that it should consider when establishing tiered standards.

    With respect to tightening a manufactured home's building envelope, the agency notes that this technique appears to be a cost-effective way to increase energy efficiency. However, many previous commenters, including HUD's Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee, raised the possibility that sealing requirements may pose challenges for indoor air quality.20 Degraded indoor air quality could introduce additional costs in terms of health and safety or operation and maintenance that may impede the cost efficacy of these approaches.

    20https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0162.

    Previous commenters have submitted existing literature on manufactured housing indoor air quality, including a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). The CDC report, which was prepared in conjunction with HUD, found generally that indoor air can contain a number of contaminants that contribute to health complaints, and that indoor air quality is of particular concern in manufactured housing due to its confined spaces and, in some cases, lower ventilation and air exchange rates.21 In addition, the CDC report found that “manufactured structures with relatively less air circulation may develop higher levels of indoor contaminants.” However, comprehensive data on air quality in manufactured homes was unavailable at the time of CDC's report.22

    21 CDC and HHS. Safety and Health in Manufactured Structures (2011) [hereinafter, “Safety and Health”].

    22 Safety and Health, at p. 25.

    Issue 10: Is new information available on the relationship between tightening the home envelope and indoor air quality? If so, what is the nature of that information, why should DOE consider it, and how should the agency integrate it into its analyses?

    Issue 11: DOE is particularly interested in baseline measures of air flow in recently-built manufactured housing against which to measure any potential reductions in air changes per hour (“ACH”). DOE also seeks information related to what the appropriate ACH threshold is for maintaining adequate indoor air quality.23

    23 As of 2003, ASHRAE and HUD had established a minimum whole-house ventilation requirement of 0.35 ACH for achieving appropriate indoor air quality. See https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/moisturereport.pdf.

    Issue 12: What potential health and safety costs of incremental reductions in ACH and/or indoor air quality should the Department consider when evaluating this approach and why? What steps should DOE consider taking to reduce these costs while preserving indoor air quality for manufactured home residents and what disadvantages, if any, are there to each of these specific steps?

    Issue 13: Regarding the overall structure of DOE's approach to its proposed climate zones, should these zones be reconsidered—and if so, why? Should DOE use HUD's existing climate zones? If DOE were to develop its own climate zones, what factors should it consider in doing so? What factors would support the continued use of the proposed climate zones and how do those factors weigh against using HUD's existing climate zones or in favor of adjusting them further?

    E. Compliance Lead-Times

    The June 2016 proposal used a compliance date lead-time of one year from the publication of a final rule. DOE proposed a lead-time of one year under the belief that this amount of time would be sufficient to allow manufacturers to transition their designs, materials, and factory operations and processes to comply with the finalized version of the energy conservation standards that DOE considered adopting. In light of the amount of time that has elapsed since the date of DOE's June 2016 proposal, and the possibility that the agency may explore an alternative approach for regulating the energy efficiency of manufactured homes through the use of a tiered system along with variants of DOE's earlier proposal that would rely on HUD's three climate zones, DOE is interested in soliciting public comment on whether its proposed lead-time remains appropriate.

    Issue 14: Should DOE continue to apply a one year lead-time to the energy conservation standards for manufactured housing? Does the approach—i.e. single uniform national standard versus a multi-tiered national standard—impact the amount of lead-time manufacturers would require to meet the applicable standards? If so, why—and if not, why not? If DOE were to adopt an approach that presented different compliance options in the form of cost-based tiers, would manufacturers require more, less, or the same amount of lead-time as the agency's proposal (i.e. one year)? Why or why not?

    Issue 15: With respect to the manufactured housing standards that DOE promulgates, DOE seeks comment on what enforcement mechanism would be the most appropriate to apply and why. In considering enforcement mechanisms, DOE is interested in information concerning the burden and cost impacts for suggested approach(es), as well as the compliance lead-time needed by the industry. Further, DOE seeks information as to whether enforcement cost of any suggested approach may extend beyond the manufacturing industry to the sales and distribution channels that interface with prospective purchasers.

    III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date listed in DATES, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. These comments and information will aid in the development of energy conservation standards for these structures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2018. Cathy Tripodi, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16650 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Parts 308 and 327 RIN 3064-AE75 Rules of Practice and Procedure AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes to amend its rules of practice and procedure to remove duplicative, descriptive regulatory language related to civil money penalty (CMP) amounts that restates existing statutory language regarding such CMPs, codify Congress's recent change to CMP inflation-adjustments in the FDIC's regulations, and direct readers to an annually published notice in the Federal Register—rather than the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—for information regarding the maximum CMP amounts that can be assessed after inflation adjustments. These revisions are intended to simplify the CFR by removing unnecessary and redundant text and to make it easier for readers to locate the current, inflation-adjusted maximum CMP amounts by presenting these amounts in an annually published chart. Additionally, the FDIC proposes to correct four errors and revise cross-references currently found in its rules of practice and procedure.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AE75, by any of the following methods:

    Agency website: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/Federal/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency website.

    Email: [email protected] Include the RIN 3064-AE75 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

    Public Inspection: All comments received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/Federal/—including any personal information provided—for public inspection. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226 by telephone at (877) 275-3342 or (703) 562-2200.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Graham N. Rehrig, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898-3829, [email protected], or Sydney Mayer, Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898-3669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Policy Objectives

    The policy objective of the Proposed Rule is to simplify the presentation of maximum CMP amounts within 12 CFR part 308 to support ease of reference and public understanding. The Proposed Rule will amend the presentation of maximum CMP limits to help ensure consistency with similar statutes of other Federal financial regulators.1 Additionally, the Proposed Rule will implement recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on simplifying the publication of annual inflation adjustments.

    1See 12 CFR 19.240 and 83 FR 1657 (Jan. 12, 2018) (table containing the CMP adjustments published by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency); 12 CFR 263.65 (table containing the CMP adjustments published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System); 12 CFR 747.1001 (table containing the CMP adjustments published by the National Credit Union Association).

    II. Background

    The FDIC assesses CMPs under section 8(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) (12 U.S.C. 1818) and a variety of other statutes.2 Congress has established maximum penalties that can be assessed under these statutes. In many cases, these statutes contain multiple penalty tiers, permitting the assessment of penalties at various levels depending on the severity of the misconduct at issue.3

    2See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F) (authorizing the FDIC to impose CMPs for violations of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1970 related to prohibited tying arrangements); 15 U.S.C. 78u-2 (authorizing the FDIC to impose CMPs for violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934); 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f) (authorizing the FDIC to impose CMPs for pattern or practice violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act).

    3 For example, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2) provides for three tiers of CMPs, with the size of the CMP increasing with the gravity of the misconduct.

    Since 1990, Congress has required Federal agencies with authority to impose CMPs to periodically adjust the maximum CMP amounts these agencies are authorized to impose.4 These periodic updates have helped to “maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law.” 5 In 2015, Congress revised the process by which Federal agencies adjust applicable CMPs for inflation.6 Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, the FDIC is required to make annual adjustments to its maximum CMP amounts to account for inflation.7 These adjustments apply to all CMPs covered by the 2015 Adjustment Act.8 The 2015 Adjustment Act requires annual adjustments be made by January 15 of each year.9 The FDIC's 2018 adjustments were published on January 12, 2018.10

    4See The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410.

    5See section 2 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990. Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (amended 2015) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

    6See The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584 (2015 Adjustment Act). Although the 2015 Adjustment Act increased the maximum penalty that may be assessed under each applicable statute, the FDIC still possesses discretion to impose CMP amounts below the maximum level in accordance with the severity of the misconduct at issue. When making a determination as to the appropriate level of any given penalty, the FDIC is guided by statutory factors set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2)(G) and those factors identified in the Interagency Policy Statement Regarding the Assessment of CMPs by the Federal Financial Institutions Regulatory Agencies. See 63 FR 30227 (June 3, 1998). Such factors include, but are not limited to, the gravity and duration of the misconduct and the intent related to the misconduct.

    7See 2015 Adjustment Act at sec. 701(b).

    8See Public Law 101-410, sec. 3(2), 104 Stat. 890 (amended 2015) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).

    9 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b), 129 Stat. 584.

    10See 83 FR 1519, available at https://www.fdic.gov/news/board/2017/2017-12-19-notice-sum-b-fr.pdf.

    The 2015 Adjustment Act directs Federal agencies to follow guidance issued by the OMB by December 15 of each year when calculating new maximum penalty amounts.11 The OMB issued guidance for the 2018 CMP adjustments on December 15, 2017.12 The OMB Guidance noted, “Some agencies have chosen to remove their specific penalty amounts from the CFR and have instead codified the statutory formula for inflation adjustments. Agencies must still calculate and publish their penalty adjustments in the Federal Register.” 13

    11See Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b), 129 Stat. 584.

    12 OMB, Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, M-18-03 (OMB Guidance), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-03.pdf.

    13 OMB Guidance at 4 (citing 81 FR 41438 (June 27, 2016) (Social Security Administration) (codified at 29 CFR 498.103(g))).

    III. Description and Expected Effects of the Proposed Rule

    The FDIC proposes amending its rules of practice and procedure to remove from the CFR descriptive regulatory language related to maximum CMP amounts that duplicates statutory language, codify the statutory formula for inflation adjustments to the maximum CMP amounts, and direct readers to a table published annually in the Federal Register, containing the inflation-adjusted maximum CMP amounts. These proposed changes would be consistent with the OMB Guidance and the practices of other Federal regulators.

    Currently, 12 CFR 308.116(b) and 308.132(d) contain the maximum CMP amounts that may be assessed for violations of various statutes, along with lengthy descriptions of these statutes. Rather than providing any interpretation of these statutes or providing guidance regarding the assessment of CMPs for violations of these statutes, the descriptive language contained in §§ 308.116(b) and 308.132(d) merely restates the enabling statutory language. The FDIC's current format for identifying inflation-adjusted CMP figures differs significantly from the formats published by other prudential regulators 14 and makes it more difficult for readers to locate applicable maximum CMP amounts. Accordingly, the FDIC proposes removing descriptive language found in §§ 308.116(b) and 308.132(d). The FDIC believes that these changes will remove unnecessary and redundant language from the CFR and improve readability.

    14 The OCC, the FRB, and the National Credit Union Association (NCUA) provide a simplified list in a tabular format, identifying each enabling statute and the associated maximum CMP amount, adjusted for inflation. See 12 CFR 19.240 and 83 FR 1657 (Jan. 12, 2018) (table containing the OCC's CMP adjustments); 12 CFR 263.65 (table containing the FRB's CMP adjustments); 12 CFR 747.1001 (table containing the NCUA's CMP adjustments).

    A sample annual table containing the current maximum CMP amounts—effective as of January 15, 2018—appears at the end of this section, for reference. Under the Proposed Rule, the FDIC would calculate and publish a similar chart with inflation-adjusted figures in the Federal Register on or before January 15 of each calendar year.

    The FDIC, however, proposes to retain language in § 308.116(a), (c), and (d) concerning violations of the Change in Bank Control Act. These regulations, which the FDIC implemented in 1991, address requests for a hearing, mitigating factors, and the consequences of a respondent's failure to answer.15 The language in current § 308.116(b)(1) through (3), however, repeats the relevant statutory language of 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16)(A)-(D). Further, current § 308.116(b)(4) merely contains inflation adjustments. Therefore, the FDIC proposes removing current § 308.116(b) and instead directing readers to § 308.132(d) to determine current maximum CMP amounts.

    15See 56 FR 37968 (Aug. 9, 1991).

    The FDIC also proposes to keep language concerning the late filing of Call Reports at current § 308.132(d)(1) and (d)(3). 12 U.S.C. 1817(a) provides the maximum CMP amounts for the late filing of Call Reports. In 1991, however, the FDIC issued regulations that further subdivided these amounts based upon the size of the institution and the lateness of the filing.16 These regulations accordingly differ from other provisions found in § 308.132(d) that simply restate relevant statutory language regarding maximum CMP amounts. The Proposed Rule would merge language from current § 308.132(d)(1) and (3) into a new § 308.132(e), since, aside from the differing penalty amounts, these two current subsections contain similar language. The new § 308.132(e) would direct readers to the Federal Register to determine the applicable inflation-adjusted penalty amounts.

    16See 56 FR 37968, 37992-93 (Aug. 9, 1991).

    The FDIC proposes correcting four errors currently located at § 308.132(d)(1) and (3) concerning the maximum amount that generally will be assessed for violations of 12 U.S.C. 1464(v) and 1817(a) regarding the late filing of Call Reports by certain small institutions. The current text contains the inadvertent overstatement of four fractions of an institution's total assets that are paired with correctly stated basis-point figures. These corrections would align the listed fractions of an institution's total assets with the listed basis-point calculations, and these corrections would be reflected in the annual Federal Register CMP notice.17

    17 For example, current section 308.132(d)(1)(i)(A) states, “the amount assessed shall be the greater of [an inflation-adjusted daily penalty] or 1/1,000th of the institution's total assets (1/10th of a basis point)” when it should read, “the amount assessed shall be the greater of [an inflation-adjusted daily penalty] or 1/100,000th of the institution's total assets (1/10th of a basis point).” (Emphasis added).

    18 The maximum penalty amount is per day, unless otherwise indicated.

    19 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the lesser of this amount or 1 percent of total assets.

    20 12 U.S.C. 1817(a) provides the maximum CMP amounts for the late filing of Call Reports. In 1991, however, the FDIC issued regulations that further subdivided these amounts based upon the size of the institution and the lateness of the filing. See 56 FR 37968, 37992-93 (Aug. 9, 1991), to be re-codified at 12 CFR 308.132(e)(1). These adjusted subdivided amounts are found at the end of this chart.

    21 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the lesser of this amount or 1 percent of total assets.

    22 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the lesser of this amount or 1 percent of total assets.

    23 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the lesser of this amount or 1 percent of total assets.

    24 These amounts also apply to CMPs in statutes that cross-reference 12 U.S.C. 1818, such as 12 U.S.C. 2601, 2804(b), 3108(b), 3349(b), 4009(a), 4309(a), 4717(b); 15 U.S.C. 1607(a), 1681s(b), 1691(b), 1691c(a), 1693o(a); 42 U.S.C. 3601.

    25 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the lesser of this amount or 1 percent of total assets.

    26 The $122-per-day maximum CMP under 12 U.S.C. 1828(h), for failure or refusal to pay any assessment, applies only when the assessment is less than $10,000. When the amount of the assessment is $10,000 or more, the maximum CMP under section 1828(h) is 1 percent of the amount of the assessment for each day that the failure or refusal continues.

    27 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the lesser of this amount or 1 percent of total assets.

    28 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the greater of this amount or 1/100,000th of the institution's total assets.

    29 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the greater of this amount or 1/50,000th of the institution's total assets.

    30 The maximum penalty amount for an institution is the lesser of this amount or 1 percent of total assets.

    Lastly, the FDIC proposes to revise cross-references found at 12 CFR 308.502(a)(6), 12 CFR 308.502(b)(4), 12 CFR 308.530, and 12 CFR 327.3(c) to reflect the proposed revisions to 12 CFR 308.132(d).

    Since the Proposed Rule would amend the presentation of maximum CMP levels in the Federal Register, the FDIC believes the rule will not pose any regulatory costs to IDIs or cost to the public in general.

    Sample Civil Money Penalty Table U.S. Code citation Adjusted Maximum CMP 18
  • (Beginning January 15, 2018)
  • 12 U.S.C. 1464(v): Tier One CMP $3,928 Tier Two CMP $39,278 Tier Three CMP 19 $1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 1467(d) $9,819 12 U.S.C. 1817(a): Tier One CMP 20 $3,928 Tier Two CMP $39,278 Tier Three CMP 21 $1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 1817(c): Tier One CMP $3,591 Tier Two CMP $35,904 Tier Three CMP 22 $1,795,216 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16): Tier One CMP $9,819 Tier Two CMP $49,096 Tier Three CMP 23 $1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 1818(i)(2) 24 Tier One CMP $9,819 Tier Two CMP $49,096 Tier Three CMP 25 $1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 1820(e)(4) $8,977 12 U.S.C. 1820(k)(6) $323,027 12 U.S.C. 1828(a)(3) $122 12 U.S.C. 1828(h) 26 For assessments < $10,000 $122 12 U.S.C. 1829b(j) $20,521 12 U.S.C. 1832(c) $2,852 12 U.S.C. 1884 $285 12 U.S.C. 1972(2)(F): Tier One CMP $9,819 Tier Two CMP $49,096 Tier Three CMP 27 $1,963,870 12 U.S.C. 3909(d) $2,443 15 U.S.C. 78u-2 Tier One CMP (individuals) $9,239 Tier One CMP (others) $92,383 Tier Two CMP (individuals) $92,383 Tier Two CMP (others) $461,916 Tier Three CMP (individuals) $184,767 Tier Three penalty (others) $923,831 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k): First violation $11,279 Subsequent violations $22,556 31 U.S.C. 3802 $11,181 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f) $2,133 CFR Citation Adjusted Presumptive CMP (Beginning January 15, 2018) 12 CFR 308.132(e)(1)(i): Institutions with $25 million or more in assets: 1 to 15 days late $538 16 or more days late $1,078 Institutions with less than $25 million in assets: 1 to 15 days late 28 $180 16 or more days late 29 $359 12 CFR 308.132(e)(1)(ii): Institutions with $25 million or more in assets 1 to 15 days late $897 16 or more days late $1,795 Institutions with less than $25 million in assets 1 to 15 days late 1/50,000th of the institution's total assets. 16 or more days late 1/25,000th of the institution's total assets. 12 CFR 308.132(e)(2) $39,278 12 CFR 308.132(e)(3): Tier One CMP $3,928 Tier Two CMP $39,278 Tier Three CMP 30 $1,963,870
    IV. Alternatives Considered

    During preliminary discussions regarding the Proposed Rule, the FDIC considered possible alternatives to issuing the Proposed Rule. The primary alternative the FDIC considered was to maintain the current statutory language in the CFR and Federal Register as well as the CMP presentation format. This alternative (1) keeps the redundant statutory language in the CFR and Federal Register, (2) does not improve the clarity and readability of the maximum CMPs, and (3) does not address the fact that the CMP presentation format is inconsistent with the other prudential regulators. Therefore, the FDIC believes the Proposed Rule will support ease of reference and public understanding more so than the alternative.

    V. Request for Comment

    The FDIC believes that these changes to Part 308 are ministerial and technical and that, therefore, notice-and-comment rulemaking is unnecessary. Nonetheless, in the interest of transparency, the FDIC invites comments on all aspects of this Proposed Rule. Commenters are specifically encouraged to identify any technical issues raised by the Proposed Rule.

    VI. Regulatory Analysis Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act

    Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 31 requires that each Federal banking agency, in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, in order to provide an adequate transition period, new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.

    31 12 U.S.C. 4802.

    The Proposed Rule would not impose any new or additional reporting, disclosures, or other requirements on insured depository institutions. Therefore, the Proposed Rule is not subject to the requirements of this statute.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that, in connection with a rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the Proposed Rule on small entities.32 A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration has defined “small entities” to include banking organizations with total assets less than or equal to $550 million.33 The FDIC supervises 3,603 depository institutions,34 of which 2,885 are defined as small banking entities by the terms of the RFA. For the reasons described below and under section 605(b) of the RFA, the FDIC certifies that the Proposed Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    32 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    33  13 CFR 121.201 (as amended, effective December 2, 2014).

    34 FDIC-supervised institutions are set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1813(q)(2).

    The FDIC believes the proposed amendments to 12 CFR part 308 will have a negligible impact on small entities. For a detailed description of the Proposed Rule and its expected effects, please review Section III above. The proposed revisions are intended to simplify the text of the CFR by removing unnecessary and redundant text in order to make it easier for readers to reference and understand the current maximum CMP amounts.

    The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    The FDIC determined that the Proposed Rule will not affect family wellbeing within the meaning of section 654 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.35

    35 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Proposed Rule does not create any new, or revise any existing, collections of information under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.36 Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.

    36 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Plain Language Act

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the FDIC to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000.37 Accordingly, the FDIC has attempted to write the Proposed Rule in clear and comprehensible language.

    37 Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (Nov. 12, 1999).

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Bank deposit insurance, Banks, Banking, Claims, Crime, Equal access to justice, Fraud, Investigations, Lawyers, Penalties.

    12 CFR Part 327

    Bank deposit insurance, Banks, Savings Associations.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FDIC proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 308 and 327 as follows:

    PART 308—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 504, 554-557; 12 U.S.C. 93(b), 164, 505, 1464, 1467(d), 1467a, 1468, 1815(e), 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1828, 1829, 1829(b), 1831i, 1831m(g)(4), 1831o, 1831p-1, 1832(c), 1884(b), 1972, 3102, 3108(a), 3349, 3909, 4717, 5412(b)(2)(C), 5414(b)(3); 15 U.S.C. 78(h) and (i), 78o(c)(4), 78o-4(c), 78o-5, 78q-1, 78s, 78u, 78u-2, 78u-3, 78w, 6801(b), 6805(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 330, 5321; 42 U.S.C. 4012a; Pub. L. 104-134, sec. 31001(s), 110 Stat. 1321; Pub. L. 109-351, 120 Stat. 1966; Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376; Pub. L. 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584.

    2. Amend § 308.116 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 308.116 Assessment of penalties.

    (b) Maximum penalty amounts. Under 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(16), a civil money penalty may be assessed for violations of change in control of insured depository institution provisions in the maximum amounts calculated and published in accordance with 12 CFR 308.132(d).

    3. Amend § 308.132 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 308.132 Assessment of penalties.

    (d) Maximum civil money penalty amounts. Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess civil money penalties in the maximum amounts using the following framework:

    (1) Statutory formula to calculate inflation adjustments. The FDIC is required by statute to annually adjust for inflation the maximum amount of each civil money penalty within its jurisdiction to administer. The inflation adjustment is calculated by multiplying the maximum dollar amount of the civil money penalty for the previous calendar year by the cost-of-living inflation adjustment multiplier provided annually by the Office of Management and Budget and rounding the total to the nearest dollar.

    (2) Notice of inflation adjustments. By January 15 of each calendar year, the FDIC will announce in the Federal Register the maximum penalties that may be assessed after each January 15, based on the formula in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, for conduct occurring on or after November 2, 2015.

    (e) Civil money penalties for violations of 12 U.S.C. 1464(v) and 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)—(1) Late Filing—Tier One penalties. Where an institution fails to make or publish its Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) within the appropriate time periods, but where the institution maintains procedures in place reasonably adapted to avoid inadvertent error and the late filing occurred unintentionally and as a result of such error, or where the institution inadvertently transmitted a Call Report that is minimally late, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a Tier One civil money penalty. The amount of such a penalty shall not exceed the maximum amount calculated and published annually in the Federal Register under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Such a penalty may be assessed for each day that the violation continues.

    (i) First offense. Generally, in such cases, the amount assessed shall be an amount calculated and published annually in the Federal Register under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. The Federal Register document will contain a presumptive penalty amount per day for each of the first 15 days for which the failure continues, and a presumptive amount per day for each subsequent days the failure continues, beginning on the 16th day. The annual Federal Register notice will also provide penalty amounts that generally may be assessed for institutions with less than $25,000,000 in assets.

    (ii) Subsequent offense. The FDIC will calculate and publish in the Federal Register a presumptive daily Tier One penalty to be imposed where an institution has been delinquent in making or publishing its Call Report within the preceding five quarters. The published penalty shall identify the amount that will generally be imposed per day for each of the first 15 days for which the failure continues, and the amount that will generally be imposed per day for each subsequent day the failure continues, beginning on the 16th day. The annual Federal Register document will also provide penalty amounts that generally may be assessed for institutions with less than $25,000,000 in assets.

    (iii) Lengthy or repeated violations. The amounts set forth in this paragraph (e)(1) will be assessed on a case-by-case basis where the amount of time of the institution's delinquency is lengthy or the institution has been delinquent repeatedly in making or publishing its Call Reports.

    (iv) Waiver. Absent extraordinary circumstances outside the control of the institution, penalties assessed for late filing shall not be waived.

    (2) Late-filing—Tier Two penalties. Where an institution fails to make or publish its Call Report within the appropriate time period, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a Tier Two civil money penalty for each day the failure continues. The amount of such a penalty will not exceed the maximum amount calculated and published annually in the Federal Register under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

    (3) False or misleading reports or information—(i) Tier One penalties. In cases in which an institution submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a Tier One civil money penalty for each day the information is not corrected, where the institution maintains procedures in place reasonably adapted to avoid inadvertent error and the violation occurred unintentionally and as a result of such error, or where the institution inadvertently transmits a Call Report or information that is false or misleading. The amount of such a penalty will not exceed the maximum amount calculated and published annually in the Federal Register under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

    (ii) Tier Two penalties. Where an institution submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or other information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a Tier Two civil money penalty for each day the information is not corrected. The amount of such a penalty will not exceed the maximum amount calculated and published annually in the Federal Register under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

    (iii) Tier Three penalties. Where an institution knowingly or with reckless disregard for the accuracy of any Call Report or information submits or publishes any false or misleading Call Report or other information, the Board of Directors or its designee may assess a Tier Three civil money penalty for each day the information is not corrected. The penalty shall not exceed the lesser of 1 percent of the institution's total assets per day or the amount calculated and published annually in the Federal Register under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.

    (4) Mitigating factors. The amounts set forth in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section may be reduced based upon the factors set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.

    4. Amend § 308.502 by revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(4) to read as follows:
    § 308.502 Basis for civil penalties and assessments.

    (a) * * *

    (6) The amount of any penalty assessed under paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be adjusted for inflation in accordance with section 308.132(d) of this part.

    (b) * * *

    (4) The amount of any penalty assessed under paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be adjusted for inflation in accordance with section 308.132(d) of this part.

    5. Amend § 308.530 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 308.530 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments.

    (d) Civil money penalties that are assessed under this subpart are subject to annual adjustments to account for inflation as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584) (see also 12 CFR 308.132(d)).

    PART 327—ASSESSMENTS 6. The authority citation for part 327 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1441, 1813, 1815, 1817-19, 1821.

    7. Amend § 327.3 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 327.3 Payment of assessments.

    (c) Necessary action, sufficient funding by institution. Each insured depository institution shall take all actions necessary to allow the Corporation to debit assessments from the insured depository institution's designated deposit account. Each insured depository institution shall, prior to each payment date indicated in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, ensure that funds in an amount at least equal to the amount on the quarterly certified statement invoice are available in the designated account for direct debit by the Corporation. Failure to take any such action or to provide such funding of the account shall be deemed to constitute nonpayment of the assessment. Penalties for failure to timely pay assessments will be calculated and published in accordance with 12 CFR 308.132(d).

    Dated at Washington, DC, on July 19, 2018.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16548 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY 12 CFR Parts 1206 and 1240 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight 12 CFR Part 1750 RIN 2590-AA95 Enterprise Capital Requirements AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency; Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight; Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 17, 2018, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment that proposes a new regulatory capital framework for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). The comment period was set to expire on September 17, 2018. This notice extends the comment period by an additional 60 days to allow the public additional time to comment on the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published at 83 FR 33312 (July 17, 2018) is extended. Written comments must be received on or before November 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit your comments on the proposed rule, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AA95, by any one of the following methods:

    Agency website: www.fhfa.gov/open-for-comment-or-input.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email to FHFA at [email protected] to ensure timely receipt by FHFA. Include the following information in the subject line of your submission: Comments/RIN 2590-AA95.

    Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA95, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. Deliver the package at the Seventh Street entrance Guard Desk, First Floor, on business days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

    U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service, Federal Express, or Other Mail Service: The mailing address for comments is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA95, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. Please note that all mail sent to FHFA via U.S. Mail is routed through a national irradiation facility, a process that may delay delivery by approximately two weeks. For any time-sensitive correspondence, please plan accordingly.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Naa Awaa Tagoe, Senior Associate Director, Office of Financial Analysis, Modeling & Simulations, (202) 649-3140, [email protected]; Andrew Varrieur, Associate Director, Office of Financial Analysis, Modeling & Simulations, (202) 649-3141, [email protected]; or Miriam Smolen, Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, (202) 649-3182, [email protected] These are not toll-free numbers. The mailing address is: Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Hearing Impaired is (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final rule. Copies of all comments will be posted without change, and will include any personal information you provide such as your name, address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA website at http://www.fhfa.gov. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public through the electronic rulemaking docket for this proposed rule also located on the FHFA website.

    Background

    On July 17, 2018, FHFA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule proposing a new regulatory capital framework for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which includes a new framework for risk-based capital requirements and two alternatives for an updated minimum leverage capital requirement. See 83 FR 33312. The comment period for the proposed rule was originally set to expire on September 17, 2018. FHFA is extending the comment period an additional 60 days, changing the deadline for submitting comments to November 16, 2018.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. Melvin L. Watt, Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16654 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0633; Product Identifier 2018-NE-22-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-2B67, -2B67B, and -2B67/P turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by low-cycle fatigue (LCF) cracking of the fuel manifold leading to an engine fire. This proposed AD would require removal from service of certain fuel manifolds at the next engine shop visit and their replacement with parts eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0633; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Ave., Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7147; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0633; Product Identifier 2018-NE-22-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

    Discussion

    We received information concerning a fire in the under-cowl compartment of a GE GEnx-2B turbofan engine. Insufficient bushing clearance in the fuel manifold bracket resulted in additional fuel manifold loads, premature manifold cracking, fuel leakage, and fuel ignition. Twelve fuel manifolds were found to have LCF cracks. Three of these twelve cracked fuel manifolds resulted in a fire. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the fuel manifold, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin (SB) 73-0038 R02, dated November 19, 2015. The SB describes procedures for removing and replacing the fuel manifold system with parts eligible for installation.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removal from service of certain fuel manifolds at the next engine shop visit and their replacement with parts eligible for installation.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects two engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Replace fuel manifolds 220 work-hours × $85 per hour = $18,700 $119,485 $138,185 $276,370
    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.

    Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0633; Product Identifier 2018-NE-22-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 17, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-2B67, -2B67B, and -2B67/P turbofan engines with top main fuel manifolds, part numbers (P/Ns) 2419M11G01, 2561M11G01, or 2546M11G01, or lower fuel manifolds, P/Ns 2419M12G01, 2561M12G01, or 2546M12G01, installed.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7310, Engine Fuel Distribution.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by low-cycle fatigue cracking of the fuel manifold leading to an engine fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent the failure of the fuel manifold. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the fuel manifold, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Actions

    At the next engine shop visit, remove the applicable fuel manifolds from service and replace with parts eligible for installation.

    (h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install top main fuel manifolds, P/Ns 2419M11G01, 2561M11G01, or 2546M11G01, or lower fuel manifolds, P/Ns 2419M12G01, 2561M12G01, or 2546M12G01.

    (i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except for the following situations, which do not constitute an engine shop visit:

    (1) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation of the engine without subsequent maintenance.

    (2) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of replacing the fan or propulsor without subsequent maintenance.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Ave., Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7147; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 27, 2018. Karen M. Grant, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16515 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0704; Product Identifier 2018-NM-066-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200 and -300 series airplanes; and Airbus SAS Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of depressurization of hydraulic reservoirs caused by air leakage from the pressure relief valve (PRV) of the hydraulic reservoir (HR) due to the extrusion of the O-ring seal from certain HR PRVs. This proposed AD would require identifying the part number of the HR, and replacing and re-identifying affected HR PRVs. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0704; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3229.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0704; Product Identifier 2018-NM-066-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0064, dated March 23, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200 and -300 series airplanes; and Airbus SAS Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Some events of depressurisation of hydraulic reservoirs have been reported, due to air leakage from the HR PRV [hydraulic reservoir pressure relief valve]. The results of the investigations revealed that the air leakage was due to the extrusion of the O-ring seal from the HR PRV. This may have happened during HR maintenance, testing or during flight, if HR over-filling was performed, as a result of which hydraulic fluid could pass through the PRV, causing [the] PRV seal to migrate from its nominal position, leading to loss of HR pressurisation.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the loss of one or more hydraulic systems, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the AOT [Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A29L005-16, dated January 28, 2016] to provide instructions to inspect the HR fluid level of each hydraulic circuit and to provide instructions for certain actions when servicing with hydraulic fluid is accomplished on an HR. Consequently, EASA published AD 2016-0107 [related FAA AD 2017-01-08, Amendment 39-18775 (82 FR 1593, January 6, 2017) (“2017-01-08”)] to require accomplishment of these actions for aeroplanes in service.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that the detected air leakage was due to the extrusion of the O-ring seal from a specific batch of HR PRV. Airbus published the applicable inspection SB [service bulletin] to inspect the HR of each hydraulic circuit and to provide instructions to identify the affected parts, and the Modification SB to provide instructions for replacement of each affected part fitted on an affected HR.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0107, which is superseded, and requires the [identification and] replacement [and re-identification] of the affected parts.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0704.

    Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2017-01-08

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2017-01-08. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD is more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require identifying, replacing, and re-identifying affected HR PRVs. Accomplishing the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2017-01-08.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for identifying HR part numbers. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

    • Service Bulletin A330-29-3134, dated August 16, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A340-29-4102, dated August 16, 2017.

    Airbus SAS has also issued the following service information, which describes procedures for replacing and re-identifying affected PRVs and HRs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

    • Service Bulletin A330-29-3131, dated August 11, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A330-29-3132, dated August 11, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A330-29-3133, dated August 11, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A340-29-4099, dated August 11. 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A340-29-4100, dated August 11, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A340-29-4101, dated August 11, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A340-29-5026, dated August 11, 2017.

    Safran has issued Vendor Service Bulletins 42-29-005, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2017, and 42-29-006, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2017. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information describes procedures for replacing affected HR PRVs, and including the serial numbers of those PRVs.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 103 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Up to 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $510 $3,390 Up to $3,900 Up to $401,700
    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.

    Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2018-0704; Product Identifier 2018-NM-066-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 17, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2017-01-08, Amendment 39-18775 (82 FR 1593, January 5, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-08”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (2) Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus SAS Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus SAS Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

    (5) Airbus SAS Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

    (6) Airbus SAS Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic power.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of depressurization of hydraulic reservoirs caused by air leakage from the pressure relief valve (PRV) of the hydraulic reservoir (HR) due to the extrusion of the O-ring seal from certain HR PRVs. We are issuing this AD to address air leakage from the HR PRV, which could lead to the loss of one or more hydraulic systems, with the possible loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Definitions for This AD

    (1) Affected HRs are identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD.

    (2) Affected PRVs are installed on affected HRs and have part number 42F0026 and a serial number identified in Safran Vendor Service Bulletins 42-29-005, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2017; and 42-29-006, Revision 01, dated September 27, 2017, as applicable.

    (3) A Group 1 airplane has an affected PRV installed.

    (4) A Group 2 airplane does not have any affected PRV installed. A Model A330 airplane on which Airbus SAS modifications 206863, 206864, and 206965 have been embodied in production is a Group 2 airplane, provided the airplane remains in that configuration.

    (5) In table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD: Green hydraulic circuit is (G), blue hydraulic circuit is (B), and yellow hydraulic circuit is (Y).

    EP03AU18.001 (h) Part Number Inspection

    At the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, identify the HR part number, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3134, dated August 16, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4102, dated August 16, 2017; as applicable.

    (i) Replacement

    For Group 1 airplanes: At the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, replace each affected PRV in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(7) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3131, dated August 11, 2017.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3132, dated August 11, 2017.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3133, dated August 11, 2017.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4099, dated August 11. 2017.

    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4100, dated August 11, 2017.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4101, dated August 11, 2017.

    (7) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5026, dated August 11, 2017.

    (j) Part Re-identification

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: Concurrently with the PRV replacement required by paragraph (i) of this AD, re-identify the part numbers of affected HRs as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(7) of this AD.

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: At the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, re-identify the part numbers of affected PRVs and HRs, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(7) of this AD.

    (k) Terminating Action

    Replacement of all affected PRVs on an airplane, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, terminates all requirements of AD 2017-01-08 for that airplane.

    (l) Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: After replacement of all affected parts as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do not install any affected PRV.

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any affected PRV.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0064, dated March 23, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0704.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax: 206-231-3229.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 25, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16574 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0641; Product Identifier 2018-NM-032-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-22-07, which applies to certain Airbus Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-22-07 requires repetitive inspections of the frame forks, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2017-22-07 also includes optional modifications that constitute terminating action. Since we issued AD 2017-22-07, an evaluation was done by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and a determination was made that a modification of the frame forks must be accomplished. This proposed AD would require modifying certain forward and aft cargo compartment doors, and related investigative and corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 2 Rond Point Emile Dewoitine, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0641; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0641; Product Identifier 2018-NM-032-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    We issued AD 2017-22-07, Amendment 39-19087 (82 FR 56158, November 28, 2017) (“AD 2017-22-07”), for certain Airbus Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-22-07 requires repetitive inspections of the frame forks, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2017-22-07 also includes optional modifications that constitute terminating action. AD 2017-22-07 resulted from a report of cracks on frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors. We issued AD 2017-22-07 to address cracks on the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors, which could lead to reduced structural integrity and failure of the cargo compartment door, possible decompression of the airplane, and injury to occupants.

    Actions Since AD 2017-22-07 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2017-22-07, an evaluation was done by the DAH indicating that the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors are subject to WFD, and a determination was made that a modification of the frame forks must be accomplished.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0024, dated January 29, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During full scale fatigue test, cracks were found on frame forks and outer skin on forward and aft cargo doors. To improve the fatigue behaviour of the frame forks, Airbus introduced modification (mod) 22948 in production, and issued inspection Service Bulletin (SB) A320-52-1032 and mod SB A320-52-1042, both recommended. Since those actions were taken, further improved cargo compartment doors were introduced in production through Airbus mod 26213, on aeroplanes having [manufacturer serial number] MSN 0759 and up.

    In the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) study, it was determined that repetitive inspection are necessary for aft and forward cargo compartment doors on aeroplanes that are in pre-mod 26213 configuration. Failure to detect cracks would reduce the cargo door structural integrity.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cargo door failure, possibly resulting in decompression of the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A320-52-1171 to provide instructions for repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI). This SB was later revised to correct the list of affected cargo doors. Airbus also issued SB A320-52-1170, introducing a door modification which would allow terminating the repetitive SDI[s].

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0187 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-22-07] to require repetitive SDI[s] of the affected cargo doors and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of applicable repairs. That [EASA] AD also included reference to SB A320-52-1170 as optional terminating action.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, further investigations linked to the WFD analysis highlighted that, to meet the WFD requirements, it is necessary to require embodiment of the terminating action modification.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0187, which is superseded, and requires modification of all affected cargo doors, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive SDI[s] required by this [EASA] AD.

    The related investigative action is a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracks. Corrective actions include, among other things, oversizing and cold-expanding any affected holes and repair. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0641.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, which describes procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections of all frame forks in the beam 4 area of any affected door, and corrective actions.

    • Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14, 1997, which describes procedures for modification of all affected forward and aft cargo compartment doors.

    • Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated September 5, 2016, which describes procedures for modifying all affected forward and aft cargo compartment doors, including oversize and cold working of riveting for all frame forks.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

    Paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(3) of AD 2017-22-07 allowed an optional terminating modification that could be done at any time. This proposed AD would still permit that optional terminating modification, but with new limitations on the compliance time, i.e., the optional modification must be done on or after the accumulation of 21,700 flight cycles since first installation of the door on an airplane in order to terminate the repetitive inspections. The repetitive inspections are not terminated if the modification is done before the accumulation of 21,700 flight cycles since first installation of the door on an airplane. These limitations match those in EASA AD 2018-0024, dated January 29, 2018.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 88 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Modification 24 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,040 Up to $240 Up to $2,280 Up to $200,640. Inspection 25 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,125 $0 $2,125 $187,000.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.

    Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-22-07, Amendment 39-19087 (82 FR 56158, November 28, 2017), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0641; Product Identifier 2018-NM-032-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 17, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-22-07, Amendment 39-19087 (82 FR 56158, November 28, 2017) (“AD 2017-22-07”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers through 0758 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and a determination that a modification of the frame forks must be accomplished. We are issuing this AD to address cracks on the frame forks and outer skin on the forward and aft cargo compartment doors, which could lead to reduced structural integrity and failure of the cargo compartment door, possible decompression of the airplane, and injury to occupants.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Definition of Affected Door, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the definition in paragraph (g) of AD 2017-22-07, with no changes. For the purpose of this AD, an “affected door” is a forward or aft cargo compartment door, having any part number listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, except a cargo compartment door on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042 or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170 is embodied.

    EP03AU18.000 (h) Retained Repetitive Special Detailed Inspection of Frame Forks, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-22-07, with no changes. At the latest of the compliance times listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD: Do a special detailed inspection of all frame forks in the beam 4 area of any affected door as defined in paragraph (g) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, except as specified in paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. A review of the airplane delivery or maintenance records is acceptable to identify any affected door installed on the airplane, provided that the cargo compartment door part number can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (1) Before exceeding 37,500 flight cycles since first installation of the door on an airplane.

    (2) Within 900 flight cycles after January 2, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2017-22-07), without exceeding 41,950 flight cycles since first installation of the door on an airplane.

    (3) Within 50 flight cycles after January 2, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2017-22-07), for a door having reached or exceeded 41,900 flight cycles since first installation on an airplane.

    (4) Within 3,000 flight cycles since the last inspection of the door as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1032.

    (i) Retained Corrective Actions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2017-22-07, with no changes. If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, except as specified in paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD. Accomplishment of applicable corrective actions does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

    (j) Terminating Modification

    Before the accumulation of 56,300 total flight cycles, but not before the accumulation of 21,700 total flight cycles since first installation of the affected door on an airplane: Modify all affected doors of an airplane, including accomplishment of all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated September 5, 2016. Accomplishing this modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-installed on that airplane.

    (k) Retained Optional Terminating Action, With Changes Related to Compliance

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2017-22-07, with changes related to compliance.

    (1) Modification of all affected doors of an airplane before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1042, Revision 2, dated January 14, 1997, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD and a method of compliance for the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD, for that airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-installed on that airplane. On or after the effective date of this AD, the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be done.

    (2) Modification of all affected doors of an airplane including accomplishment of all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, dated September 5, 2016, except as specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD and a method of compliance for the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD, for that airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-installed on that airplane. On or after the effective date of this AD, the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be done.

    (3) Modification of all affected doors on an airplane, in case of finding damaged frame forks, as specified in an Airbus Repair Design Approval Sheet (RDAS), if done before the effective date of this AD and done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD and a method of compliance for the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD, for that airplane, provided that, after modification, no affected door is re-installed on that airplane. On or after the effective date of this AD, the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD must be done.

    (l) Retained Exception to Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2017-22-07, with no changes. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1170, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated September 5, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017; specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD.

    (m) Retained No Reporting Requirement

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2017-22-07, with no changes. Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 02, dated April 10, 2017, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as “RC,” this AD does not include that requirement.

    (n) Retained Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2017-22-07, with no changes.

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before January 2, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2017-22-07), using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, dated October 29, 2015, provided that it can be conclusively determined that any part number D52371000018 was also inspected as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before January 2, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2017-22-07), using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-52-1171, Revision 01, dated September 5, 2016.

    (o) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an affected door specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, unless less than 56,300 flight cycles have accumulated since first installation of the door on an airplane, and unless the door has been inspected in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD and all applicable corrective actions have been done in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (p)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as specified in paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0024, dated January 29, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0641.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 2 Rond Point Emile Dewoitine, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 24, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16497 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0703; Product Identifier 2018-NM-007-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of damaged vapor seals, block seals, and heat shield seals on the outboard pylons between the engine strut and aft fairing. This proposed AD would require installing new aft fairing vapor seals, heatshield seals, heatshield seal retainers, block seals and outboard lateral restraint access panels. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0703.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0703; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3552; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0703; Product Identifier 2018-NM-007-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We have received reports of damaged vapor seals, block seals, and heat shield seals on the outboard pylons between the engine strut and aft fairing. Such damage could allow flammable fluid leakage out of the aft fairing. This condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled fire in the engine strut.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017. This service information describes procedures for installing new aft fairing vapor seals, heatshield seals, heatshield seal retainers, block seals, and outboard lateral restraint access panels. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0703.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The applicability in this proposed AD does not refer to paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017. The service information does not contain a comprehensive list of the airplanes affected by the identified unsafe condition because the spare parts identified in paragraph (j) of this AD have been determined to be rotable parts that are capable of being installed on all Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. Therefore, the applicability of this proposed AD is all Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Installation of vapor seals, heatshield seals, heatshield seal retainers, block seals, and outboard lateral restraint access panels 136 work-hours × $85 per hour = $11,560 $21,910 $33,470 $435,110

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0703; Product Identifier 2018-NM-007-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 17, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2017-04-13, Amendment 39 18808 (82 FR 11795, February 27, 2017) (“2017-04-13”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/pylons.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of damaged vapor seals, block seals, and heat shield seals on the outboard pylons between the engine strut and aft fairing. We are issuing this AD to address heat damage to the vapor seals between the engine strut and aft fairing. Such damage could allow flammable fluid leakage out of the aft fairing, which could result in an uncontrolled fire in the engine strut.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017.

    (2) For airplanes not identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017: Within 4 years or 4,800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect to determine if any part number identified in paragraph (j) of this AD is installed. If any part number specified in paragraph (j) of this AD is installed, within 4 years or 4,800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the part with a part number that is identified as an acceptable replacement in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017.

    (h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2247, dated August 3, 2017, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”

    (i) Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, terminates all requirements of AD 2017-04-13.

    (j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an access panel lateral restraint with part numbers (P/Ns) 321U8595-1, 321U8595-2, 321U8595-3 and 321U8595-4; a vapor seal with P/N 323U8452-3; a block seal with P/N 323U8452-2; a heatshield seal with P/N 323U8852-1; and a heatshield seal retainer P/N 323U8852-2; on any airplane.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3552; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 25, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16575 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0468; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-13] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Cambridge, MD AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cambridge-Dorchester Regional Airport, Cambridge, MD, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Cambridge non-directional radio beacon and cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also would update the airport name and geographic coordinates of this airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0468; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend Class E airspace at Cambridge-Dorchester Regional Airport, Cambridge, MD, to support IFR operations at this airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2018-0468 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-13) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0468; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Cambridge-Dorchester Regional Airport, Cambridge, MD, due to the decommissioning of the Cambridge NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The airspace redesign would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and the airport name would be updated to Cambridge-Dorchester Regional Airport, (formerly Cambridge-Dorchester Airport).

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANE ME E5 Cambridge, MD [Amended] Cambridge-Dorchester Regional Airport, MD (Lat. 38°32′22″ N, long. 76°01′49″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6- mile radius of Cambridge-Dorchester Regional Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 26, 2018. Shawn Reddinger, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16606 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0181] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duluth Ship Canal, Duluth-Superior Harbor, MN AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Duluth Aerial Lift Bridge for vessels under 300 gross tons. The City of Duluth has requested that the current summer bridge schedule (Memorial Day to Labor Day) be extended to include the spring and fall.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0181 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85 OMB Office of Management and Budget NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental) §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Duluth Aerial Bridge is located 0.25 miles from Duluth Harbor North Pier Light at the lakeward end of the Duluth Ship Canal. It is a vertical lift type bridge that provides 15 feet of vertical clearance in the down position and up to 141 feet in the open position. Currently the bridge opens on signal except that, from the Friday before Memorial Day through the Tuesday after Labor Day each year, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., seven days a week, the drawbridge opens on the hour and half-hour for vessels under 300 gross tons, if needed; and the bridge will open on signal for all vessels from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., seven days a week, and at all times for Federal, state, and local government vessels, vessels in distress, commercial vessels engaged in rescue or emergency salvage operations, commercial-assist towing vessels engaged in towing or port operations, vessels engaged in pilot duties, vessels seeking shelter from severe weather, and all commercial vessels 300 gross tons or greater. From January 1 through March 15, the draw opens on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given. The opening signal is one prolonged blast, one short blast, one prolonged blast, one short blast. If the drawbridge is disabled, the bridge authorities shall give incoming and outgoing vessels timely and dependable notice, by tug service if necessary, so that the vessels do not attempt to enter the canal.

    Marine traffic on the waterway consists of large commercial vessels, smaller commercial vessels, and both power and sail recreational vessels. Duluth-Superior Harbor has two federal project channels available for mariners to enter the harbor: The Duluth Ship Canal and the Superior Channel. The Superior Channel is not crossed by any bridges.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The City of Duluth operates the Duluth Aerial Lift Bridge across the Duluth Ship Canal and has reported increased traffic and community growth on Minnesota Point, which is only accessible by the Aerial Bridge, and has requested that the current scheduled summer openings be extended to include the spring and fall. The City of Duluth believes this will improve the flow of vehicular traffic over the bridge, relieve vehicular congestion near the bridge and on city streets on both sides of the bridge (Park Point and Canal Park), improve access and response times for emergency response entities, and enhance pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the bridge. The City of Duluth has informally queried local stake holders and has received several comments in favor of extending the summer bridge operating schedule to cover the spring and fall dates (March 16 to December 31).

    The regulation only affects recreational vessels and commercial vessels under 300 gross tons. The drawbridge will continue to open at all times for commercial vessels over 300 gross tons. The only change to the regulation will be to extend the dates of the scheduled bridge openings from the Friday before Memorial Day through the Tuesday after Labor Day to March 16 through December 31 each year.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the expected improvement to traffic and all modes of traffic using the drawbridge, and the proven improvement realized by the previous change to the bridge schedule implemented in the last rulemaking.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridges may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because we coordinated with the marina operators and the local stakeholders and incorporated their concerns into the proposed regulation.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

    A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

    PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise § 117.661 to read as follows:
    § 117.661 Duluth Ship Canal (Duluth-Superior Harbor).

    The draw of the Duluth Ship Canal Aerial bridge, mile 0.25 at Duluth, shall operate as follows:

    (a) From 16 March through 31 December, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., seven days a week, the drawbridge shall open on the hour and half-hour for vessels under 300 gross tons, if needed; and the bridge will open on signal for all vessels from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., seven days a week, and at all times for Federal, state, and local government vessels, vessels in distress, commercial vessels engaged in rescue or emergency salvage operations, commercial-assist towing vessels engaged in towing or port operations, vessels engaged in pilot duties, vessels seeking shelter from severe weather, and all commercial vessels 300 gross tons or greater.

    (b) From January 1 through March 15, the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given. The opening signal is one prolonged blast, one short blast, one prolonged blast, one short blast. If the drawbridge is disabled, the bridge authorities shall give incoming and outgoing vessels timely and dependable notice, by tug service if necessary, so that the vessels do not attempt to enter the canal.

    Dated: July 27, 2018. J.M. Nunan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16669 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0398; FRL-9981-32—Region 1] Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Updates to Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Regulation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This revision includes an amended regulation for the enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in New Hampshire. New Hampshire continues to implement a test and repair network for an on-board diagnostic (OBD2) testing program. The submitted New Hampshire regulation updates and clarifies the implementation of the New Hampshire I/M program. The intended effect of this action is to approve the updated I/M program regulation into the New Hampshire SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0398 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number: (617) 918-1660, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background and Purpose II. Summary of New Hampshire's Regulatory Changes III. New Hampshire Satisfying Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M programs IV. Proposed Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

    On June 7, 2016, the State of New Hampshire submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submitted SIP revision included amendments to the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Chapter Saf-C 3200 entitled, “Official Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements,” which update the enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in New Hampshire.

    New Hampshire previously submitted an I/M program SIP revision on November 17, 2011, which EPA approved into the New Hampshire SIP on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5292). New Hampshire's November 17, 2011 SIP revision included all the regulatory and technical documentation required in an I/M SIP submittal to address the requirements of EPA's I/M regulations. The emissions modeling, I/M SIP narrative, and other technical documentation, included in New Hampshire's November 17, 2011 submittal continue to be applicable as the technical demonstration that New Hampshire's implemented I/M program meets the requirements of EPA's I/M regulations. The regulatory amendments made by New Hampshire to regulation Saf-C 3200, submitted in the June 2016 SIP revision, do not reflect any changes to the technical implementation characteristics of the New Hampshire I/M program and thus result in no changes to the EPA-approved emissions modeling analysis.

    II. Summary of New Hampshire's Regulatory Changes

    New Hampshire's amended Saf-C 3200 regulation, submitted as a SIP revision on June 7, 2016, updates a number of regulatory provisions by adding language to clarify the I/M program requirements in New Hampshire. A summary of the most substantial changes made to New Hampshire's SIP-approved regulation follows. New Hampshire (1) added clarifying definitions to Saf-C 3202; (2) amended Saf-C 3203.03 to change the month by which government fleet vehicles need to be inspected, i.e. to September of each year; (3) amended Saf-C 3204.02 and adopted Saf-C 3205.11 to clarify both the required information to be submitted in an application to become an official inspection station, as well as the criteria for denying an application; and (4) amended Saf-C 3218 through Saf-C 3220 to clarify and update the criteria for performance or condition of vehicle components that will result in the rejection of a vehicle.

    III. New Hampshire Satisfying Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs

    In this document, EPA is only proposing to update New Hampshire's I/M regulation by revising subsections or provisions of the regulation as it currently exists in the New Hampshire SIP.1 As stated earlier in this document, the remaining technical aspects (i.e., I/M SIP narrative, the emissions modeling, and other technical documentation) included in New Hampshire's November 17, 2011 SIP revision, and approved by EPA on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5292), continue to be applicable as the technical demonstration that New Hampshire's implemented I/M program meets the requirements of EPA's I/M regulations.

    1 EPA's January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5292) approval of New Hampshire's November 17, 2011 I/M SIP submittal describes how New Hampshire's I/M program satisfies the OBD2 and other I/M regulatory requirements established by the Clean Air Act and EPA's I/M regulations. In addition, EPA's January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5292) approval contains a detailed discussion of EPA's rationale for approving New Hampshire's November 17, 2011 I/M SIP revision and will not be restated in this document.

    IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's June 7, 2016 SIP revision request. This SIP revision request contains New Hampshire's revised motor vehicle I/M program regulation. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve amendments to the following New Hampshire Department of Safety Regulation Saf-C 3200 subsections or provisions as they currently exist in the New Hampshire SIP: Amendments to Saf-C 3202, Saf-C 3203, Saf-C 3204, Saf-C 3205, Saf-C 3206.04, Saf-C 3207.01, Saf-C 3209, Saf-C 3210, Saf-C 3218, Saf-C 3220, Saf-C 3222, and Saf-C 3248. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve Saf-C 3219 which had not previously been submitted for inclusion in the New Hampshire SIP.

    EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's June 7, 2016 SIP revision, containing New Hampshire's updated I/M program regulation, because it is consistent with the CAA's I/M requirements and EPA's I/M regulations, and will strengthen the SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the aforementioned New Hampshire Department of Safety Regulation Saf-C 3200 subsections identified in section IV of this proposal, except as set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    New Hampshire's I/M program regulation contains enforcement provisions that detail state enforcement procedures, including administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, and administrative and judicial procedures. Such enforcement-related provisions are required elements of an I/M SIP under 40 CFR 61.364, and EPA is proposing to approve the provisions as meeting those requirements. However, EPA is not proposing to incorporate those provisions by reference into the EPA-approved federal regulations at 40 CFR part 52. In any federal action to enforce violations of the substantive requirements of the New Hampshire I/M program, the relevant provisions of Section 113 or 304 of the CAA, rather than state enforcement provisions would govern. Similarly, the applicable procedures in any federal action would be the applicable federal court rules or EPA's rules for administrative proceedings at 40 CFR part 22, rather than state administrative procedures. Since the state enforcement provisions would not be applicable in a federal action, incorporating these state-only enforcement provisions into the federal regulations would have no effect. To avoid confusion to the public and regulated parties, EPA is not proposing to incorporate these provisions by reference into the EPA-approved federal regulations in the New Hampshire plan identification in 40 CFR part 52. Specifically, EPA is not proposing to incorporate New Hampshire's regulations Saf-C 3222.04(d) and Saf-C 3248 into the federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.1520(c).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Alexandra Dunn, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16623 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0168, FRL-9981-37—Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by Connecticut which relate to the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP revisions are for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT moderate ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is proposing to approve submittals which include 2011 base year emissions inventories, an emissions statement certification, reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations, reasonably available control measures (RACM) analyses, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0168. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Description of State's Submittals III. Evaluation of State's Submittals A. Emissions Statement Certification B. 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory C. Reasonable Further Progress Plans D. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets/Transportation Conformity E. Contingency Measures F. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over three years) to provide increased protection of public health and the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. Under the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15.

    Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated as nonattainment any area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). With that rulemaking, the Greater Connecticut area and the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT area were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas. The latter area is herein referred to as the NY-NJ-CT area. Areas that were designated as marginal nonattainment were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. On May 14, 2016 (81 FR 26697), the EPA published its determination that the Greater Connecticut area and the NY-NJ-CT area had failed to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment deadline and the areas were reclassified to moderate ozone nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 81.306. Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later than six years after the effective date of designations, or July 20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903.

    II. Description of State's Submittals

    Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182 of subpart 2 outlines SIP requirements applicable to ozone nonattainment areas in each classification category. Moderate area designations trigger additional state requirements established under the provisions of the EPA's ozone implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR part 51, subpart AA). Examples of these requirements include submission of a modeling and attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, controls on stationary sources that represent reasonably available control technology (RACT), and a demonstration that all reasonably available control measures (RACM) have been adopted. The EPA's May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26699) rulemaking established a January 2, 2017 moderate area SIP revision submission deadline.

    On March 9, 2016, Connecticut submitted a 2011 emissions inventory of ozone precursors for all areas of the State. On September 5, 2017, Connecticut submitted an emissions statement certification which also covered all areas of the State. On January 17, 2017, Connecticut submitted SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Greater Connecticut moderate nonattainment area that included an RFP plan, contingency measures for the RFP plan, motor vehicle emissions budgets as defined by the RFP plan, and a RACM demonstration. Connecticut made a similar submittal on August 8, 2017, for the state's portion of the NY-NJ-CT moderate nonattainment area. Although Connecticut's January 17, 2017 and August 8, 2017 submittals also included attainment demonstrations for the 2008 ozone standard, we are not addressing those submittals in this proposed rulemaking.

    III. Evaluation of State's Submittals A. Emissions Statement Certification

    EPA's implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, herein referred to as the 2008 ozone rule, was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2015. See 80 FR 12264. The 2008 ozone rule notes than many areas that were nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS had previously adopted an emissions statement reporting program due to being nonattainment for a prior ozone NAAQS. For these areas, the 2008 ozone rule indicates that the state should review its existing rule to see whether it still meets the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, and if the state determines that it does, the state may submit a SIP revision certification to that effect to meet this obligation for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    On September 5, 2017, Connecticut submitted an emissions statement certification which covered all areas of the State. The submittal notes that Connecticut had previously adopted an emissions statement program pursuant to obligations it had under the one-hour ozone standard, and that EPA approved that program into the Connecticut SIP on January 10, 1995. See 60 FR 2524. Connecticut reviewed its current set of air pollution reporting requirements and confirmed that pursuant to its authority under the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) 22a-174-33, 22a-174-4(d), and 22a-174-3a, all stationary sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or nitrogen oxides (NOX) that emit 25 tons or more a year of those pollutants are required to report their emissions, along with a certification as to the accuracy of the reported emissions, to the State. Emissions from smaller stationary sources that emit less than 25 tons per year of VOC and/or NOX are inventoried as area sources within Connecticut's emissions inventory, which is described in section III.B of this proposal. Given the above, we propose to approve Connecticut's emissions statement certification for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    B. 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a “comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] area. . . .” By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in the area, this section provides for the base year inventory to include all emissions that contribute to the formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. Additionally, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA's March 6, 2015 ozone rule recommended 2011 as a baseline year from which emission reductions used to meet RFP requirements are creditable.

    On March 9, 2016, Connecticut submitted to EPA as a SIP revision request an emissions inventory of ozone precursors for 2011. The inventory was submitted to meet the CAA section 182(a)(3)(A) obligation to develop a base year inventory, and was also used as the baseline year in the State's RFP plans which are described elsewhere in this proposal. The State conducted a public comment process on the inventory which concluded on August 31, 2015. The inventories include emission estimates in tons per summer day, and represent emissions estimates from stationary and mobile source categories during a typical summer day when ozone formation is highest. The ozone emissions inventory catalogs NOX and VOC emissions because these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation. Connecticut's 2011 emissions inventory contains emission estimates at the county level, and also contains emission estimates summed to the geographic areas that correspond to the State's two moderate ozone nonattainment areas.

    Connecticut's 2011 emission inventory documents the procedures used to estimate emissions from individual stationary sources, referred to as point sources. The inventory describes the means by which the State identifies facilities that must report their air emissions to the State, and the techniques used to verify this information. These approaches include verification of information submitted by facilities by Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) enforcement staff during compliance inspections. Connecticut transmits its point source air emissions data to EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database each year in accordance with the requirements found within 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.

    Area source emission estimates are made for small, stationary sources of air pollution that do not emit much individually, but do have significant emissions collectively. Examples include gasoline stations, automobile refinishing shops, and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings. Connecticut's area source emissions inventory identifies the source categories for which the State relied upon EPA's estimates, provides information on any adjustments made to EPA estimates, and notes which categories' emission estimates were prepared by the State. The inventory also explains how double counting between emissions from facilities inventoried as individual point sources were excluded from the area source emission estimates.

    Connecticut used EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model to calculate emissions for on-road and most non-road mobile source sectors. The State provided the model with local activity inputs including vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average speed data by county provided by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Connecticut also provided inputs to the model which reflect that the State has more light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles than national averages would suggest, and provided inputs for meteorology and fuels information.

    We propose to find that the air emission estimates for these sources were adequately accounted for in Connecticut's 2011 emissions inventory. The methodology used to calculate emissions for each source category followed relevant EPA guidance, most notably the July 2017 guidance entitled “Emissions Inventory Guidanec for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Regional Haze Regulations,” used appropriate, documented emission factors, or relied on emission estimates prepared for EPA's National Emissions Inventory. Furthermore, the inventory submittal is sufficiently documented as to the techniques used to prepare the emission estimates.

    Table 1 shows the emissions by source category, in tons per summer day (tpsd), from the 2011 base year emission inventory for each of the State's two nonattainment areas.

    Table 1—Emissions Inventory Summary for Connecticut's Nonattainment Areas [Tons/summer day] Source CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area VOC NOX Greater CT area VOC NOX Point 2.0 18.5 1.3 10.0 Area 52.7 6.9 48.5 6.2 Nonroad 41.8 32.5 37.0 36.1 Onroad 33.4 64.6 30.3 55.8 Biogenic 141.4 0.7 283.7 1.7 Totals 271.3 123.3 400.7 109.8

    Additional details regarding Connecticut's emissions inventory are included in Connecticut's 2011 Periodic Emissions Inventory document, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. The inventories are based on the most current and accurate information available to the State at the time it was being developed. Additionally, the inventories comprehensively address all source categories in Connecticut's nonattainment areas and were developed consistent with the relevant EPA inventory guidance. For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2011 baseline emissions inventories into the Connecticut SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3).

    C. Reasonable Further Progress Plans

    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and the EPA's 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule requires that State's submit a reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration for each 8-hour ozone nonattainment area designated moderate and above, for review and approval into its SIP, that describes how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC and NOX from a baseline emissions inventory. Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires RFP to demonstrate a 15% reduction in VOC emissions before the more general RFP requirements of section 172(c)(2) of the CAA apply, which permits a combination of VOC and NOX emission reductions to show RFP. Connecticut has previously submitted 15% VOC-only RFP SIPs under section 182(b)(1), due to nonattainment obligations it had under the one-hour ozone standard. Therefore, for purposes of the 2008 ozone standard, Connecticut submitted RFP demonstrations for its two moderate nonattainment areas showing VOC and NOX emission reductions greater than 15% within six years after the 2011 base year inventory (between 2012-2017). Note that we are only proposing action on the RFP plan for Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area.

    Connecticut chose to demonstrate that RFP was achieved between the 2011 baseline year and the 2017 target year by showing that NOX emissions would decline by at least 10%, and VOC emissions by at least 5%, within each of its nonattainment areas. Connecticut updated its 2011 emission estimates for use within the RFP baseline inventory by using the most recently available version of EPA's MOVES model, MOVES 2014a, for the calculation of on-road and non-road mobile source emissions. Additionally, Connecticut accounted for emissions available for use as emissions offsets held within its emissions offset bank within the RFP analysis. Connecticut relied primarily on the emissions projection work it had developed and submitted to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) for their effort to develop a 2017 modeling platform. The projection of emissions from electrical generating units (EGUs) was accomplished using a forecasting tool developed by the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Group (ERTAC). We reviewed these projections during the public comment period that Connecticut held for its RFP plans and found that the ERTAC EGU emissions forecasts produced reasonable results for facilities in the State.

    Table 2 below contains a summary of the 2011 RFP baseline inventory, 2017 target levels incorporating the 5% VOC and 10% NOX emission reductions, and 2017 projected, controlled emissions for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas. Connecticut's RFP analysis for its two moderate nonattainment areas shows that projected, controlled VOC and NOX emissions in 2017 will be well below the emission target levels, thereby demonstrating that RFP has been met.

    Table 2—Summary of RFP Calculations for CT's Two Nonattainment Areas Description VOC
  • emissions (tons/summer day)
  • NOX emissions (tons/summer day)
    RFP Baseline inventory: Gr. CT area 106.1 91.9 CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area 115.6 115.1 2017 target level of emissions: Gr. CT area 100.8 82.7 CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area 109.8 103.6 2017 projected, controlled emissions: Gr. CT area 84.6 56.4 CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area 92.3 71.3

    RFP plans must include a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB), which provides the allowable on-road mobile emissions an area can produce and continue to demonstrate RFP. The State's RFP plans included MVEBs for both nonattainment areas for the year 2017. The MVEBs are discussed in detail in Section III.D of this document.

    D. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets/Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. Conformity to a SIP means conformity to an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the NAAQS, and that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B)). The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule requires a demonstration that emissions from the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). The MVEBs are defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant, of the total allowable emissions, defined in the SIP for a certain date, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or for meeting reasonable further progress milestones.1

    1 Further information concerning EPA's interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to EPA's November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule. See 58 FR 62193-62196.

    The RFP plans submitted by Connecticut are control strategy SIPs, and they contain 2017 motor vehicle budgets for VOCs and NOX by nonattainment area. Table 3 contains these VOC and NOX transportation conformity budgets in units of tons per summer day.

    Table 3—Conformity Budgets in the Connecticut RFP Plans Area name 2017 Transportation
  • conformity budgets
  • [tons/day]
  • VOC NOX
    Greater Connecticut 15.9 22.2 CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area 17.6 24.6

    EPA issued a letter on March 20, 2017 to Connecticut in which we stated that the budgets for the Greater Connecticut area were adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations. Additionally, EPA published an announcement of this adequacy finding in the Federal Register on May 31, 2017. See 82 FR 24859. We did not make an adequacy finding for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area; however, this action serves to notify the public that EPA is reviewing for adequacy the MVEBs, contained in the RFP plan for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area, simultaneously with our proposed approval of the RFP plan as required by 40 CFR part 93.118(f)(2). In this action, we are proposing approval of the 2008 conformity budgets for VOC and NOX for the areas shown in Table 3 above.

    E. Contingency Measures

    Pursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, nonattainment plan provisions must provide for the implementation of contingency measures. These are specific measures to be undertaken if a nonattainment area fails to make RFP, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the applicable attainment date. Such contingency measures shall take effect without further action by the state or the EPA. While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of emissions reductions required, the EPA has interpreted the CAA to mean that implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional emissions reductions of up to 3% (or a lesser percentage that will make up the identified shortfall) in the year following the RFP milestone year. Contingency measures could include federal measures and local measures already scheduled for implementation, as long as their emission reductions are beyond those needed for attainment or to meet RFP. The CAA does not preclude a state from implementing such measures before they are triggered by a failure to meet RFP. For more information on contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the 2008 ozone rule (80 FR 12264, 12285).

    Connecticut provided NOX emissions reductions in excess of those needed for RFP as contingency measures. Table 2 above illustrates the magnitude of the excess emission reductions achieved by Connecticut's RFP plans. For example, within the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area, the projected, controlled NOX emissions in 2017 of 56.4 tons/day are 32% below the area's NOX target of 82.7 tons/day. Given that Connecticut established the 2017 NOX emissions target by factoring in a 10% reduction in emissions, the additional 32% reduction in NOX emissions is more than adequate to cover the 3% reduction in emissions needed to satisfy the area's contingency measure obligation. Similarly, for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area, the projected, controlled NOX emissions in 2017 of 71.3 tons/day are 31% below the area's NOX target of 103.6 tons day, therby providing a sufficient surplus to cover that area's contingency measure obligation. Connecticut's contingency measure analysis notes that the State chose to use NOX emission reductions from federal non-road engine standards occurring between 2012 and 2017, which form a part of the large overall NOX emission reduction surplus, as contingency measures. Emission reductions realized as newer, lower emitting equipment replace older, higher emitting equipment carry forward into the future and will continue to reduce emissions after 2017.

    The purpose of the contingency measures is to provide for further emission reductions to make up the shortfall needed for RFP or for attainment, during the period in which the State and the EPA determine whether the nonattainment plan for the area needs further revision to achieve the NAAQS expeditiously.2 The appropriateness of relying on already-implemented reductions to meet the contingency measures requirement has been addressed in two federal circuit court decisions. See Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 586 (5th Cir. 2004), Bahr v. United States EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 199 L. Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 58 (January 8, 2018). The EPA believes that the language of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect to this issue, and that it is reasonable for the agency to interpret the statutory language to allow approval of already implemented measures as contingency measures, so long as they meet other parameters such as providing excess emissions reductions that the state has not relied upon to make RFP or for attainment in the nonattainment plan for the NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr decision, under the EPA's longstanding interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), states could rely on control measures that were already implemented (so called early-triggered contingency measures) as a valid means to meet the Act's contingency measures requirement. The Ninth Circuit decision in Bahr leaves a split among the federal circuit courts, with the Fifth Circuit upholding the Agency's interpretation of section 172(c)(9) to allow early-triggered contingency measures and the Ninth Circuit rejecting that interpretation. The Second Circuit in which Connecticut is located has not addressed the issue, nor has the Supreme Court or any other circuit court other than the Fifth and Ninth.

    2See General Preamble, section III.A.3.c (57 FR 13498 at 13511).

    Because there is a split in the federal circuits on this issue, the EPA expects that states located in circuits other than the Ninth may elect to rely on EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 172(c)(9) allowing early-triggered measures to be approved as contingency measures, in appropriate circumstances. EPA's revised Regional Consistency regulations pertaining to SIP provisions authorize the Agency to follow this interpretation of section 172(c)(9) in Circuits other than the Ninth. See 40 CFR part 56. To ensure that early-triggered contingency measures appropriately satisfy all other relevant CAA requirements, the EPA will carefully review each such measure, and intends to consult with states considering such measures early in the attainment plan development process.

    As shown in Table 2 above, the emissions reductions projected through 2017 are sufficient to meet the requirements for contingency measures, consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the CAA to allow approval of already implemented control measures as contingency measures in states outside the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, we propose approval of Connecticut's RFP contingency measures.

    F. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis

    Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its two moderate nonattainment areas have adopted all RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d). The EPA interprets the CAA RACM provision to require a demonstration that: (1) The state has adopted all reasonable measures (including RACT) to meet RFP requirements and to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as possible, and (2) no additional measures that are reasonably available will advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area. States should consider all available measures, including those being implemented in other areas, but must adopt measures for an area only if those measures are economically and technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date or are necessary for RFP.

    The EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements of section 172(c)(1). See the “General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the CAA of 1990” (General Preamble), 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992). In that preamble, the EPA stated that potentially available measures that would not advance the attainment date for an area would not be considered RACM. The EPA also indicated in the General Preamble that states should consider all potentially available measures to determine whether they were reasonably available for implementation in the area, and whether they would advance the attainment date. Further, the General Preamble indicates that states should provide in the SIP submittals a discussion of whether the measures considered are reasonably available or not. If the measures are reasonably available, they must be adopted as RACM. Finally, the EPA indicated that states could reject potential RACM either because they would not advance the attainment date or would cause substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts. States could also consider local conditions, such as economics or implementation concerns, in rejecting potential RACM. On November 30, 1999, John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, issued a memorandum on this topic, “Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas” which reiterated the CAA RACM requirements and elaborated on the General Preamble.

    To demonstrate that the area meets the RACM requirement, Connecticut described its current regulatory structure limiting ozone precursor emissions, which stems back to the 1980s, and evaluated the likelihood of additional measures being adopted that would advance the date of attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. Connecticut notes that stationary and mobile sources of VOC and NOX are well-controlled in the State as a result of numerous state and federal measures that have or will soon be implemented to reduce in-state emissions of ozone precursors. Connecticut's submittal mentions that, with regard to major stationary sources, reasonable available control technology (RACT) is considered a subset of RACM. Stationary sources of VOC and NOX have been subject to RACT requirements for several decades in light of the State's nonattainment status for earlier ozone standards, and we recently approved Connecticut's RACT certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS along with several regulatory updates that strengthened requirements for sources of NOX. See 82 FR 35454; July 31, 2017. Connecticut concludes that its state regulations adopted to meet RACT, except for the most recent updates to NOX requirements approved in our July 31, 2017 approval which have an effective date that does not occur in time to advance the attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, represent RACM for major sources.

    Regarding other stationary sources of ozone precursor emissions, Connecticut notes that its participation in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) has, among other things, resulted in the state's adoption of a number of regulations limiting emissions from stationary, non-major sources of ozone precursor emissions. In particular, Connecticut notes that as part of its attainment planning process to meet the 1997 ozone standard, the state adopted regulations recommended by the OTC that included regulations limiting emissions from consumer and commercial products, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, asphalt paving operations, pressure-vacuum vent valves at gasoline stations, and limits on VOC emissions used by solvent cleaning operations. Connecticut adopted these regulations jointly with other OTC states as a means of implementing effective controls at the regional level, but acknowledged that none of these measures, implemented by Connecticut alone, would be sufficient to advance attainment by one year or more. Connecticut considers its analysis of RACM for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to largely suffice for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but did perform an additional review to explore whether RACM for non-major stationary sources exist. This review found that ancillary NOX emission reductions that are being achieved by a regional haze measure, a reduction of the level of sulfur allowed in distillate and residual fuel oil, qualify as a RACM measure. Connecticut will implement this regulation in two phases, with Phase 1 having become effective on July 1, 2014. The Phase 2 portion of the regulation does not become effective until July 1, 2018, are therefore is not considered RACM.

    Regarding mobile source emission reductions, Connecticut evaluated the impact of a number of mobile source initiatives, including transportation control measures, to evaluate their effectiveness at reducing ozone precursor emissions. Specifically, Connecticut's RACM analysis included a summary of the emission reductions achieved by the Federal Highway Administration's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, as funds from this program are used, in part, to improve traffic congestion, which in turn reduces emissions from on-road vehicles. For example, Table 6.2 of Connecticut's attainment demonstration submittal for the Greater Connecticut area shows the anticipated VOC and NOX emission reductions from specific transportation projects. The measures in Table 6.2 are expected to reduce ozone precursor emissions in Connecticut by less than 1%, and are therefore not considered to be RACM because they are not large enough to advance the attainment date by at least one year. Other mobile source measures, such as the Lawn Equipment Exchange Fund, reductions from the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act funding, Smartway, and EVConnecticut, were all found to provide meaningful reductions, but none were determined to advance the attainment date and therefore are not considered to be RACM.

    The RACM analysis presented by CT DEEP did not identify any new measures that would have substantially advanced the area's achievement of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the State notes that atmospheric transport from upwind areas on most high ozone days overwhelms the ability of CT DEEP to significantly advance Connecticut's attainment date solely with in-state control strategies. In addition, Connecticut notes that EPA's recently finalized bump-up process provided little time to adopt and implement additional RACM candidate measures prior to the 2016 ozone season, which would need to occur to advance the attainment date by one year.

    Connecticut evaluated all source categories that could contribute meaningful emission reductions and identified and evaluated an extensive list of potential control measures. The State considered the time needed to develop and adopt regulations and the time it would take to see the benefit from these measures to determine their reasonableness and availability. We agree that Connecticut has adopted all RACM for it's two moderate nonattainment areas. Therefore, we are proposing to approve Connecticut's RACM SIPs prepared for the State's two moderate nonattainment areas.

    IV. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve SIP submittals from the State of Connecticut for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Greater Connecticut moderate nonattainment area, and for the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT moderate nonattainment area. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the following:

    • An emission statement certification;

    • 2011 base year emission inventories;

    • RFP demonstrations;

    • Motor vehicle emissions budgets;

    • Contingency measures; and

    • Demonstration of RACM implementation.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    • This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Alexandra Dunn, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16622 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0508; FRL-9981-69—Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. The State of Maryland's SIP revision satisfies the volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The State of Maryland will address RACT for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in another SIP submission. Maryland's RACT submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS includes (1) certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Maryland's SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the currently available technically and economically feasible controls, and that they continue to represent RACT; (2) a negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist in the state for the applicable control technique guideline (CTG) categories; and (3) adoption of new or more stringent RACT determinations. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0508 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory A. Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 18, 2016, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP that addresses the requirements of RACT under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    I. Background A. General

    Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions between VOCs and NOX in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce these ozone concentrations, the CAA requires control of VOC and NOX emission sources to achieve emission reductions in moderate or more serious ozone nonattainment areas. Among effective control measures, RACT controls significantly reduce VOC and NOX emissions from major stationary sources.

    RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.1 Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM) for attainment of the NAAQS, including emissions reductions from existing sources through adoption of RACT. A major source in a nonattainment area is defined as any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit NOX or VOC emissions above a certain applicability threshold that is based on the ozone nonattainment classification of the area: Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Severe. See “major stationary source” in CAA sections 182(b), 184(b) and 302. Sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)(1) of the CAA require states with moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas to implement RACT controls on all stationary sources and source categories covered by a CTG document issued by EPA and on all major sources of VOC and NOX emissions located in the area. EPA's CTGs establish presumptive RACT control requirements for various VOC source categories. The CTGs typically identify a particular control level that EPA recommends as being RACT. In some cases, EPA has issued Alternative Control Techniques guidelines (ACTs) primarily for NOX source categories, which in contrast to the CTGs, only present a range for possible control options but do not identify any particular option as the presumptive norm for what is RACT. Section 183(c) of the CAA requires EPA to revise and update CTGs and ACTs as the Administrator determines necessary. EPA issued eleven new CTGs from 2006 through 2008 for a total of 44 CTGs issued since November 1990. States are required to implement RACT for the source categories covered by CTGs through the SIP.

    1See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional Administrators, “Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas.” see also 44 FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979).

    Section 184(a) of the CAA established a single ozone transport region (OTR), comprising all or part of 12 eastern states and the District of Columbia.2 The entire State of Maryland is part of the OTR and, therefore, must comply with the RACT requirements in section 184(b)(1)(B) and (2) of the CAA. Specifically, section 184(b)(1)(B) requires the implementation of RACT in OTR states with respect to all sources of VOC covered by a CTG. Additionally, section 184(b)(2) states that any stationary source with the potential to emit 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs shall be considered a major source and requires the implementation of major stationary source requirements in the OTR states as if the area were a moderate nonattainment area. A major source in a nonattainment area is defined as any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit NOX or VOC emissions above a certain applicability threshold that is based on the ozone nonattainment classification of the area: Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Severe. See “major stationary source” in CAA sections 182(b) and 184(b).

    2 Only a portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia is included in the OTR.

    B. Maryland's History

    Maryland has been subject to the CAA RACT requirements because of previous ozone nonattainment designations. The Baltimore (which includes Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties, MD, and Baltimore City, MD), Washington DC (which includes Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties, MD), and Philadelphia (which includes Cecil County, MD) nonattainment areas were designated as severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, MD were designated as a marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. The remaining Maryland counties were statutorily identified as moderate nonattainment because they are in the OTR. Since the early 1990s, Maryland has implemented numerous RACT controls throughout the State to meet the CAA's RACT requirements under the 1-hour and the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Maryland also implemented controls necessary to meet the requirements of the NOX SIP Call (40 CFR 51.121). Under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Baltimore, Washington DC, and Philadelphia areas were designated as serious nonattainment areas. Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, MD were designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. The remaining Maryland counties were statutorily identified as moderate nonattainment because they are in the OTR. As a result, Maryland continued to be subject to the CAA RACT requirements. See 69 FR 23858, 23931 (April 30, 2004). Maryland revised and promulgated its RACT regulations and demonstrated that it complied with the 1997 CAA RACT requirements in a SIP revision approved by EPA on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41278).

    Under CAA section 109(d), EPA is required to periodically review and promulgate, as necessary, revisions to the NAAQS to continue to protect human health and the environment. On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by lowering the 8-hour standard to 0.075 ppm level (73 FR 16436). On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized attainment/nonattainment designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30087). Under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, EPA designated as nonattainment three areas that contain portions of Maryland. These nonattainment areas are: The Baltimore moderate nonattainment area; the Washington DC marginal nonattainment area; and the Philadelphia marginal nonattainment area. All other remaining Maryland counties are part of the OTR. As a result, the entire State of Maryland is required to address the CAA RACT requirements by submitting to EPA a SIP revision that demonstrates how Maryland meets RACT requirements under the revised 2008 ozone standard. Maryland is required to implement RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on all VOC sources covered by a CTG issued by EPA, as well as all other major stationary sources located within the state boundaries. The RACT requirements under CAA sections 182 and 184 apply to CTG sources, including eleven new CTGs that EPA issued between 2006 and 2008, and any other major stationary sources of VOC or NOX. Maryland has retained its major source thresholds at 25 tpy for VOC and NOX sources in the Baltimore, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Maryland has retained its major source thresholds at 50 tpy for VOC and 100 tpy for NOX in all remaining Maryland counties, consistent with the CAA requirements for States in the OTR.

    C. EPA Guidance and Requirements

    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through final implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS, as well as guidance. On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule). See 80 FR 12264. This rule addressed, among other things, control and planning obligations as they apply to nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT and RACM. In this rule, EPA specifically required that states meet the RACT requirements either (1) through a certification that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP revisions approved by EPA under a prior ozone NAAQS continue to represent adequate RACT control levels for attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, or (2) through the adoption of new or more stringent regulations or controls that represent RACT control levels. A certification must be accompanied by appropriate supporting information such as consideration of information received during the public comment period and consideration of new data. Adoption of new RACT regulations will occur when states have new stationary sources not covered by existing RACT regulations, or when new data or technical information indicates that a previously adopted RACT measure does not represent a newly available RACT control level. Additionally, states are required to submit a negative declaration if there are no CTG major sources of VOC and NOX emissions within the nonattainment area in lieu of, or in addition to, a certification.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On August 18, 2016 Maryland submitted a SIP revision to address all of the CAA RACT requirements of RACT set forth by the CAA under for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 2016 RACT Submission). Specifically, Maryland's 2016 RACT Submission includes: (1) A certification that for certain categories of sources, previously-adopted VOC RACT controls in Maryland's SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS continue to be based on the currently available technically and economically feasible controls, and continue to represent RACT for implementation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) the adoption of new or more stringent regulations or controls that represent RACT control levels for certain categories of sources; and (3) a negative declaration that certain CTG or non-CTG major sources of VOC sources do not exist in Maryland.

    Most of Maryland's Regulations and Statutes, under Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.06, 26.11.10, 26.11.11, 26.11.13, 26.11.14, 26.11.19 and 26.11.24, contain the VOC RACT controls that were implemented and approved into Maryland's SIP under the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Maryland also relies on COMAR 26.11.06.06—“General Emissions Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions—Volatile Organic Compounds,” to achieve significant reductions from unique VOC sources. Maryland is certifying that these regulations, all previously approved by EPA into the SIP, continue to meet the RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for major stationary sources of VOCs and CTG-covered sources of VOCs. Maryland also submitted a negative declaration for the CTGs that have not been adopted due to no affected facilities in Maryland, and included Alternative Control Technology (ACTs) in their review of applicable 2008 8-hour ozone RACT requirements. Maryland considered controls on other sources of VOCs not covered by a CTG and adopted rules whenever deemed to be reasonably available controls. Additionally, Maryland conducted a RACT analysis for each major Non-CTG stationary source of VOC. As previously discussed, Maryland retained its major source levels at 25 tpy for VOC sources in the Baltimore, Washington, DC and Philadelphia 1-hour severe nonattainment areas. All remaining counties which are part of the OTR major source levels remain at 50 tpy for VOC. More detailed information on these provisions as well as a detailed summary of EPA's review can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0508.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA has reviewed Maryland's 2016 RACT Submission and is proposing to approve Maryland's SIP revision on the basis that Maryland has met the RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as set forth by sections 182(b) and 184(b)(2) of the CAA. Maryland's SIP revision satisfies the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT requirements through (1) certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Maryland's SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS continue to be are based on the currently available technically and economically feasible controls, and that they continue to represent RACT; (2) a negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist in the state for certain the applicable CTG categories; and (3) adoption of new or more stringent RACT determinations when technically and economically feasible. EPA finds that Maryland's 2016 RACT Submission demonstrates that the State has adopted air pollution control strategies that represent RACT for the purposes of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for all major stationary sources of VOC. EPA finds that Maryland's SIP implements RACT with respect to all sources of VOCs covered by a CTG issued prior to July 20, 2014, as well as represents RACT for all CTG VOC major stationary sources. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document relevant to RACT requirements for Maryland for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference source-specific RACT determinations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of VOC emissions. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule, Maryland's 2008 8-hour ozone RACT SIP revision does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 24, 2018. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16603 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373; FRL-9981-68—Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of West Virginia. This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 12, 2015, the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted a SIP revision addressing all required infrastructure elements under section 110(a) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. On May 12, 2017, EPA approved all portions of West Virginia's November 12, 2015 submittal except the portions of the submittal which address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4). See 82 FR 22076. As explained in the final rule, EPA intended to take separate action on these portions of West Virginia's submittal. At this time, EPA is only taking action on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) and is not taking action on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4); EPA is proposing separate action on prong 4. See 83 FR 27734 (June 14, 2018).

    I. Background A. General

    Particle pollution is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation's cities and national parks. PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere, or it can form from chemical reactions of precursor gases including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), certain volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia. On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the level of the health based (primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 micrograms per meter cubed (µg/m3). See 78 FR 3086.

    B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit a SIP revision to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS—such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each NAAQS and what is in each state's existing SIP. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP revision for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.

    Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to address any emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the “good neighbor” provision of the CAA. On March 17, 2016, EPA issued a memorandum providing information on the development and review of SIPs that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (2016 PM2.5 Memorandum).1 Further information can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337.

    1 “Information on the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (March 17, 2016). A copy is included in the docket for this rulemaking action.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    West Virginia's November 12, 2015 SIP submittal alleged that the current West Virginia SIP contains adequate measures to ensure that the state is not causing significant contribution to nonattainment in, nor interfering with the maintenance of, any other state with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. West Virginia refers to the measures detailed in the section pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(A), which included numerous SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable measures, pursuant to permitting requirements under the CAA, that apply to sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within West Virginia. A detailed summary of West Virginia's submittal and EPA's review and rationale for approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS may be found in the TSD for this rulemaking action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373.

    EPA used the information in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum and additional information for the evaluation and came to the same conclusion as West Virginia. As discussed in greater detail in the TSD, EPA identified the potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum, and then evaluated them to determine if West Virginia's emissions could potentially contribute to nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2021, the attainment year for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Specifically, the analysis identified the following areas as potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors: (i) 17 potential receptors in California; (ii) one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho; (iii) one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (iv) data gaps exist for the monitors in four counties in Florida; and (v) data gaps exist for all monitors in Illinois. For the 17 receptors in California and one potential receptor in Idaho, based on EPA's evaluation of distance and wind direction, EPA proposes to conclude that West Virginia's emissions do not significantly impact those receptors. For the potential receptor in Allegheny County, EPA expects the air quality affecting that monitor to improve to the point where the monitor will not be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor by 2021 and is therefore unlikely to be a receptor for purposes of interstate transport. For the four counties in Florida and the monitors in Illinois with data gaps, EPA initially treats those receptors as potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors, but it is unlikely that they will be nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021 because the most recent air quality data (from 2015-2017 for Florida and from 2015-2016 for Illinois) indicates that all monitors are likely attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS and are therefore unlikely to be nonattainment or maintenance concerns in 2021. Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude that West Virginia emissions will not contribute to those monitors. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to find that West Virginia's existing SIP provisions as identified in the November 12, 2015 SIP submittal are adequate to prevent its emission sources from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in another state with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the November 12, 2015 West Virginia SIP revision addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS because the submittal adequately addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP, addressing West Virginia's interstate transport obligations with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16602 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0734; FRL 9981-28—Region 7] Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; MO; Redesignation of the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Missouri-Illinois Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standards for Fine Particulate Matter and Approval of Associated Maintenance Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 5, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) specifically requesting early input and comments on the Agency's interpretation that air quality monitoring data from 2015-2017 support a finding that the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area attains the 1997 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The notice also provided an evaluation of Missouri's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, which includes the 2008 and 2025 NOX and PM2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) and established the 2008 base year emissions inventory. EPA received no comments on the ANPR. EPA is now taking direct final action on three items, consistent with the ANPR. First, EPA is approving the state's request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis MO-IL nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS as the monitoring values demonstrate the area attains the standard. Second, EPA is approving the state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Missouri portion of the area including the motor vehicle emissions budget. Third, EPA is approving Missouri's 2008 base year emissions inventory in accordance with section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are approving the state's SIP revisions as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0734 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7214, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document proposes to take action on the State of Missouri request to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis MO-IL nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and to approve the state's 2008 emissions inventory. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revision(s) in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16004 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    83 150 Friday, August 3, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Helicopter Pilot Qualifications and Approval Record AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the revision of a currently approved information collection, Helicopter Pilot Qualifications and Approval Record.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before October 2, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to: USDA Forest Service, Assistant Director Aviation, Fire and Aviation Management, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 1107, Washington DC 20250-1107. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 202-205-1401, phone 202-205-1483 or by email to: [email protected]

    The public may inspect comments received at USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation Management, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC 20250, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-1483 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Power, Assistant Director Aviation, 202-205-1483. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Helicopter Pilot Qualifications and Approval Record

    OMB Number: 0596-0015.

    Expiration Date of Approval: 12/31/2018.

    Type of Request: Renewal with Revision.

    Abstract: The Forest Service contracts with approximately 400 vendors a year for commercial aviation services utilized in resource protection and project management. In recent years, the total annual use of contract aircraft and pilots has exceeded 80,000 hours. In order to maintain an acceptable level of safety, preparedness, and cost-effectiveness in aviation operations, Forest Service contracts include rigorous qualifications for pilots and specific condition, equipment, and performance requirements for aircraft as aviation operations are conducted under extremely adverse conditions of weather, terrain, turbulence, smoke reduced visibility, minimally improved landing areas, and congested airspace around wildfires. To ensure agency contracting officers that pilots and aircraft used for aviation operations meet specific Forest Service qualifications and requirements for aviation operations, prospective contract pilots fill out one of the following Forest Service forms:

    • FS-5700-20—Airplane Pilot Qualifications and Approval Record

    • FS-5700-20a—Helicopter Pilot Qualifications and Approval Record

    Contract Officers' Technical Representatives use forms:

    • FS-5700-21—Airplane Data Record

    • FS-5700-21a—Helicopter Data Record

    When inspecting the aircraft for contract compliance. Based upon the approval(s) documented on the form(s), each contractor pilot and aircraft receives an approval card. The Forest Service personnel verify possession of properly approved cards before using contracted pilots and aircraft.

    Information collected on these forms includes:

    • Name.

    • Address.

    • Certification numbers.

    • Employment history.

    • Medical Certification.

    • Airplane/helicopter certifications and specifications.

    • Accident/violation history.

    Without the collected information, Forest Service Contracting Officers, as well as Forest Service pilot and aircraft inspections, cannot determine if contracted pilots and aircraft meet the detailed qualification, equipment, and condition requirements essential to safe and effective accomplishment of Forest Service specified flying missions. Without a reasonable basis to determine pilot qualifications and aircraft capability, Forest Service employees would be exposed to hazardous conditions. The data collected documents the approval of contract pilots and aircraft for specific Forest Service aviation missions. Information will be collected and reviewed by Contracting Officers or their designated representatives, including aircraft inspectors, to determine whether the aircraft and/or pilot(s) meet all contract specifications in accordance with Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 5709.16, chapter 10, sections 15 and 16. Forest Service pilot and aircraft inspectors maintain the collected information in Forest Service regional offices. The Forest Service, at times, shares the information with the Department of the Interior, Aviation Management Directorate, as each organization accepts contract inspections conducted by the other.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: 60 minutes.

    Type of Respondents: Vendors/Contractors.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 2100.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2100 hours.

    Comment is Invited Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Patti Hirami, Acting Deputy Chief, State & Private Forestry.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16663 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Snow King Mountain Resort On-mountain Improvements Project Environmental Impact Statement, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson Ranger District, Teton County, Wyoming AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service has accepted a master development plan from Snow King Mountain Resort. The master development plan is a multi-year plan for improvement and expansion of facilities at the resort, which operates in part under special use permit with the Forest Service. The proposed action is to update existing facilities and develop new winter and summer recreation opportunities. The Forest Service is considering the authorization of a permit boundary expansion, building a multi-function guest services building on the summit of Snow King Mountain, adding additional ski lifts and lift upgrades, building new ski runs and improving existing runs, expanding and improving snowmaking and night-lighting coverage, building a mountain bike park and trail system, adding hiking trails, and building additional service facilities.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by within 30 days from date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement is expected February 2019 and the final environmental impact statement is expected July 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic comments are encouraged. Please address any form of comments as “Attention: SKMR On-mountain Improvement Projects.” Electronic comments should be submitted in rich text format (.rtf) or Word (.doc) to [email protected] Written comments should be submitted to: Bridger-Teton National Forest—Jackson Ranger District, P.O. Box 1689, Jackson, WY 83001—attention Mary Moore. Comments may be hand-delivered to 340 N. Cache St. between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Moore, Jackson District Ranger, [email protected] or (307) 739-5410. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Snow King Mountain Resort's multi-year master development plan proposes improvements and expansion of facilities at the resort, which operates in part under special use permit with the Forest Service. This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping period for this project and allows the Forest Service to provide background information, the project's purpose and need, the proposed actions, preliminary issues, the scoping process, cooperating agencies, the responsible official, and the decision to be made. These details are outlined below.

    Background

    Snow King Mountain Resort was one of the original ski areas to be permitted on National Forest Land and has been in operation for more than seventy years. The resort is adjacent to the southern boundary of the town of Jackson, Teton County, Wyoming, and is known locally as the “Town Hill.” Roughly the lower quarter of the resort is private land where base-area facilities (e.g. Snow King Resort Hotel, rental condominiums, ticket sales, equipment rental, food service, and parking), the bottom terminals and lower portions of the resort's three chairlifts and associated ski terrain, and summer recreational infrastructure (e.g. alpine slide, mountain coaster, and ropes course) are located. The upper three-quarters of the resort are on National Forest System land (338 acres in the permit area) that comprises the three chairlift top terminals, ski terrain, and service roads.

    The resort's ski terrain totals about 400 acres, including about 135 acres of developed ski runs and 265 acres of natural openings and tree skiing areas, between and around the developed runs. The resort's snowmaking system includes much of the ski terrain on both private and public land, and night lighting covers roughly the lower half of the existing slopes.

    Purpose and Need

    Two emerging developments in the mountain resort industry underlie the purpose and need for the proposed action. First, extensive customer surveys conducted by the ski industry indicate that visitors are increasingly seeking a more diverse range of recreational activities, particularly for families, that includes year-round opportunities and activities that are more adventurous. The Forest Service response to this trend includes our 2012 introduction of the Framework for Sustainable Recreation, which sets goals for providing a diverse array of recreational opportunities aimed at connecting people with the outdoors and promoting healthy lifestyles, in partnership with other public and private recreation providers.

    Second, passage of the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 provides direction on the types of summer activities the Forest Service should consider authorizing to round out the range of opportunities provided to the public at permitted mountain resorts.

    Reflecting these considerations, the purposes to be achieved through the proposed action are:

    • To maintain and improve the winter sport infrastructure on National Forest System lands at Snow King Mountain Resort.

    • To provide new and innovative forms of year-round outdoor recreation for residents and visitors to Jackson Hole, using the existing resort infrastructure as the hub.

    • To capitalize on the established relationship between the Bridger-Teton National Forest and Snow King Mountain Resort that connects visitors with the natural environment and supports the quality of life and the economy of the local community.

    The needs that must be resolved in order to achieve these purposes include:

    • Improve and increase beginner and intermediate ski terrain, lifts, and facilities to serve as the primary ski resort in Jackson, WY to introduce and recruit new skiers to the sport.

    • Expand snowmaking on the mountain to enable an early November opening for ski race training, provide coverage to the upper mountain, and aid in fire prevention.

    • Introduce high-quality guest service facilities to attract and retain local and destination skiers, serve as an event venue, and provide an outdoor education center for Jackson residents and visitors.

    • Provide access to a wide range of year-round activities catering to a variety of visitors passing through the Town of Jackson.

    Proposed Action

    The Bridger-Teton National Forest proposes to authorize Snow King Mountain Resort to implement the following projects on National Forest System lands in Teton County, Wyoming under a special use permit:

    • A new ski school/teaching center on the ridgeline west of the Snow King summit.

    • Development of skiing in the natural bowl on the back side, south of the Snow King summit. This southernmost portion of the current special use permit area is suitable for development of low-intermediate and intermediate level ski terrain, complementing the summit teaching center.

    • A 67-acre special use permit boundary adjustment on the front side, east of the existing permit area, to accommodate part of a summit access road/novice skiway, intermediate-level terrain lower on the slope (including groomed runs and tree and glade skiing), and a novice route down from Rafferty lift (via the access road/novice skiway).

    • An 89-acre special use permit boundary adjustment on the front side, west of the existing permit area, to accommodate a summit teaching center, another part of the summit access road/novice skiway, and to accommodate expert-level tree and glade skiing.

    • New ski terrain totaling about 97.5 acres (groomed runs and teaching terrain).

    • Upgrading the existing Summit lift to a gondola, and installation of one new chair lift, two teaching area conveyors, and one surface lift.

    • On-mountain facilities (the summit restaurant/guest services building and ski patrol facility, a temporary ski patrol building at the top of Cougar, an observatory and planetarium at the summit, a wedding venue west of the summit building, and a year-round yurt camp at the southern point of the special use permit area).

    • 147.1 acres of added snowmaking (with few exceptions, all existing and proposed runs).

    • Improved and expanded lighting for night skiing.

    • Front-side mountain bike trails and a back-side mountain bike zone.

    • Hiking trails between the summit and the west base, west of Exhibition run.

    • A zip line from the summit to the west base area, paralleling the Summit lift.

    A more detailed description of the proposed action, including maps, is available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=54202.

    Preliminary Issues

    Preliminary issues include potential effects on watershed resources, local plant and animal species, scenic integrity, socioeconomics, and other recreational use.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. In addition, a public open house is proposed for 2019 during the formal comment period on the draft environmental impact statement.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.

    Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The Forest Service will be the lead federal agency, in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.5(b), and is responsible for the preparation of the environmental impact statement. The Town of Jackson is a cooperating agency. Scoping will determine if any additional cooperating agencies are needed.

    Responsible Official

    Patricia O'Conner, Forest Supervisor, Bridger-Teton National Forest.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The responsible official will decide whether to authorize Snow King Mountain Resort to implement the actions, as proposed in the master development plan, in full, part or modified, or to take no action. If the decision is to authorize Snow King Mountain Resort's actions in a special use permit, then the responsible official will also decide what design features and monitoring will be required.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16559 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Inyo National Forest; California; Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Inyo National Forest AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of opportunity to object to the Revised Land Management Plan for the Inyo National Forest.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service is revising the Inyo National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan). The Forest Service has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for its revised forest plan and a draft Record of Decision (ROD). This notice is to inform the public that the Inyo National Forest is initiating a 60-day period where individuals or entities with specific concerns about the Inyo's revised forest plan and the associated FEIS may file objections for Forest Service review prior to the approval of the revised forest plan. This is also an opportunity to object to the Regional Forester's list of species of conservation concern (SCC) for the Inyo National Forest.

    DATES:

    The Inyo's revised forest plan, FEIS, draft ROD, and other supporting information will be available for review at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R5/FPR_Inyo and the Pacific Southwest Region species of conservation concern web page, https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRD3847418. The publication date of the legal notice in the Inyo National Forest's newspaper of record, The Inyo Register, initiates the 60-day objection period and is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection (36 CFR 219.52 (c)(5)). An electronic scan of the legal notice with the publication date will be posted at the website above.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the Inyo National Forest's revised forest plan, FEIS, and draft ROD can be obtained online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/inyo/landmanagement/planning or at the following office: Inyo National Forest Supervisor's Office, 351 Pacu Lane Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514-3101, Phone: 760-873-2400.

    Objections must be submitted to the Objection Reviewing Officer Barnie Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester, at: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, ATTN: Inyo Forest Plan Objection, 1323 Club Dr., Vallejo, CA 94592, Fax: (707) 562-9049. Note that the office hours for submitting a hand-delivered objection are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Electronic objections may be submitted to [email protected] in common formats (.doc, .docx, .rtf, .pdf, or .txt) with “Inyo Forest Plan Objection” or “Inyo species of conservation concern” in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Inyo National Forest Environmental Coordinator, Leeann Murphy at 760-873-2404 or [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The decision to approve the revised forest plan for the Inyo National Forest and the Regional Forester's list of SCC will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). An objection must include the following (36 CFR 219.54(c)):

    (1) The objector's name and address along with a telephone number or email address if available. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an objection, the Forest Service will attempt to verify the identity of the objector to confirm objection eligibility;

    (2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection);

    (3) Identification of the lead objector, when multiple names are listed on an objection. The Forest Service will communicate to all parties to an objection through the lead objector. Verification of the identity of the lead objector must also be provided if requested;

    (4) The name of the plan revision being objected to, and the name and title of the responsible official;

    (5) A statement of the issues and/or parts of the plan revision to which the objection applies;

    (6) A concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the proposed plan decision may be improved. If the objector believes that the plan revision is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy, an explanation should be included;

    (7) A statement that demonstrates the link between the objector's prior substantive formal comments and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment; and

    (8) All documents referenced in the objection (a bibliography is not sufficient), except that the following need not be provided:

    a. All or any part of a Federal law or regulation,

    b. Forest Service Directive System documents and land management plans or other published Forest Service documents,

    c. Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the planning documentation related to the proposal subject to objection, and

    d. Formal comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during the plan revision comment period.

    It is the responsibility of the objector to ensure that the Reviewing Officer receives the objection in a timely manner. The regulations prohibit extending the length of the objection filing period.

    Responsible Official

    The responsible official who will approve the ROD and the revised forest plan for the Inyo National Forest is Barbara Drake, Acting Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest, 351 Pacu Lane Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514-3101. The responsible official for the SCC list is Randy Moore, Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592.

    The Regional Forester is the reviewing officer for the revised forest plan since the Forest Supervisor is the deciding official (36 CFR 219.56(e)(2)). The Regional Forester will consider comments received and respond to them in the FEIS and ROD. The decision to approve the SCC list will be subject to a separate objection process. The Chief of the Forest Service is the reviewing officer for SCC identification since the Regional Forester is the deciding official (36 CFR 219.56(e)(2)). Information about species of conservation concern is available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRD3847418.

    Dated: June 29, 2018. Glenn P. Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16662 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the solicitation of applications for funds available under the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program (the Program) to provide guaranteed loans to fund the development, construction, and retrofitting of commercial scale biorefineries using eligible technology and of Biobased product manufacturing facilities that use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment to convert renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-user products, on a commercial scale.

    DATES:

    With this Notice, the Agency is announcing two separate application cycles, as is provided which are application closing dates of 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, October 1, 2018, and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, April 1, 2019.

    Applications must be received in the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs no later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time of the application closing date to compete for program funds. Any application received after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time of the application closing date will be considered for the subsequent application cycle, provided that funding is available.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications and forms may be obtained from:

    • USDA, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs, Attention: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6901-S, Washington, DC 20250-3225.

    • Agency website: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/eForms/welcomeAction.do?Home. Follow the instructions for obtaining the application and forms. Application materials can also be obtained from the Agency's website. http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/biorefinery-assistance-program.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aaron Morris, Assistant Deputy Administrator, USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6901-S, Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone: 202-720-1501. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Preface

    The Agency encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America (www.usda.gov/ruralprosperity). Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships, and innovation. Key strategies include:

    • Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

    • Developing the Rural Economy

    • Harnessing Technological Innovation

    • Supporting a Rural Workforce

    • Improving Quality of Life

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements associated with the Program, as covered in this Notice, have been approved by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0065.

    Overview

    Federal Agency Name: Rural Business-Cooperative Service (an Agency of USDA in the Rural Development mission area).

    Solicitation Opportunity Title: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program.

    Announcement Type: Notice of Solicitation of Applications.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: The CFDA number for this Notice is 10.865.

    Dates: Applications must be received in the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs no later than the application closing dates of 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, October 1, 2018, and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, April 1, 2019. Any application received after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time of the application closing date will be considered for the subsequent application cycle, provided that funding is available.

    Availability of Notice and Rule: This Notice and the interim rule for the Program are available on the USDA Rural Development website at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/biorefinery-assistance-program.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description

    A. Purpose of the Program. The purpose of the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program is to assist in the development of new and emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels, renewable chemicals, and biobased product manufacturing. This is achieved through guarantees for loans made to fund the development, construction, and retrofitting of commercial scale biorefineries using eligible technology and of biobased product manufacturing facilities that use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities to convert renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-user products on a commercial scale.

    B. Statutory Authority. This Program is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8103. Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 4279, subpart C and in 7 CFR part 4287, subpart D.

    C. Definition of Terms. The definitions applicable to this Notice are published at 7 CFR 4279.202 and 7 CFR 4287.302.

    D. Application awards. The Agency will review, evaluate, score, and award applications received in response to this Notice based on the provisions found in 7 CFR part 4279, subpart C and as indicated in this Notice.

    II. Award Information

    A. Available funds. This Notice is a solicitation for applications that will be funded using budget authority provided by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) and the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill).

    B. Type of Award. Guaranteed loan.

    C. Approximate Number of Awards. Subject to the amount of funding available.

    D. Guarantee Loan Funding. The provisions of 7 CFR 4279.232 apply to this Notice. The Borrower needs to provide the remaining funds from other non-Federal sources to complete the Project.

    E. Guarantee and Annual Renewal Fees. The guarantee and annual renewal fees specified in 7 CFR 4279.231 are applicable to this Notice.

    F. Anticipated Award Date. The award date will vary based on timing of completion of each project's individual application process.

    III. Eligibility Information

    A. Eligible Lenders. To be eligible for this program, lenders must meet the eligibility requirements in 7 CFR 4279.208.

    B. Eligible Borrowers. To be eligible for this program, borrowers must meet the eligibility requirements in 7 CFR 4279.209.

    C. Eligible Projects. To be eligible for this program, projects must meet the eligibility requirements in 7 CFR 4279.210.

    D. Application Completeness. Incomplete Phase 1 applications will be rejected and the project will be given no further consideration. Lenders will be informed of the element(s) that made the application incomplete. If the lender makes the required edits and resubmits the application to the USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs by 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on the application closing date, the Agency will reconsider the application.

    IV. Application Submission Information

    A. Letter of Intent. For each guarantee request, the lender or the borrower must submit to the Agency a non-binding letter of intent to apply for a loan guarantee, not less than 30 calendar days prior to the application deadline. The letter of intent due date is August 31, 2018, for the October 1, 2018, application cycle and March 1, 2019, for the April 1, 2019, cycle. The letter must identify the borrower, the lender and any project sponsors; describe the project and project location; describe the proposed feedstock, primary technologies of the facility, and primary products produced; estimate the total project cost and amount of loan requested; and identify the application cycle due date. The Agency reserves the right to request additional information from potential applicants. Applications submitted without a letter of intent may be accepted by the Agency at the Agency's discretion.

    B. Application Submittal. For each guarantee request, the lender must submit to the Agency an application that is in conformance with 7 CFR 4279.261. The content and methods of application submittal are specified below. Additionally, the Agency has developed an application guide that explains the application procedures and details the process for submission of an application. This guide is located at http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RBS_Section9003Biorefinery_ApplicationGuide.pdf.

    C. Content and Form of Submission. All applicants must submit one paper copy of the application materials and an electronic copy containing the same information that is included in the paper copy. Detailed instructions regarding application submission are explained in the application guide that the Agency has developed. The application guide is available online on the “Forms and Resources” page at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/biorefinery-assistance-program or by contacting Aaron Morris, Telephone: 202-720-1501. Email: [email protected] Application materials should be submitted to USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs, Attention: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6901-S, Washington, DC 20250-3225.

    The Agency's application process is divided into two phases. Phase 1 applications will provide information needed to determine lender, borrower, and project eligibility; preliminary economic and technical feasibility; and the priority score of the application. Based on the priority score ranking, the Agency will invite applicants whose Phase 1 applications receive higher priority scores to submit Phase 2 applications. Phase 2 application materials will be submitted as the project planning and engineering are finalized and will include information such as: Environmental compliance information, technical report, financial model, and the lender's credit evaluation. Phase 1 applications must contain the information required in the Agency's application guide and in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.261.

    D. Local Owner. For applications submitted under this Notice, when the majority of feedstock to be utilized by the project on an annual basis is harvested from the land, the term “local owner” is defined as an individual who owns any portion of an eligible biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within the geographic area that the biorefinery's feedstock originates. In all other cases, “local owner” is defined as an individual who owns any portion of an eligible biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within 100 miles of the biorefinery. This definition will remain in effect until amended by a future Federal Register Notice.

    V. Biobased Product Manufacturing

    This notice also includes the solicitation of applications for funds available under the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program to specifically fund biobased product manufacturing. The 2014 Farm Bill added biobased product manufacturing to the Program and provided for up to 15 percent of the mandatory funds for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to be used to support facilities producing biobased products for end use. The 2014 Farm Bill provides the definition of “biobased product manufacturing,” which the Agency has incorporated into the subsequent interim rule (see 7 CFR 4279.202). This definition requires that the biobased product manufacturing facility use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries as inputs and also requires that the borrower use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities. The facility must produce end-user products.

    VI. Biobased Product Manufacturing Eligibility Information

    The eligibility requirements for prospective lenders and borrowers will not change from those listed above for the program, generally. For biobased product manufacturing projects, the eligible project requirement is modified to reflect that eligible projects will use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities to convert renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-user products on a commercial scale.

    Additionally, for purposes of biobased product manufacturing projects, only for purposes of technical review, technical reports need to address only the technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities.

    VII. Biobased Product Manufacturing Application Processing Procedures

    The application processing procedures will remain the same for biobased product manufacturing projects as for the projects described above.

    For applications submitted under this Notice, “local owner” is defined as an individual who owns any portion of an eligible biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within 100 miles of the biorefinery.

    VIII. Biobased Product Manufacturing Scoring

    In lieu of the criteria listed in 7 CFR 4279.266, biobased product manufacturing projects will be scored using the criteria listed below. The scoring criteria below will remain in effect until amended by another Federal Register Notice. The scoring criteria are as follows:

    (a) Whether the borrower has established a market for the manufactured biobased product, as applicable. A maximum of 16 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) Degree of commitment of contracted sales agreements. A maximum of 6 points will be awarded.

    (i) If the borrower has signed contracts for purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of manufactured biobased product, 6 points will be awarded.

    (ii) If the borrower has signed letters of intent to enter into contracted sales agreements, or comparable documentation, for the purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product, or combination of signed contracts or agreements and letters of intent or comparable documentation, 4 points will be awarded.

    (iii) If the borrower has signed letters of interest to enter into contracted sales agreements, or comparable documentation, for the purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product, or combination of signed contracts, letters of intent or comparable documentation, 2 points will be awarded.

    (2) Duration of contracted sales agreements. A maximum of 6 points will be awarded.

    (i) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of manufactured biobased product for the period not less than the loan term, 6 points will be awarded.

    (ii) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product for the period not less than 5 years but less than the term of the loan, 4 points will be awarded.

    (iii) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product for the period not less than 1 year but less than 5 years, 2 points will be awarded.

    (3) Financial strength of the contracted sales agreement counterparty. A maximum of 4 points will be awarded.

    (i) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating not less than AA, Aa2, or equivalent, 4 points will be awarded.

    (ii) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating less than AA, Aa2, or equivalent, but not less than A−, or A3, or equivalent, 2 points will be awarded.

    (iii) If the borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating less than A-, or A3, or equivalent, but not less than BBB-, or Baa3, or equivalent, 1 point will be awarded.

    (b) Whether the area in which the borrower proposes to place the project, defined as the area that will supply the renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed project, has any other similar facilities. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the area that will supply the renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed project does not have any other similar facilities, 5 points will be awarded.

    (2) If there are other similar facilities located within the area that will supply the renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed project, 0 points will be awarded.

    (c) Whether the borrower is proposing to use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries not previously used in the biobased product manufacturing. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the borrower proposes to use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries previously used in the manufacture of a biobased product in a commercial facility, 0 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the borrower proposes to use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries not previously used in the manufacture of a biobased product in a commercial facility, 10 points will be awarded.

    (d) Whether the borrower is proposing to work with producer associations or cooperatives. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If at least 50 percent of the dollar value of renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to be used by the proposed project will be supplied by producer associations and cooperatives or biorefineries supplied by producer associations and cooperatives, 5 points will be awarded.

    (2) If at least 30 percent of the dollar value of renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to be used by the proposed project will be supplied by producer associations and cooperatives or biorefineries supplied by producer associations and cooperatives, 3 points will be awarded.

    (e) The level of financial participation by the borrower, including support from non-Federal Government sources and private sources. A maximum of 20 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is less than or equal to 50 percent of total eligible project costs, 20 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is greater than 50 percent but less than or equal to 55 percent of total eligible project costs, 16 points will be awarded.

    (3) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is greater than 55 percent but less than or equal to 60 percent of total eligible project costs, 12 points will be awarded.

    (4) If the sum of the loan amount and other direct Federal funding is greater than 60 percent but less than or equal to 65 percent of total eligible project costs, 8 points will be awarded.

    (5) If the sum of the loan amount and other direct Federal funding is greater than 65 percent but less than or equal to 70 percent of total eligible project costs, 4 points will be awarded.

    (f) Whether the borrower has established that the adoption of the manufacturing process proposed in the application will have a positive effect on three impact areas: resource conservation (e.g., water, soil, forest), public health (e.g., potable water, air quality), and the environment (e.g., compliance with an applicable renewable fuel standard, greenhouse gases, emissions, particulate matter). A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Based on what the borrower has provided in either the application or the feasibility study, points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If process adoption will have a positive impact on any one of the three impact areas (resource conservation, public health, or the environment), 3 points will be awarded.

    (2) If process adoption will have a positive impact on two of the three impact areas, 6 points will be awarded.

    (3) If process adoption will have a positive impact on all three impact areas, 10 points will be awarded.

    (g) Whether the borrower can establish that, if adopted, the technology proposed in the application will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the borrower has failed to establish, through an independent third-party feasibility study, that the production technology proposed in the application, if adopted, will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use similar renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, 0 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the borrower has established, through an independent third-party feasibility study, that the production technology proposed in the application, if adopted, will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, 5 points will be awarded.

    (h) The potential for rural economic development. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the project is located in a rural area, 5 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the project creates jobs through direct employment with an average wage that exceeds the county median household wages where the project will be located, 5 points will be awarded.

    (i) The level of local ownership of the facility proposed in the application. For the purposes of this Notice, a local owner is defined as “An individual who owns any portion of an eligible advanced biofuel biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within 100 miles of the biorefinery.” A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If local owners have an ownership interest in the facility of more than 20 percent but less than or equal to 50 percent, 3 points will be awarded.

    (2) If local owners have an ownership interest in the facility of more than 50 percent, 5 points will be awarded.

    (j) Whether the project can be replicated. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the project can be commercially replicated regionally (e.g., Northeast, Southwest, etc.), 5 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the project can be commercially replicated nationally, 10 points will be awarded.

    (k) If the project uses a particular technology, system, or process that is not currently operating at commercial scale as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which the funding is available; October 1, 2018, 5 points will be awarded.

    (l) The Administrator can award up to a maximum of 10 bonus points:

    (1) To ensure, to the extent practical, there is diversity in the types of projects approved for loan guarantees to ensure a wide a range as possible technologies, products, and approaches are assisted in the program portfolio; and

    (2) To applications that promote partnerships and other activities that assist in the development of new and emerging technologies for the development of renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, so as to, as applicable, promote resource conservation, public health, and the environment; diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products and agriculture waste material; and create jobs and enhance the economic development of the rural economy. No additional information regarding partnerships is provided at this time. If additional information does become available, the Agency will publish those details in a Federal Register notice.

    IX. General Program Information

    A. Loan Origination. Lenders seeking a loan guarantee under this Notice must comply with all of the provisions found in 7 CFR 4279, subpart C.

    B. Loan Processing. The Agency will process loans guaranteed under this Notice in accordance with the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4279.260 through 4279.290.

    C. Evaluation of Applications and Awards. Awards under this Notice will be made on a competitive basis; submission of an application neither reserves funding nor ensures funding. The Agency will evaluate each application received in the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs, select Phase 1 applications in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.267 to invite submittal of Phase 2 applications and will make awards using the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4279.278.

    D. Guaranteed Loan Servicing. The Agency will service loans guaranteed under this Notice in accordance with the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4287.301 through 4287.399.

    E. System for Award Management (SAM) and Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Registration. Unless exempt under 2 CFR 25.110, the applicant must be registered in the SAM prior to submitting an application and maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by the Agency. Applicants must provide a DUNS number for each application submitted to the Agency.

    X. Administration Information

    A. Notifications. The Agency will notify, in writing, lenders whose Phase 1 applications have scored highest and will invite them to submit Phase 2 applications. If the Agency determines it is unable to guarantee any particular loan, the lender will be informed in writing. Such notification will include the reason(s) for denial of the guarantee.

    B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

    1. Review or Appeal Rights. A person may seek a review of an Agency decision or appeal to the National Appeals Division in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.204.

    2. Exception Authority. The provisions specified in 7 CFR 4279.203 and 7 CFR 4287.303 apply to this Notice.

    C. Environmental Review. The Agency will review all applicant proposals that may qualify for assistance under this section in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, Environmental Policies and Procedures. The environmental review for projects that score high enough will be submitted during the Phase 2 application process and must be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, Environmental Policies and Procedures.

    XI. Agency Contacts

    For general questions about this Notice, please contact Aaron Morris, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6901-S, Washington DC 20250-3225. Telephone: 202-720-1501. Email: [email protected]

    Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Requirements

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program. Political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARTET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of a complaint form, call, (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email at: [email protected] USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. Bette B. Brand, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16664 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket Number 17-BIS-0005] Denial of Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Narender Sharma Middle Bazzar, Rampur Bushahr Distt. Shimla (H.P.) 172 001 India, Hydel Engineering Products Middle Bazzar, Rampur Bushahr Distt. Shimla (H.P) 172 001 India, Respondents; Order Activating Suspended Portion of Civil Penalty and Activating Suspended Denial of Export Privileges Against Narender Sharma and Hydel Engineering Products

    On August 31, 2017, I signed an order (the “August 31, 2017 Order”) approving the terms of the settlement agreement entered into in August 2017 (the “Settlement Agreement”) between the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”), and Narender Sharma (“Sharma”) and his company Hydel Engineering Products (“Hydel” or “Hydel Engineering”) (collectively, “Hydel/Sharma” or “Respondents”). The Settlement Agreement and the August 31, 2017 Order relate to an enforcement action brought by BIS against Hydel and Sharma for conspiring to export items from the United States to Iran, including to an Iranian Government entity, without the required U.S. Government authorization, in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations”), which issued under the authority of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (the “Act”).1

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2018). The Regulations issued under the Act, 50 U.S.C. app. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently by the Notice of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39,005 (Aug. 16, 2017)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012).

    The Settlement Agreement and August 31, 2017 Order imposed on Hydel and Sharma a civil penalty of $100,000, for which they are jointly and severally liable. Hydel and Sharma were required to pay $30,000 of this amount to the U.S. Department of Commerce by no later than December 15, 2017. Payment of the remaining $70,000 was suspended for a probationary period of five years from the date of the August 31, 2017 Order, after which it would be waived, provided that during this five-year probationary period, Hydel and Sharma made full and timely payment of $30,000 as set forth above, otherwise complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the August 31, 2017 Order, and committed no other violation of the Act, the Regulations, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder.

    The Settlement Agreement and the August 31, 2017 Order also imposed a five-year denial of Hydel and Sharma's export privileges under the Regulations. This denial order was suspended pursuant to Section 766.18(c) of the Regulations, subject to the same probationary conditions described above, including Hydel and Sharma's full and timely payment of $30,000 by December 15, 2017. If Hydel and Sharma failed to make such full and timely payment, the suspension could be modified or revoked by BIS and a denial order including a denial period of up to five years activated against Hydel and Sharma. Upon activation of the denial order, any license issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Hydel or Sharma had an interest at such time would be revoked.

    BIS has brought to my attention that Hydel and Sharma have not paid the $30,000 that was due by December 15, 2017, and thus that Hydel and Sharma have violated one of the probationary conditions relating to the $70,000 suspended portion of the civil penalty and the suspension of the denial of their export privileges.

    In accordance with Sections 766.17(c) and 766.18(c) of the Regulations, I notified Hydel and Sharma, by letter dated February 12, 2018, of the proposed activation of these suspended sanctions, and provided them with an opportunity to respond, including an opportunity to explain their failure to make the December 15, 2017 payment of $30,000, and to show why I should not activate the $70,000 suspended penalty amount, issue an active five-year denial order against them, or take both actions.

    Neither Hydel nor Sharma has responded to the February 12, 2018 letter. The $30,000 civil penalty payment that was due by December 15, 2017, also remains unpaid.

    Based on the totality of circumstances here, I have determined within my discretion that it is appropriate to activate the $70,000 suspended portion of the civil penalty and to activate a denial order including a five-year denial period.

    It is therefore ordered:

    First, the suspension of the $70,000 suspended portion of the civil penalty set forth in the August 31, 2017 Order is hereby revoked, and that this now-activated $70,000 civil penalty amount shall be paid to the U.S. Department of Commerce within 15 days of the date of this Order. Hydel and Sharma are jointly and severally liable for payment of this amount, and continue to be jointly and severally liable for the $30,000 civil penalty amount they were required to pay by December 15, 2017, along with any related interest, penalty, or administrative charge that has accrued or may accrue as a result of their failure to pay $30,000 by the December 15, 2017 due date.

    Second, pursuant to the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3701-3720E (2000)), the $70,000 civil penalty amount activated by this Order accrues interest as more fully described in the attached Notice, and if payment is not made by the due date specified herein, Hydel and Sharma will be assessed, in addition to the full amount of the civil penalty and interest, a penalty charge and an administrative charge, as more fully described in the attached Notice.

    Third, for a period of five years from the date of this Order, Hydel Engineering Products, with a last known address of Middle Bazzar, Rampur Bushahr Distt. Shimla (H.P.) 172 001, India, and Narender Sharma, with a last known address of Middle Bazzar, Rampur Bushahr Distt. Shimla (H.P.) 172 001, India, and when acting for or on their behalf, their successors, assigns, representatives, agents, or employees (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Fourth, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Fifth, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

    Sixth, any license issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Hydel or Sharma has an interest of the date of this Order is hereby revoked.

    Seventh, this Order shall be served on Hydel and Sharma, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    This Order is effective immediately.

    Issued on July 30, 2018. Richard R. Majauskas, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16678 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG131 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Navy (Navy) for the take, by Level B harassment only, of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), incidental to the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project at Bravo Wharf, Naval Station Mayport, Florida.

    DATES:

    The IHA is valid from May 14, 2018 through May 13, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8438.

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

    The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from the Bravo Wharf recapitalization project. NMFS made the Navy's EA available to the public for review and comment, in relation to its suitability for adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the human environment of issuance of an IHA to the Navy. Also in compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS has reviewed the Navy's EA, determined it to be sufficient, and adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in July, 2016. The 2016 NEPA documents are available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. Since the IHA covers a subset of the same work covered in a former IHA, NMFS is relying on this same EA and FONSI document.

    History of Request

    On July 21, 2015, we received a request from the Navy for authorization of the taking, by Level B harassment only, of marine mammals incidental to pile driving (predominantly vibratory pile driving, with a small amount of impact pile driving as a contingency plan in case of difficult piles) in association with the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project at Naval Station Mayport, Florida. A final version of the application, which we deemed adequate and complete, was submitted on November 17, 2015. We published a notice of a proposed IHA and request for comments on December 7, 2015 (80 FR 75978), and subsequently published final notice of our issuance of the IHA on August 9, 2016 (81 FR 52637). In-water work associated with the project was expected to be completed within the one-year timeframe of the IHA (effective dates originally December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017). The specified activities were, and are, expected to result in the take of individuals from four stocks of bottlenose dolphins.

    On January 23, 2017, the Navy informed NMFS that no work had been performed relevant to the specified activity considered in the MMPA analysis. On February 22, 2017, we published a notice of a revision of the IHA (82 FR 11344), revising the effective authorization dates from March 13, 2017, through March 12, 2018.

    On December 5, 2017, the Navy informed NMFS that construction had not yet begun on one of two construction phases authorized under the revised IHA. The Navy attributed delays in progress and inaccuracies in original construction planning due to a combination of: (1) Rain delays, hurricane preparation, and Hurricane Irma, (2) inefficiencies by the contractor, and (3) activities influenced by tides, originally unaccounted for in the schedule.

    On January 9, 2018, the Navy formally requested that NMFS issue an IHA for one year from May 14, 2018, to May 13, 2019 in order to complete a subset of the construction activity previously covered by the 2017 IHA. We issued a notice of proposed IHA on April 4, 2018 (83 FR 1443) primarily referring back to our previous documents and analysis but fully describing updates to acoustic analysis, take numbers (due to decreased amount of work), and stock abundances.

    Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy for the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2018 (83 FR 14443). During the 30-day public comment period, we received one letter, dated April 30, 2018, from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). The Commission concurs with NMFS's preliminary findings and recommends that NMFS issue the incidental harassment authorization, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

    Description of the Proposed Activity and Anticipated Impacts

    The 2017 IHA covered the installation of 880 single sheet piles installed with a vibratory hammer over 110 days and 20 days of contingency impact driving, for a total of up to 130 construction days. The 2017 IHA authorized the Level B harassment of 370 bottlenose dolphins (330 takes from vibratory pile driving, 40 from impact pile driving), which could occur to any of the four stocks in the area. The Navy did not complete that work, and requested that a second IHA cover the installation of the remaining 356 steel sheet piles over the course of 43 pile-driving days, plus 10 contingency impact driving days, for a total of 53 days. Other documents that fully describe the project include the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2017 IHA for the Navy's Bravo Wharf (82 FR 11344, February 22, 2017), the Navy's application, the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (81 FR 52637; December 1, 2016), and all associated references and documents.

    Detailed Description of the Action—A detailed description of the proposed vibratory and impact pile driving activities at Bravo Wharf is found in the aforementioned documents. The location, timing (e.g., lack of seasonality), and nature of the pile driving operations, including the type and size of piles and the methods of pile driving, are identical to those described in the previous notices, except that only a subset of the number of piles are proposed to be driven under the recently issued IHA (356 piles over 53 days, versus 880 over 130 days).

    Description of Marine Mammals—A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is also found in the aforementioned documents, which remains applicable to this IHA except for new information in the 2016 stock assessment reports where abundance for the Northern Florida coastal stock was reduced from 1,219 to 877 individuals and southern migratory coastal stock was decreased from 9,137 to 3,751 individuals.

    Potential Effects on Marine Mammals—A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat is found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to this IHA. There is no new information on potential effects.

    Estimated Take—A description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take anticipated to occur and, ultimately, the take that was authorized is found in these previous documents. The methods of estimating take are identical to those used in the previous IHA, as is the density of marine mammals. One input into the take estimate, the source levels, was changed to reflect newer information. The original IHA reflected a vibratory pile driving source level of 151 decibels (dB) root mean square (rms), but more recent measurements (measurements of vibratory driving of steel sheet piles during the first year of construction at nearby Wharf C-2 at Naval Station Mayport (DoN 2015) support a higher source level (156 dB rms). The impact pile driving source level was also corrected from 189 dB rms to 190 rms (CalTrans, 2015). The Navy modified their take estimates to reflect these newer values, which NMFS used for issuance of another IHA at Bravo Wharf (83 FR 9287; March 5, 2018). Using the same take estimate methodology described in the 2017 IHA and the updated source levels (which extends the vibratory pile driving Level B harassment isopleth from 1,166 meters (m) to 2,512 m, and the impact pile driving Level B harassment isopleth from 858 m to 1000 m), we are authorizing 242 Level B harassment takes of bottlenose dolphins during vibratory driving and 22 during impact driving, for a total of 264 requested Level B bottlenose dolphin takes. There are four stocks of bottlenose dolphins to which takes could accrue: Jacksonville Estuarine System; Western North Atlantic, northern Florida coastal; Western North Atlantic, offshore; and Western North Atlantic, southern migratory coastal. No Level A take is authorized.

    Description of Proposed Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measures—A description of proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures is found in the previous documents, which are identical in this proposed IHA and provided in our April 4, 2018 notice of proposed IHA. In summary, mitigation includes soft start techniques, as well as a 15-m shutdown zone for vibratory pile driving and 40-m shutdown for impact pile driving. Two trained observers will monitor to implement shutdowns and collect information.

    On January 9, 2018, the Navy submitted a monitoring report for construction that had been completed under the 2017 IHA. The Navy complied with all mitigation, monitoring, and reporting protocols. Recorded takes were below the number authorized for the corresponding amount of work. The monitoring report can be viewed on NMFS's website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111.

    Determinations

    The Navy proposes to conduct a subset of activities identical to those covered in the previous 2017 IHA. As described above, the number of estimated takes of the same stocks of bottlenose dolphins (Jacksonville Estuarine System; northern Florida coastal; Western North Atlantic, offshore; and southern migratory coastal) is significantly lower than the 330 Level B harassment takes from vibratory pile driving and 40 Level B harassment takes from impact pile driving that were found to meet the negligible impact and small numbers standards and authorized under the 2017 IHA. The IHA includes identical required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures as the 2017 IHA (with the exception of harassment distances, as described above), and there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.

    Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) the Navy's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action.

    Endangered Species Act

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

    No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

    Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy for the harassment of small numbers of bottlenose dolphins incidental to construction activities related to the Bravo Wharf Recapitalization Project, Naval Base Mayport, Florida, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16599 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southeast Region Aquaculture Program AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jessica Beck-Stimpert, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, phone: 727-824-5305, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for an extension and revision of a currently approved information collection under the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Control Number 0648-0703, Southeast Region Aquaculture Program. NMFS manages aquaculture operations in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) under the Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (Aquaculture FMP). The final rule for the Aquaculture FMP published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1762; RIN 0648-AS65).

    This collection of information tracks the administrative functions associated with the aquaculture program (e.g., registration and account setup, landing transactions, and most reporting requirements).

    The NMFS Southeast Regional Office also proposes to revise parts of the information collection approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0703 to account for updates to burden time and cost estimates, inclusion of new forms to fulfill rule requirements and administrative updates to online and paper forms. NMFS intends the revisions would make instructions and data collection requirements clearer and easier to understand, resulting in more accurate and efficient information available for use by fishery managers.

    II. Method of Collection

    Information for the Southeast Region Aquaculture Program is collected online via the aquaculture website (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/aquaculture/); therefore, a participant must have access to a computer and internet access, and must set up an appropriate online aquaculture account to participate. Assistance with online functions will be available from customer service Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern time. If some online reporting functions are not available at the time of initial implementation of the aquaculture program, participants may comply by submitting the required information via email to the NMFS Southeast Region using the appropriate forms that are available on the website. Once online functions are available to the public, participants must comply by using the online system unless alternative methods are specified.

    Operators of aquaculture facilities would be required to submit all information requirements to NMFS, with the exception of the bill of lading information, which will accompany each shipment of cultured product. Currently, all submissions would be via the online website, unless otherwise noted. Additionally, dealers who purchase aquaculture product from facilities would be required to submit information on those purchases.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0703.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension and revision of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 40 (20 operators, 20 dealers).

    Estimated Time per Response:

    • Federal Permit Application for Offshore Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 hours.

    • Notification to Delay Permit Issuance, Annual Report for Gulf Aquaculture Permittees, Certification for Broodstock and Juveniles, Marine Mammal Authorization Form, Notification to Transport Cultured Juveniles to Offshore Systems, 10 minutes.

    • Baseline Environmental Survey, 320 hours.

    • Request to Harvest Broodstock, Broodstock Post-Harvest Report, Notification Entanglement or Interaction, Notification of Major Escapement Event, Notification of Reportable Pathogen Episode, Harvest and Landing Notification, 30 minutes.

    • Bill of Lading, 5 minutes.

    • Emergency Disaster Plan, 4 hours.

    • Fin Clip Samples, 10 hours.

    • Request to Transfer Gulf Aquaculture Permit, 3 hours.

    • Assurance bond, Contract with an Aquatic Animal Health Expert, 16 hours.

    • Broodstock Marking, Pinger/Location Devise, Marking Restricted Access Zone, Genetic Testing, 8 hours.

    • Dealer Permit Application, Dealer Report for Landing and Sale, 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,753.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $87,660 in recordkeeping or reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16657 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG362 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will convene a meeting via webinar to discuss items on the Pacific Council's September 2018 meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar meeting will be held Thursday, August 23, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time or until business is completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    This meeting will be held via webinar. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar: (1) Join the GoToWebinar by visiting this link https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar (Click “Join a Webinar” in top right corner of page), (2) Enter the Webinar ID: 615-614-003, and (3) enter your name and email address (required). After logging into the webinar, you must use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting. Dial this TOLL number 1-562-247-8321, enter the Attendee phone audio access code 156-942-931, and enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). System Requirements: for PC-based attendees: Required: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; for Mac®-based attendees: Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; for Mobile attendees: Required: iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (see http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/webinar/gotowebinar_apps). You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 411 for technical assistance.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone: (503) 820-2280.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Todd Phillips, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2426.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss ecosystem, groundfish, and administrative agenda items on the September 2018 Pacific Council meeting agenda, to perform workload planning, and discuss future meeting plans.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16681 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG382 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting (webinar).

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a webinar meeting of its Ad Hoc Trawl Groundfish Electronic Monitoring Policy Advisory Committee (GEMPAC) which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar will be held August 17, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time), or until business has been completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar from your computer, tablet or smartphone, use this link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/837382429 and follow the prompts. (1) You must use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting by dialing this TOLL number: 1-571-317-3122. (2) Enter the Attendee phone audio access code 837-382-429. (3) Enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Note: We have disabled Mic/Speakers as an option and require all participants to use a telephone or cell phone to participate. Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (see https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar/ipad-iphone-android-webinar-apps). You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected] or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 411 for technical assistance.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brett Wiedoff, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2424.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is for the GEMPAC to develop comments and recommendations regarding electronic monitoring topics scheduled for the Pacific Council's September meeting in Seattle, Washington. Specifically, the Committee will review and comment on the draft National Marine Fisheries Service Procedural Directive on Cost Allocations in Electronic Monitoring Programs for Federally Managed U.S. Fisheries and develop a prioritized a list of electronic monitoring policy issues for the Pacific Council to consider in the future.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]; (503) 820-2411) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16658 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Application and Reports for Scientific Research and Enhancement Permits under the Endangered Species Act.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0402.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 115.

    Average Hours per Response: Permit applications, 12 hours; permit modification requests 6 hours; annual or final reports, 2 hours.

    Burden Hours: 840.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) imposed prohibitions against the taking of endangered species. Section 10 of the ESA allows permits authorizing the taking of endangered species for research/enhancement purposes. The corresponding regulations established procedures for persons to apply for such permits. In addition, the regulations set forth specific reporting requirements for such permit holders. The regulations contain two sets of information collections: (1) Applications for research/enhancement permits, and (2) reporting requirements for permits issued.

    The required information is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on endangered species, to make the determinations required by the ESA prior to issuing a permit, and to establish appropriate permit conditions. To issue permits under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must determine that (1) such exceptions were applied for in good faith, (2) if granted and exercised, will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species, and (3) will be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

    The currently approved application and reporting requirements apply to Pacific marine and anadromous fish species, as requirements regarding other species are being addressed in a separate information collection.

    Affected Public:

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16644 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG390 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of telephonic meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Ecosystem Committee will hold a teleconference on August 20, 2018.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, August 20, 2018, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., Alaska Standard Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held telephonically. Teleconference line: (907) 271-2896.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave. Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve MacLean, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda Monday, August 20, 2018

    The meeting agenda includes: Review and discussion of a public involvement section for the Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, as well as provide comments on the NOAA's EBFM Roadmap.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at: https://www.npfmc.org/committees/ecosystem-committee.

    Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Steve MacLean, Council staff: [email protected] or through the mail: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave. Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. Oral public testimony will be accepted at the discretion of the co-chairs.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16660 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments for the performance evaluation of the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

    DATES:

    Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Evaluation: The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 19, 2018, and written comments must be received on or before Friday, September 28, 2018.

    For the specific date, time, and location of the public meetings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the reserve by any of the following methods: Public Meeting and Oral Comments: A public meeting will be held in Homer, Alaska for the Kachemak Bay Reserve. For the specific location, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Written Comments: Please direct written comments to Jean Tanimoto, Program Evaluator, NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NOS/Office for Coastal Management, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, Hawaii 96818, or via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jean Tanimoto, Program Evaluator, NOAA Inouye Regional Center, NOS/Office for Coastal Management, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg 176, Honolulu, Hawaii 96818, by phone at (808) 725-5253, or via email to [email protected] Copies of the previous evaluation findings, Management Plan, and Site Profile may be viewed and downloaded on the internet at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/evaluations. A copy of the evaluation notification letter and most recent performance report may be obtained upon request by contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) require NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally-approved National Estuarine Research Reserves. The process includes a public meeting, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. For the evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserves, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to its management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the Coastal Zone Management Act. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

    You may participate and submit oral comments at the public meeting. The public meeting will be held in conjunction with the reserve's regularly scheduled commission meeting and is scheduled as follows:

    Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2018.

    Time: 12:00-3:00 p.m., local time.

    Location: Islands and Ocean Visitor Center, 95 Sterling Highway, Homer, Alaska 99603.

    Written comments must be received on or before September 28, 2018.

    Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419.

    Coastal Zone Management Program Administration.

    Dated: July 24, 2018. John King, Chief, Business Operations Division, Office for Coastal Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16675 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Pacific Islands Logbook Family of Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0214.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 527.

    Average Hours Per Response: Logbooks and sales reports, 5-35 minutes based on fishery, entry/exit and landing notices, Protected Species Zone entry/exit notices, 5 minutes; landing/offloading notices, 3 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 13,731.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Fishermen in Federally-managed fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region are required to provide certain information about their fishing activities, catch, and interactions with protected species by submitting reports to National Marine Fisheries Service, per 50 CFR part 665. These data are needed to determine the condition of the stocks and whether the current management measures are having the intended effects, to evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures, and to monitor and respond to accidental takes of endangered and threatened species, including seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16645 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Individual Transferable Quota Administration AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Douglas Potts, 978-281-9341 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for an extension of a currently approved collection associated with the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Greater Atlantic Region manages these fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Northeastern United States through the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The regulations implementing the FMP are specified at 50 CFR part 648.

    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at §§ 648.74, 648.75, and 648.76 form the basis for this collection of information. We request information from surfclam and ocean quahog individual transferable quota (ITQ) permit holders to issue ITQ permits and to process and track requests from permit holders to transfer quota share or cage tags. We also request information from surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ permit holders to track and properly account for surfclam and ocean quahog harvest shucked at sea. Because there is not a standard conversion factor for estimating unshucked product from shucked product, NMFS requires vessels that shuck product at sea to carry on board the vessel a NMFS-approved observer to certify the amount of these clams harvested. This information, upon receipt, results in an efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. EEZ.

    Georges Bank has been closed to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs since 1990 due to red tide blooms that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). We reopened a portion of the Georges Bank Closed Area starting in 2012 under certain conditions. We request information from surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ permit holders who fish in the reopened area to ensure compliance with the Protocol for Onboard Screening and Dockside Testing in Molluscan Shellfish. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the commercial fishing industry, and NMFS developed the PSP protocol to test and verify that clams harvested from Georges Bank continue to be safe for human consumption. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program adopted the PSP protocol at the October 2011 Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference.

    II. Method of Collection

    Forms are online at https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/aps/forms.html as “fillable” pdf documents, which can then be downloaded, printed, and faxed or mailed to NMFS. ITQ transfer forms may also be submitted electronically. Information for the PSP protocol is submitted through paper forms, as well as through electronic methods, including email, telephone, and shipboard electronic equipment such as VHF radio, email, or a vessel monitoring system.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0240.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 189.

    Estimated Time Per Response: ITQ permit application form, review of a pre-filled form for renewing entities, ITQ transfer form, 5 minutes each; 1 hour to complete the ITQ ownership form for new applicants and 30 minutes for the application to shuck surfclams and ocean quahogs at sea. The requirements under the PSP protocol are based on the number of vessels that land surfclams or ocean quahogs and the number of trips taken into the area, with a total estimated annual burden of 2,400 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,538.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $111,764 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Sarah Brabson, PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16643 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete services from the Procurement List that was previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: September 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Deletions

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

    Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service. Mandatory for: Veterans Affairs Medical Center: Outpatient Clinic Pensacola, FL. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL. Contracting Activity: DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, NAC. Service Type: Janitorial Service. Mandatory for: Customs and Border Protection, B.P. Maintenance 398 E. Aurora Drive, El Centro, CA. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ARC-Imperial Valley, El Centro, CA. Contracting Activity: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Border Enforcement Contracting Division. Service Type: Food Service. Mandatory for: Michigan Army National Guard: Maneuver Training Center, Building 426MA, Camp Grayling, MI. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: G.W. Services of Northern Michigan, Inc., Traverse City, MI. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W7NF USPFO ACTIVITY MI ARNG. Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service. Mandatory for: Naval Reserve Center: 85 Sea Street, Quincy, MA. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Community Workshops, Inc., Boston, MA. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Navy Crane Center. Service Type: Administrative Service. Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, 937 North Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA. Mandatory Source of Supply: Unknown. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, US Fleet Forces Command. Service Type: Janitorial Service. Mandatory for: U.S. Army Reserve Center: 2201 Laurens Road, Center #1, Greenville, SC. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: SC Vocations & Individual Advancement, Inc., Greenville, SC. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W074 ENDIST CHARLESTON. Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service. Mandatory for: US Army Corps of Engineers, Gallagher Memorial USARC, 1300 West Brown Road, Las Cruces, NM. Mandatory Source of Supply: Let's Go To Work, El Paso, TX. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W075 ENDIST SACRAMENTO. Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service. Mandatory for: US Army Reserve, Charles W. Whittlesey USARC. 200 Barker Road, Pittsfield, MA. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Berkshire County Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc., Pittsfield, MA. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QK ACC-PICA. Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service. Mandatory for: Port Hueneme Naval Construction Battalion Center: Navy Family Housing Units, Port Hueneme, CA. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, US Fleet Forces Command. Service Type: Custodial Service. Mandatory for: Pentagon Building: Washington, DC, Federal Building #2, Food Court. Common area stairs and (plus): Corridors, 1st Floor, 2nd Floor, 3rd Floor. Au Bon Pain, B.C Café, Common area restrooms, Corridor 1 Food Court, Corridor 10 Food Court, Corridor 9/10 Apex, Five Star Expresso Coffee Bar, Five Star Expresso Coffee Bar, Federal Bldg #2, Grease and Garbage Room, Loading dock, 1st Floor, Wedge 1, Pentagon Dining Room and Kitchen, Production Kitchen, Wedge 1 Food Court. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chimes, Inc., Baltimore, MD. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, US Fleet Forces Command. Service Type: Recycling Service. Mandatory for: Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center: 300 HWY 361, Crane, IN. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Orange County Rehabilitative and Developmental Services, Inc., Paoli, IN. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, NSWC Crane. Service Type: Janitorial/Grounds Maintenance Service. Mandatory for: Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic: JFK International Airport, Control Towers, Jamaica, NY. Mandatory Source of Supply: Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., New York, NY. Contracting Activity: Federal Aviation Administration, FAA. Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16642 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Date added to and deleted from the Procurement List: September 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 3/9/2018 (83 FR 47) and 6/8/2018 (83 FR 111), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

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

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

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

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

    End of Certification

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

    Services Service Type: Vehicle Maintenance Facility Operation Service. Mandatory for: Department of State, DS, Foreign Affairs Security Training Center, Fort Pickett, 1125 West Parade, Blackstone, VA. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Skookum Educational Programs, Bremerton, WA. Contracting Activity: Department of State, Acquisitions—AQM MOMENTUM Service Type: Janitorial Service. Mandatory for: US Air Force, Joint Warfare Analysis Center, Naval Support Activity-South Potomac, 4048 Higley Road, Dahlgren, VA. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Melwood Horticultural Training Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4890 ACC AMIC. Deletions

    On 6/29/2018 (83 FR 126), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

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

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

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

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-590-1496—Laser Toner Cartridge, HP 39A compatible 7510-01-590-1497—Laser Toner Cartridge, HP 96A compatible 7510-01-590-1498—Laser Toner Cartridge, HP 49A compatible 7510-01-590-1499—Laser Toner Cartridge, HP 49X compatible 7510-01-590-1501—Laser Toner Cartridge, HP 13A & 13X compatible 7510-01-590-1502—Laser Toner Cartridge, 43X compatible 7510-01-590-1506—Laser Toner Cartridge, HP 10A compatible 7510-01-600-5979—Cartridge, Toner, Monochrome Laser Printer, Double Yield, HP 38A Compatible, Black Mandatory Sources(s) of Supply: Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL. Lighthouse Works, Orlando, FL. 7510-01-625-1729—Toner Cartridge, Laser, Extra High Yield, Lexmark SC 630 Series 7510-01-625-1736—Toner Cartridge, Laser, Extra High Yield, HP P3015 Series Compatible, 7510-01-625-4080—Toner cartridge, Laser, Extra High Yield, HP Compatible for the M600, 7510-01-625-0849—Toner Cartridge, Laser, Double Yield, Compatible w/Lexmark E230 & other LM, Dell, & IBM printers Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL. Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY. NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5510-00-171-7700—Stakes, Wood, 1″ x 2″ x 16″ 5510-00-171-7701—Stakes, Wood, 1″ x 2″ x 14″ 5510-00-171-7732—Stakes, Wood, 2″ x 2″ x 16″ 5510-00-171-7733—Stakes, Wood, 2″ x 2″ x 12″ 5510-00-171-7734—Stakes, Wood, 1″ x 2″ x 18″ 8460-01-193-9769—Briefcase, Smoke Gray 8460-01-352-3064—Briefcase, Navy Blue 8460-01-364-9493—Attache Case, Black, 16 x 12 x 4 8460-01-385-7294—Briefcase, Black, 17-1/4″ x 11-1/2″ x 3-1/2 8460-01-391-5837—Briefcase, Forest Service Logo, Green, 8465-01-169-3996—Field Pack, Firefighters Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Helena Industries, Inc., Helena, MT. Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX. NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8340-00-951-6423—Kit, Ground Anchor. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: CW Resources, Inc., New Britain, CT. Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support. Service Service Type: Food Service Attendant Service Mandatory for: Pope Air Force Base. Pope Air Force Base, NC. Mandatory Source of Supply: ServiceSource, Inc., Oakton, VA. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4488 43 CONS LGC. Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16647 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Defense Health Board, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board (DHB) will take place.

    DATES:

    Open to the public Monday, August 27, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The address of the open meeting is Naval Medical Center San Diego, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr., Building 6, Deck 1, VTC Room, San Diego, CA 92134 (Pre-meeting screening for installation access and registration required. See guidance in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, “Meeting Accessibility.”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CAPT Juliann Althoff, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy, (703) 275-6060 (Voice), (703) 275-6064 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Website: http://www.health.mil/dhb. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: Additional information, including the agenda, is available at the DHB website, http://www.health.mil/dhb. A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the August 27, 2018 meeting will be available on the DHB website. Any other materials presented in the meeting may be obtained at the meeting.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The DHB provides independent advice and recommendations to maximize the safety and quality of, as well as access to, health care for DoD health care beneficiaries. The purpose of the meeting is to provide progress updates on specific taskings before the DHB. In addition, the DHB will receive information briefings on current issues related to military medicine.

    Agenda: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the meeting is open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on August 27, 2018. The DHB anticipates receiving a progress update from the Trauma and Injury Subcommittee on the “Low-Volume High-Risk Surgical Procedures” review, an introduction to a new DHB review on “Health Military Family Systems: Examining Child Abuse and Neglect,” as well as information briefings from Navy Medicine West, the Naval Medical Center San Diego, the USNS Mercy, and the Navy Health Research Center to include the Millennium Cohort Study. Any changes to the agenda can be found at the link provided in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must register by emailing their name, rank/title, and organization/company to [email protected] or by contacting Ms. Brigid McCarthy at (703) 275-6010 no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, August 20, 2018. Additional details will be required from all members of the public not having installation access.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Brigid McCarthy at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Statements: Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the DHB may do so in accordance with section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and the procedures described in this notice. Written statements may be submitted to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO), CAPT Juliann Althoff, at [email protected] and should be no longer than two type-written pages and include the issue, a short discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included, to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information. If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the DHB.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16672 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Defense Science Board, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Science Board (DSB) will take place.

    DATES:

    Monday, August 6, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Tuesday, August 7, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Wednesday, August 8, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursday, August 9, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Friday, August 10, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 12 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center, 100 Academy Way, Irvine, CA 92617.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Defense Science Board Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Lt Col Milo Hyde, U. S. Air Force (Voice), (703) 571-0081 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140. Website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Science Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting from August 7 through August 10, 2018, of the Defense Science Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The mission of the DSB is to provide independent advice and technical enterprise. The objective of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate classified information related to the DSB's mission. The meeting will focus on the DSB's 2018 Summer Study on Strategic Surprise tasking, to address potential technical gaps in Department of Defense capabilities that may affect subsequent decisions and actions of U.S. commanders and warfighters in the next decade.

    Agenda: The DSB meeting will begin on Monday, August 6, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. with opening remarks from Lt Col Milo Hyde, DFO, Dr. Craig Fields, DSB Chairman and Dr. Eric Evans, Vice Chairman. Following opening remarks, DSB members will hold a classified discussion to address potential technical gaps in Department of Defense capabilities that may affect subsequent decisions and actions of U.S. commanders and warfighters in the next decade. After break, DSB members will continue their classified discussion on the same topics. The meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. On the second day of the meeting, Tuesday, August 7, 2018, the day will begin at 8:30 a.m. with classified panel breakouts to address potential technical gaps in Department of Defense capabilities that may affect subsequent decisions and actions of U.S. commanders and warfighters in the next decade. After break, the classified panel breakouts will continue. The meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. On the third day of the meeting, Wednesday, August 8, 2018, the day will begin at 8:30 a.m. with classified panel breakouts to address potential technical gaps in Department of Defense capabilities that may affect subsequent decisions and actions of U.S. commanders and warfighters in the next decade. After break, the classified panel breakouts will continue. Following panel breakouts, DSB members will meet as a whole to deliberate and vote upon its advice and recommendations. The meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. On the fourth day of the meeting, Thursday, August 9, 2018, the day will begin at 8:30 a.m. with classified panel breakouts to address potential technical gaps in Department of Defense capabilities that may affect subsequent decisions and actions of U.S. commanders and warfighters in the next decade. After break, the classified panel breakouts will continue. The meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. On the fifth day of the meeting, Friday, August 10, 2018, the day will begin at 9:00 a.m. with a classified briefing to invited senior DoD leaders to provide the DSB's advice and recommendations on potential technical gaps in Department of Defense capabilities that may affect subsequent decisions and actions of U.S. commanders and warfighters in the next decade. The meeting will adjourn at 12:00 p.m.

    Meeting Accessibility: In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA and title 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the DSB meeting will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in consultation with the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that the meeting will be closed to the public because it will consider matters covered by title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). The determination is based on the consideration that it is expected that discussions throughout will involve classified matters of national security concern. Such classified material is so intertwined with the unclassified material that it cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without defeating the effectiveness and meaning of the overall meetings. To permit the meeting to be open to the public would preclude discussion of such matters and would greatly diminish the ultimate utility of the DSB's findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.

    Written Statements: In accordance with section 10(a)(3)of the FACA and title 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the DSB at any time regarding its mission or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the DSB DFO provided above at any point; however, if a written statement is not received at least three calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the DSB until a later date.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16676 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-110-000.

    Applicants: Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: EG18-111-000.

    Applicants: OCI Lamesa Solar II LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of OCI Lamesa Solar II LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1257-001; ER12-1504-004; ER16-355-002; ER16-141-004; ER12-1946-010; ER15-255-003; ER10-2566-009; ER10-1333-010; ER13-2387-004; ER10-2034-006; ER10-2032-007; ER10-2033-007; ER13-2322-005; ER15-190-007; ER17-543-004; ER17-2-002; ER10-1328-003; ER12-1502-004; ER10-2567-004; ER12-2313-004; ER10-1330-006; ER17-361-002; ER17-360-002; ER17-362-002; ER16-61-003; ER16-63-003; ER17-2336-004; ER10-1331-003; ER16-64-003; ER10-1332-003; ER10-2522-004; ER17-539-001; ER17-540-001.

    Applicants: Caprock Solar I LLC, Cimarron Windpower II, LLC, Colonial Eagle Solar, LLC, Conetoe II Solar, LLC, Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC, Duke Energy Beckjord Storage, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Duke Energy Renewable Services, LLC, Duke Energy SAM, LLC, Frontier Windpower, LLC, Happy Jack Windpower, LLC, Ironwood Windpower, LLC, Kit Carson Windpower, LLC, Laurel Hill Wind Energy, LLC, North Allegheny Wind, LLC, Pumpjack Solar I, LLC, Rio Bravo Solar I, LLC, Rio Bravo Solar II, LLC, Seville Solar One LLC, Seville Solar Two LLC, Shoreham Solar Commons LLC, Silver Sage Windpower, LLC, Tallbear Seville LLC, Three Buttes Windpower, LLC, Top of the World Wind Energy, LLC, Wildwood Solar I, LLC, Wildwood Solar II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Duke MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 7/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180725-5273.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1977-001.

    Applicants: Brantley Farm Solar, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1 to be effective 8/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2066-000.

    Applicants: Minco Wind IV, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Minco Wind IV, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2067-000.

    Applicants: Minco Wind V, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Minco Wind V, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2068-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Request for Waiver Effective July 27, 2018 to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2069-000.

    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AECS Updated Rate Schedule 2 to be effective 9/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 26, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16632 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR18-29-000] Sunrise Pipeline LLC; Notice of Petition For Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on July 24, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2017), Sunrise Pipeline LLC (Sunrise or Petitioner), filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking approval of the overall tariff rate structure and terms and conditions of service, including the proposed prorationing methodology and aspects of the Transportation Services Agreement terms for the Sunrise Pipeline, which will be developed by building new pipeline facilities with origin points in the Permian Basin at Midland, Texas and Colorado City, Texas, and by leasing both newly expanded pipeline capacity, as well as existing, but underutilized pipeline capacity that will be leased from Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains), on segments of pipeline that Plains owns that extend from Wichita Falls, Texas to Cushing, Oklahoma. Plains, the parent company of Sunrise, will be the operator of the subject Pipeline, which will be owned by Sunrise, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 24, 2018.

    Dated: July 26, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16630 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-78-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: Supplement to July 5, 2018 Response to June 5, 2018 Deficiency Letter of Florida Power & Light Company.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-115-000.

    Applicants: MHG Solar LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of MHG Solar LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3050-003; ER14-2871-012; ER16-182-007; ER17-1785-002; ER16-1130-005; ER16-1131-005; ER16-1132-005; ER17-47-004; ER17-1574-002; ER10-3251-012; ER14-2382-012; ER15-621-011; ER15-622-011; ER15-463-011; ER16-72-007; ER18-2013-001; ER15-110-011; ER17-48-004; ER13-1586-013; ER10-1992-019; ER16-902-003; ER18-47-002; ER16-1129-005; ER10-3232-009; ER10-3053-003.

    Applicants: Cabazon Wind Partners, LLC, Cameron Ridge, LLC, Cameron Ridge II, LLC, Coachella Wind, LLC, DifWind Farms Limited I, DifWind Farms Limited II, DifWind Farms Limited V, DifWind Farms LTD VI, EUI Affiliate LLC, Oak Creek Wind Power, LLC, ON Wind Energy LLC, Pacific Crest Power, LLC, Ridgetop Energy, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II—Windustries, Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, Terra-Gen Energy Services, LLC, Terra-Gen Mojave Windfarms, LLC, TGP Energy Management, LLC, Victory Garden Phase IV, LLC, Voyager Wind I, LLC, Voyager Wind II, LLC, VPI Enterprises, LLC, Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc., Whitewater Hill Wind Partners, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Cabazon Wind Partners, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180727-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2089-000.

    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 10, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: normal filing to be effective 7/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180727-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2090-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Att. Q re FTR Credit Requirement to be effective 9/3/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180727-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2091-000.

    Applicants: Titan Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Titan Solar, LLC's Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180727-5197.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2092-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Killen, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Reactive Tariffs and Tariff IDs to be effective 7/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2093-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Stuart, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Reactive Tariffs and Tariff IDs to be effective 7/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2094-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Stuart, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of MBR Tariffs and Tariff IDs to be effective 7/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5004.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2095-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Killen, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of MBR Tariffs and Tariff IDs to be effective 7/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5005.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2096-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-NCMPA No. 1 (SA 212) Amendment to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2097-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Interim ISA SA No. 5142; Queue No. AD1-087 to be effective6/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2098-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Great River Energy.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-30_Filing to amend RS 28 GRE JPZ Revenue Allocation Agreement to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2099-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA No. 4903; Queue No. AC1-012 to be effective 7/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2100-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., MidAmerican Energy Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-30_SA 1976 MEC-ITC Midwest 4th Rev TIA to be effective8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2101-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SWE (PowerSouth Territorial) NITSA 2018 Rollover Filing to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5167.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2102-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing to Commission's5/31/2018 order in EL05-121 Settlement to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2102-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing to Commission's5/31/2018 order in EL05-121 Settlement Part 2 to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5174.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2103-000.

    Applicants: Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electric) Corp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Borderline Sales Rate Sheet Update 2018 to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH18-10-000.

    Applicants: Unison Energy, LLC, AIM Universal Holdings, LLC, Hunt Companies, Inc.

    Description: Unison Energy, LLC, et. al. submits FERC 65-A Exemption Notification.

    Filed Date: 7/30/18.

    Accession Number: 20180730-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16631 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-956-001.

    Applicants: WTG Hugoton, LP.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Annual Fuel Retention Percentage Filing 2018-2019 Amendment 1 to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180725-5043.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-993-000.

    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Shell Negotiated Rate to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180725-5021.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-994-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Flow Through of Dominion Penalty Sharing 2018.

    Filed Date: 7/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180725-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-995-000.

    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2018 July 26 Amendments to be effective 7/26/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180725-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-996-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Annual Fuel Gas Reimbursement Report for 2018.

    Filed Date: 7/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180725-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 26, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16627 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-69-000.

    Applicants: Red Bluff Express Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Red Bluff Express Pipeline, LLC Rate Election & Baseline SOC, to be effective 6/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/23/18.

    Accession Number: 201807235195.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-70-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2)+(: 2018 Application for Rate Approval to be effective 7/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/24/18.

    Accession Number: 201807245055.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-997-000.

    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Big Sandy Fuel Filing effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-998-000.

    Applicants: Florida Southeast Connection, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing—FPL 4001-B to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/26/18.

    Accession Number: 20180726-5185.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-999-000.

    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: RAM 2018—Periodic RAM Adjustment to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180727-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16633 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0543, FRL-9981-11-OLEM] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR) Contaminated Media (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (HWIR) Contaminated Media (Renewal), (EPA ICR No. 1775.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0161) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0543, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-5477; fax number: 703-308-8433; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Abstract: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires EPA to establish a national regulatory program to ensure that hazardous wastes are managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment. Under this program, EPA regulates newly generated hazardous wastes, as well as hazardous remediation wastes (i.e., hazardous wastes managed during cleanup). Hazardous remediation waste management sites must comply with all parts of 40 CFR part 264 except subparts B, C, and D. In place of these requirements, they need to comply with performance standards based on the general requirement goals in these sections, which are codified at 40 CFR 264.1(j).

    Under § 264.1(j), owners/operators of remediation waste management sites must develop and maintain procedures to prevent accidents. These procedures must address proper design, construction, maintenance, and operation of hazardous remediation waste management units at the site. In addition, owners/operators must develop and maintain a contingency and emergency plan to control accidents that occur. The plan must explain specifically how to treat, store, and dispose of the hazardous remediation waste in question, and must be implemented immediately whenever fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that could threaten human health or the environment. In addition, the Remedial Action Plan streamlines the permitting process for remediation waste management sites to allow cleanups to take place more quickly.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are the private sector, as well as State, Local, or Tribal governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA § 3004(u)).

    Estimated number of respondents: 215.

    Frequency of response: One-time.

    Total estimated burden: 6,953 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $431,798 (per year), includes $392,442 annualized labor and $39,356 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16687 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-EPA-HQ-ORD; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0527] Extension of Comment Period for the Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan for Naphthalene AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the public comment period for the document titled, “Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan for Naphthalene.” The original Federal Register document announcing the public comment period was published on July 5, 2018 (83 FR 31388). With this extension, the comment period ends on September 5, 2018. The public science webinar will still be convened on August 23, 2018.

    DATES:

    The public comment period began on July 5, 2018, and is being extended to September 5, 2018. Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The “Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan for Naphthalene” is available via the internet on IRIS' website at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=436 and in the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0527.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the public comment period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-9744; or email: [email protected].

    For technical information on the draft IRIS Assessment Plan for naphthalene, contact Dr. James Avery, NCEA; telephone: 202-564-1494; or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    How to Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0527 for naphthalene, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 202-566-9744.

    Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752.

    Hand Delivery: The ORD Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20229.

    The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0527 for naphthalene. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: July 24, 2018. James Avery, Acting Deputy Division Director,Integrated Risk Information System, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16686 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9040-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency:Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 07/23/2018 Through 07/27/2018 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20180170, Final, BLM, NV, Greater Phoenix Project, Review Period Ends: 09/04/2018,Contact: Christine Gabriel 775-635-4000 EIS No. 20180171, Draft, USFS, AK, Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 11/01/2018, Contact: Denise Downie 907-743-9426 EIS No. 20180172, Draft, NPS, TN, Contaminated Mine Drainage Mitigation and Treatment Programmatic/Site Specific Draft EIS, Comment Period Ends: 09/17/2018, Contact: Michael B. Edwards 303-969-2694 EIS No. 20180173, Draft, FHWA, SC, Carolina Crossroads I-20/26/126 Corridor Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/17/2018, Contact: J. Shane Belcher 803-253-3187 EIS No. 20180174, Draft, NPS, FL, Gulf Islands National Seashore Personal Watercraft Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/17/2018, Contact: Dan Brown 850-934-2613 EIS No. 20180175, Final, FERC, CA, Lassen Lodge Final Environmental Impact Statement, Review Period Ends: 09/04/2018, Contact: Kenneth Hogan 202-502-8434 EIS No. 20180176, Draft, BLM, NM, Carlsbad Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 11/05/2018, Contact: Hector Gonzales 575-234-5968 Amended Notice

    Revision to the Federal Register Notice published 07/20/2018, extend comment period from 08/20/2018 to 08/27/2018, EIS No. 20180164, Final, USFS, CA, Exchequer Restoration Project, Contact: Elaine Locke 559-885-5355.

    Dated: July 30, 2018. Kelly Knight, Acting Director, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16572 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0317, FRL-9981-12-OLEM] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the information collection request (ICR), Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Renewal), (EPA ICR No. 1745.09, OMB Control No. 2050-0154) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0317, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, mailcode 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-9037; fax number: 703-308-8686; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Abstract: 40 Part 257 Subpart B established specific standards and reporting and recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of new, existing, and lateral expansions of existing non-municipal non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous wastes. In order to effectively implement and enforce 40 CFR part 257 Subpart B on a State level, owners/operators of construction and demolition waste landfills that receive CESQG hazardous wastes have to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are States.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory (40 CFR 257).

    Estimated number of respondents: 152.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 11,215. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $1,577,659 which includes $936,491 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay substantially the same.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16690 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, August 2, 2018 July 26, 2018.

    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, August 2, 2018 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC.

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 Wireless Tele-Communications Title: Auctions of Upper Microwave Flexible Use Licenses for Next-Generation Wireless Services; Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auctions 101 (28 GHz) and 102 (24 GHz) (AU Docket No. 18-85). Summary: The Commission will consider a Public Notice establishing application and bidding procedures for auctioning Upper Microwave Flexible Use Licenses in the 28 GHz (Auction 101) and 24 GHz (Auction 102) bands. 2 Wireless Tele-Communications Title: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services (GN Docket No. 14-177). Summary: The Commission will consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing an auction mechanism that would transition existing spectrum holdings in the 39 GHz band (38.6-40 GHz) to a new flexible-use band plan and would offer new licenses for contiguous spectrum in the band. 3 Wireline Competition and Wireless Tele-Communications Title: Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment (WC Docket No. 17-84), (WT Docket No. 17-79). Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that will allow one-touch make-ready for most pole attachments and further reform its pole attachment process, and a Declaratory Ruling that will conclude that section 253(a) prohibits state and local moratoria on telecommunications facilities deployment. 4 Wireline Competition Title: Promoting Telehealth for Low-Income Consumers (WC Docket No. 18-213). Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Inquiry on creating a Universal Service Fund pilot program to promote the use of telehealth services among low-income Americans. 5 Media Title: LPTV, TV Translator, and FM Broadcast Station Reimbursement (MB Docket No. 18-214); Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions (GN Docket No. 12-268). Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order that begins the process of implementing Congress's directive in the Reimbursement Expansion Act that the Commission reimburse certain low power television, television translator, and FM broadcast stations for costs incurred as a result of the Commission's broadcast television spectrum incentive auction. 6 Media Title: Rules and Policies to Promote New Entry and Ownership Diversity in the Broadcasting Services (MB Docket No. 17-289). Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order establishing the requirements which will govern an incubator program that seeks to promote the entry of new and diverse voices into the broadcast industry. 7 Office of Managing Director Title: Office of Managing Director Personnel Action #75. Summary: The Commission will consider a personnel action. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16586 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0508] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

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

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before October 2, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0508.

    Title: Parts 1 and 22 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Individuals or households, and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 15,465 respondents; 16,183 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.13 hours-10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion, quarterly, and semi-annual reporting requirements; Third-party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,606 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $19,138,350.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information. The information to be collected will be made available for public inspection. Applicants may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be given confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: Part 22 contains the technical and legal requirements for radio stations operating in the Public Mobile Services. The information collected is used to determine on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to grant licenses authorizing construction and operation of wireless telecommunications facilities to common carriers. Further, this information is used to develop statistics about the demand for various wireless licenses and/or the licensing process itself, and occasionally for rule enforcement purposes.

    This revised information collection reflects deletion of a rule applicable to all licensees and applicants governed by Part 22 of the Commission's rules, as adopted by the Commission in a Third Report and Order in WT Docket Nos. 12-40 (Cellular Third R&O) (FCC 18-92). The Cellular Third R&O deleted certain Part 22 rules that either imposed administrative and recordkeeping burdens that are outdated and no longer serve the public interest, or that are largely duplicative of later-adopted rules and are thus no longer necessary. Among the rule deletions and of relevance to this information collection, the Commission deleted rule section 22.303, resulting in discontinued information collection for that rule section.

    The Commission is now seeking approval from the OMB for a revision of this information collection.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16585 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Modifications to the Statement of Policy Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act Concerning Participation in the Conduct of the Affairs of an Insured Institution by Persons Who Have Been Convicted of Crimes Involving Dishonesty, Breach of Trust or Money Laundering or Who Have Entered Pretrial Diversion Programs for Such Offenses AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Final policy statement.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 8, 2018, the FDIC published in the Federal Register notice of proposed changes to its statement of policy (SOP) concerning participation in banking of a person convicted of a crime of dishonesty or breach of trust or money laundering or who has entered a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with the prosecution for such offense pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1829 and sought comments on the proposed changes. After the closing of the comment period, the FDIC reviewed the comments received and has made some changes and clarifications to the proposed statement. The FDIC is now publishing the SOP in its final form. After publication the statement of policy will also be available on the FDIC's website.

    DATES:

    Applicable Date: July 19, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Zeller, Review Examiner (319) 395-7394 ext. 4125, or Larisa Collado, Section Chief (202) 898 8509, in the Division of Risk Management Supervision, or Michael P. Condon, Counsel (202) 898-6536 or Andrea Winkler, Supervisory Counsel (202) 898 3727 in the Legal Division.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1829, (FDI Act) prohibits, without the prior written consent of the FDIC, a person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust or money laundering (covered offenses), or who has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, from becoming or continuing as an institution-affiliated party (IAP), owning or controlling, directly or indirectly an insured depository institution (insured institution), or otherwise participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the insured institution. In addition, the law forbids an insured institution from permitting such a person to engage in any conduct or to continue any relationship prohibited by Section 19. Section 19 provides a criminal penalty for the knowing violation of its provisions of a fine of not more than $1,000,000 for each day of the violation or imprisonment for not more than five years. The FDIC's current SOP was published in December 1998 (63 FR 66177) to provide the public with guidance relating to Section 19, and the application thereof.

    II. Revisions to the Statement of Policy Based on Comments Received

    Following the close of the comment period the FDIC reviewed the comments received. All of the comments were, in general, supportive of the changes the FDIC had proposed but several of the comments suggested additional changes, modifications or clarifications of both existing provisions of the statement of policy and in response to the changes on which the FDIC had requested comment. Having reviewed the comments the FDIC has accepted some of those comments, in whole or in part, as well as making some additional technical revisions to the SOP.

    III. Review of Comments Received

    The FDIC received seven comment letters or emails on its proposed revision of the SOP. The comments came from a number of different entities—one from an individual; one on behalf of an insured depository institution; two from different depository institution trade groups; two from different components of an umbrella advocacy group; and one from an organization that provides legal aid assistance. Of the seven commenters, three (from the individual and the two depository institution trade groups) were supportive of the proposed changes in the SOP and did not suggest any additional changes or modifications. While the remaining four commenters were, in general, supportive of the FDIC's proposed changes, they suggested additional new changes, clarifications or modifications, which are discussed below.

    Conditional Offers of Employment

    Two comments addressed proposed changes to the SOP that would allow institutions to make conditional offers of employment prior to conducting a background check into the applicant's prior arrests, convictions or entries into a pre-trial diversion or similar program (program entry). Both comments suggested that the FDIC actually instruct all FDIC-insured institutions to adopt the practice of making such conditional offers of employment. The FDIC declines to make this change for a number of reasons.

    The FDIC's statutory authority under Section 19 is focused upon the requirement that the FDIC provide prior written consent before an individual covered by the statute may participate in the affairs of an insured depository institution. It does not grant the FDIC any rule-making authority to impose conditions or requirements on an insured depository institution other than to note that an institution may face a criminal penalty for acting in violation of the statute. The FDIC takes the position that insured depository institutions should be free to develop the policies and procedures best suited to them to ensure compliance with Section 19. In addition, the FDIC does not have direct supervisory authority over insured depository institutions that are subject to the supervisory authority of other Federal banking agencies (FBAs). Therefore, it is within the supervisory authority of the other FBAs to determine what is satisfactory to them in reviewing the policies and procedures their respective supervised institutions adopt to ensure compliance with Section 19. Insofar as the SOP constitutes policy guidance rather than an enforceable regulation, it is an inappropriate means for the FDIC to impose such a mandatory requirement even on its own supervised insured depository institutions.

    Expungements

    Three comments opined that the language proposed by the FDIC regarding expungements should be clarified or expanded. One suggested that the FDIC accept all expungements as complete expungements regardless of whether the records could be accessible for any other purpose. In considering the comments, the FDIC agrees that the proposed language in the SOP should be altered to clarify when an expungement is considered complete for Section 19 purposes, while providing the FDIC's rationale for allowing at least some expungements to remove a conviction or program entry from Section 19's coverage.

    The FDIC has determined that expungements that reflect the complete destruction of the records and the jurisdiction's goal to completely remove the conviction or program entry from a person's past, justified the interpretation that the intent was to, as a matter of law and fact, place the person in the position as if conviction or program entry had never happened. However, in cases where the FDIC has considered whether an expungement was complete it found that in the majority of cases either the records were still in existence or the expungement was limited and allowed the use of the conviction or program entry records in subsequent matters including, but not limited to, questions associated with character and fitness depending on the jurisdiction's public policies.

    After reviewing the comments the FDIC agrees that the language in the proposed changes to the SOP should be altered to clarify and more carefully focus on the type of expungement that it believes should exclude a conviction or program entry from the bar in Section 19. First, as noted in the proposed notice and comment, the existence of records of convictions and program entries may be found in multiple places even if the originals are destroyed in a timely manner. Second, in considering the issue of whether the expungement is one that should be outside the scope of Section 19 the more fundamental question is whether the jurisdiction, by statute or court order, intended that the conviction or program entry be no longer in existence and, essentially, gone from the individual's history. Preservation in an expungement statute or in a court order of the ability to subsequently use the conviction or program entry for another purpose, consistent with the jurisdiction's public policy, means that the conviction or program entry has not been completely expunged. In such a circumstance, the FDIC will also review the conviction or program entry to determine if it should grant consent for the person to work in, or otherwise participate in the affairs of, an insured depository institution. The FDIC is amending the language in the SOP to read:

    If an order of expungement has been issued in regard to a conviction or program entry and is intended by the language in the order itself, or in the legislative provisions under which the order was issued, to be a complete expungement, then the jurisdiction, either in the order or the underlying legislative provisions, cannot allow the conviction or program entry to be used for any subsequent purpose including, but not limited to, an evaluation of a person's fitness or character. The failure to destroy or seal the records will not prevent the expungement from being considered complete for the purposes of Section 19 in such a case.

    One comment suggested that successful completion of a pretrial diversion or similar program should be considered a complete expungement. The FDIC declines to make the suggested change for two reasons. First, the statutory language in Section 19 applies in the same manner to convictions and program entries. Second, consistent with the treatment of expungements discussed, in the context of a conviction, to the extent a program entry is still subject to subsequent use by the jurisdiction where it was entered, then the FDIC will treat it the same as a conviction. One comment also suggested that sealed records should be excluded from the coverage of Section 19. If the order sealing the records is one that would be the same as an order of complete expungement as set out in the SOP, then the FDIC will treat it in the same manner as a complete order of expungement.

    Conviction of Record

    Two comments focused on the proposed language in the SOP that states that convictions that are set aside or reversed after sentencing requirements have been completed remain convictions of record for purposes of Section 19. As noted by one of the comments, there are jurisdictions in which after an individual has completed all of the sentencing requirements, the court has set aside the conviction based upon the completion of sentencing alone. The FDIC is aware that such jurisdictions have used the foregoing process to create what is essentially a “pretrial diversion or similar program.” In contrast, courts may set aside or reverse a conviction on appeal based upon a procedural or substantive error in the case. The vast majority of such cases will have a finding that addresses the error.

    The FDIC believes that where a conviction has been set aside because of the completion of a sentence, such a procedure is, in essence, a pretrial diversion or similar program, covered by Section 19. On the other hand, in cases in which there has been a procedural or substantive error that results in the conviction being set aside, the FDIC will not consider such convictions as a conviction of record for Section 19 purposes. In order to clarify the different treatment, the FDIC has adjusted the language in the SOP to clearly recognize that convictions set aside or reversed on appeal that are based on a finding that there has been a procedural or substantive error should not be considered convictions for the purposes of Section 19.

    Three of the comments focused on the state of New York's adjournments in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) program (and in general seemingly to other similar programs), and recommended that the FDIC explicitly find that ACDs are not pretrial diversion or similar programs. As the comments recognize, however, one or more of the elements of rehabilitation addressed in the SOP as a factor for determining whether something is a pretrial diversion or similar program can apply to ACDs. Therefore, it is difficult to treat ACDs as anything other than a pretrial diversion or similar program. To the extent that the FDIC may have previously issued a letter determining that a particular individual who had an ACD was not covered by Section 19, the FDIC will not retroactively change its response in that case.

    De Miminis Exception

    Three of the comments focused on various aspects of the FDIC's de minimis exception to filing, as it currently exists, or as proposed, and sought additional clarifications or modifications. One comment criticized the definition of “jail time” in the proposed SOP, and suggested that the definition should remain the traditional definition of that term, i.e., actual time in jail. The existing SOP does not include any definition of jail time; however, the FDIC, based on its experience, is aware that jurisdictions apply various approaches to confinement based upon the nature and circumstances of the crime. Therefore, the FDIC seeks to provide a definition of the term “jail time” that is consistent with its efforts to apply the de minimis exception to lesser crimes. In reviewing the comments, however, the FDIC determined that the definition, as proposed, may be too broad given the interpretations reflected in the comments, which suggest that such items as parole may appear to be included. Therefore, the FDIC has adjusted the language in the SOP to define “jail time” as “the confinement to a specific facility or building on a continuous basis . . .” The definition is not intended to include those on probation or parole who may be restricted to a particular jurisdiction, or who must report occasionally to an individual or to a specified location.

    Another comment sought to change the unlimited time to which Section 19's coverage applies to criminal convictions or program entries to only those occurring within the prior 7 to 10 years. Because the statutory language contains no limits on the period of time to which its prohibitions apply, the FDIC does not have the authority to change that time. In fact, the FDIC notes that there is a ten-year restriction on its ability to grant consent for certain serious crimes that requires the FDIC to obtain the sentencing court's permission prior to its granting consent to permit a covered individual to participate in the affairs of an insured depository institution. Further, while the passage of time is a factor in the FDIC's review of an application under Section 19, it is not, by itself, dispositive.

    One comment proposed that the SOP should contain a short list of crimes that would never require an application or that would be included within a de minimis exception to filing once a limited period of time has passed. The FDIC believes that a sufficient period of time should pass after a crime has occurred to allow the FDIC to determine if the individual has engaged in similar behaviors, which would potentially put an insured financial institution at risk. The FDIC considers this to be an important element of the de minimis exception to filing and is not prepared to eliminate the time requirement.

    One comment appears to suggest that all crimes committed by a person under the age of 21 should be covered by the de minimis exception to filing, provided that there is at least 30 months between the conviction and the potential employment. Again, the FDIC has determined that if there is a pattern of covered crimes before the age of 21, it should look at an individual's application to determine the degree of risk to any insured depository institutions as proposed in the SOP. However, one aspect of the comment addressed the use of false, fake or altered forms of identification. Although the FDIC is not prepared to extend de minimis as far as the comment suggested, the FDIC has decided that the use of a fake, false or altered form of identification by a person under the legal age to obtain or purchase alcohol, or to enter a premises where alcohol is served but for which an age appropriate identification is required, is an acceptable category for the use of the de minimis exception to filing, provided that the person has no other conviction or program entry for a crime covered under Section 19.

    Additionally, one comment suggested that the proposed de minimis exception to filing for crimes or program entries that occurred when the individual was 21 or younger be expanded to include cases in which the actions that led to the conviction or program entry occurred before age 21, but the conviction or program entry did not occur until after the age of 21. The FDIC has determined that this change is consistent with the reasons for this exception to the filing requirements and has included a specific exception to include such cases.

    Two comments focused on the requirement that drug crimes that do not fit the de minimis exception to filing should not be covered by Section 19. The FDIC maintains that an application is required for it to determine the nature of the offense and elements of the crime, and therefore it will continue the current requirement that an application be filed. Alternatively, it was suggested that the FDIC create a specific category of de minimis exceptions to filing to cover minor drug offenses. The FDIC in its proposed changes has already noted that, if the drug crime fits the de minimis exception to filing, then no application is required, and no separate de minimis category for drug offenses is necessary.

    One other issue of note is that, after careful review, the FDIC has recognized that all of the categories falling within the de minimis exceptions to filing should be consistent, and that no category should be included in the exception if the covered crime was committed against an insured depository institution or insured credit union. This requirement is contained in the general de minimis exception to filing, as well as the exception pertaining to insufficient funds checks and the exception regarding those under 21. Therefore, the FDIC is making clear that the proposed small theft exception is treated similarly and is subject to the same restriction. As with any crime that does not fit a de minimis category, an application can still be filed.

    Application Processing

    Two of the comments raised a number of suggestions related to the processing of applications. One suggestion was to clarify the process for job applicants on the FDIC website. Similarly, two other comments also focused on the FDIC's website and application, suggesting that both should explain the process and relevant law in a plainer, more accessible language. Although these suggestions are beyond the language of the proposed changes to the SOP, the FDIC will update its website and application form and will develop a brochure that will provide guidance to the public on the application process.

    Another suggestion was to require financial institutions to provide notice to job applicants if the institution will not file a waiver on the person's behalf, and to make the forms easily available to the applicant. Such a requirement is beyond the reach of the SOP insofar as it would require a formal rulemaking. A third suggested change was to shorten the period of time for the processing of an application by permitting the FDIC to verify documents in the applicant's possession. The FDIC already relies on the verification of documents provided by the applicant, but must also undertake an independent review to determine that the information is complete and accurate. A fourth suggestion was to include a link in the SOP to the application form. The FDIC agrees that this change is related to the SOP and has added a link in the final version.

    Two comments relate to the evaluation of applications by the FDIC. Essentially these comments focused on instructions to application evaluators as to how to weigh and apply the factors set out in the SOP and as set out in the FDIC's regulations (12 CFR 308.157). The suggestions were that the FDIC should provide instructions on how to evaluate the age of the applicant at the time of the conviction, the passage of time since the conviction, and the relevance of prior offenses. Although these are just some of the factors used by the FDIC to evaluate an application, the FDIC does not agree that further instruction to application reviewers is necessary or appropriate. The weight given to the various factors is often based on the totality of the circumstances and the factors are often interwoven in their application to a specific case. Each application undergoes review in the region by both experienced safety and soundness examiners and attorneys in the legal division, as well as several layers of management review, before a final determination is made. In the case of individuals seeking a waiver of the institution filings requirement, in addition to the review at the regional office, the application undergoes a similar review in the Washington Office. Further, such instruction would be one of internal policy and would not come within the purpose or intent of the SOP.

    One comment suggested that the FDIC instruct individuals who are filing for themselves and requesting a waiver of the institution filing requirement to fill out the application form and include information identifying the position sought by the applicant. The FDIC does not agree that this would be appropriate for such applications which, if approved, result in blanket approval to participate in banking. One comment also suggested that the FDIC process applications in fewer than 60 days. While the FDIC does work to process applications quickly, the establishment of such a timeline would be a matter of internal controls and does not fall within the purpose or intent of the SOP.

    Technical and Clarifying Changes

    In addition to the foregoing, the FDIC, upon review of the proposed SOP, has made the following technical and clarifying changes.

    The FDIC has corrected an incorrect citation in Subsection A of the SOP that identifies the provisions of Section 19 that apply to bank and savings and loan holding companies. The correct citation is to 12 U.S.C. 1829(d) and (e). Also, the FDIC believes that the example in Subsection A that describes Section 19 as not applying to employees of bank and savings and loan holding companies is misleading, and the FDIC has simplified the example to focus on the circumstances in which Section 19 may apply in the case of an insured depository institution. Therefore, that example has been adjusted to read “For example, in the context of the FDIC's application of Section 19, it would apply to an insured depository institution's holding company's directors and officers to the extent that they have the power to define and direct the management or affairs of insured depository institution.”

    The FDIC also made a slight change in Subsection D(1) to remove the word “covered” from the language in that subsection since it would appear to be conclusory, and its removal brings this factor in line with the language in the FDIC's regulations (12 CFR 308.157(a)(1)).

    Furthermore, the FDIC is adding language stating that Section 19 applications submitted by depository institutions are to be filed with the FDIC Regional Office covering the state in which the institution's home office is located.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. These Modifications to the SOP for Section 19 of the FDI Act include clarification of reporting requirements in an existing FDIC information collection, entitled Application Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (3064-0018) that should result in a decrease in the number of applications filed. Specifically, the revised policy statement broadens the application of the de minimis exception to filing an application due to the minor nature of the offenses and the low risk that the covered party would pose to an insured institution based on the conviction or program entry. By modifying these provisions, the FDIC believes that there will be a reduction in the submission of applications where approval has been granted by virtue of the de minimis offenses exceptions to filing in the policy statement. In its last submission with OMB, the FDIC indicated that it will receive approximately 75 applications per year. The FDIC estimates that the revised SOP would reduce the number of applications filed each year by approximately 28 percent bringing the number of applications each year down to approximately 54. This change in burden will be submitted to OMB as a non-significant, nonmaterial change to an existing information collection. The estimated new burden for the information collection is as follows:

    Title: “Application Pursuant to Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act”.

    Affected Public: Insured depository institutions and individuals.

    OMB Number: 3064-0018.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 54.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Average Time per Response: 16 hours.

    Estimated Annual Burden: 864 hours.

    V. Text of FDIC Statement of Policy for Section 19 of the FDI Act

    For the reasons set forth above, the entire text of the proposed FDIC Statement of Policy for Section 19 is stated as follows:

    FDIC Statement of Policy for Section 19 of the FDI Act

    Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829) prohibits, without the prior written consent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust or money laundering (covered offenses), or who has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program (program entry) in connection with a prosecution for such offense, from becoming or continuing as an institution-affiliated party, owning or controlling, directly or indirectly an insured depository institution (insured institution), or otherwise participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the insured institution. In addition, the law forbids an insured institution from permitting such a person to engage in any conduct or to continue any relationship prohibited by Section 19. It imposes a ten-year ban against the FDIC's consent for persons convicted of certain crimes enumerated in Title 18 of the United States Code, absent a motion by the FDIC and court approval.

    Section 19 imposes a duty upon an insured institution to make a reasonable inquiry regarding an applicant's history, which consists of taking steps appropriate under the circumstances, consistent with applicable law, to avoid hiring or permitting participation in its affairs by a person who has a conviction or program entry for a covered offense. The FDIC believes that at a minimum, each insured institution should establish a screening process that provides the insured institution with information concerning any convictions or program entry pertaining to a job applicant. This would include, for example, the completion of a written employment application that requires a listing of all convictions and program entries. In the alternative, for the purposes of Section 19, an FDIC-supervised institution may extend a conditional offer of employment contingent on the completion of a background check satisfactory to the institution and to determine if the applicant is barred by Section 19. In such a case, the job applicant may not work for or be employed by the insured institution until such time that the applicant is determined to not be barred under Section 19. The FDIC will look to the circumstances of each situation for FDIC-supervised institutions to determine whether the inquiry is reasonable.

    Section 19 applies, by operation of law, as a statutory bar to participation absent the written consent of the FDIC. Upon notice of a conviction or program entry, an application must be filed seeking the FDIC's consent prior to the person's participation. The purpose of an application is to provide the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate that, notwithstanding the bar, a person is fit to participate in the conduct of the affairs of an insured institution without posing a risk to its safety and soundness or impairing public confidence in that institution. The burden is upon the applicant to establish that the application warrants approval.

    A. Scope of Section 19

    Section 19 covers institution-affiliated parties, as defined by 12 U.S.C. 1813(u) and others who are participants in the conduct of the affairs of an insured institution. This Statement of Policy applies only to insured institutions, their institution-affiliated parties, and those participating in the affairs of an insured depository institution. Therefore, all employees of an insured institution fall within the scope of Section 19. In addition, those deemed to be de facto employees, as determined by the FDIC based upon generally applicable standards of employment law, will also be subject to Section 19. Whether other persons who are not institution-affiliated parties are covered depends upon their degree of influence or control over the management or affairs of an insured institution. For example, in the context of the FDIC's application of Section 19, it would apply to an insured depository institution's holding company's directors and officers to the extent that they have the power to define and direct the management or affairs of insured depository institution. Similarly, directors and officers of affiliates, subsidiaries or joint ventures of an insured institution or its holding company will be covered if they participate in the affairs of the insured institution or are in a position to influence or control the management or affairs of the insured institution. Typically, an independent contractor does not have a relationship with the insured institution other than the activity for which the insured institution has contracted. In terms of participation, an independent contractor who influences or controls the management or affairs of the insured institution would be covered by Section 19. Further, “person” for purposes of Section 19 means an individual, and does not include a corporation, firm or other business entity.

    Individuals who file an application with the FDIC under the provisions of Section 19 who also seek to participate in the affairs of a bank or savings and loan holding company may have to comply with any filing requirements of the Board of the Governors of the Federal Reserve System under 12 U.S.C. 1829(d) & (e).

    Section 19 specifically prohibits a person subject to its coverage from owning or controlling an insured institution. For purposes of defining “control” and “ownership” under Section 19, the FDIC has adopted the definition of “control” set forth in the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(8)(B)). A person will be deemed to exercise “control” if that person has the power to vote 25 percent or more of the voting shares of an insured institution (or 10 percent of the voting shares if no other person has more shares) or the ability to direct the management or policies of the insured institution. Under the same standards, person will be deemed to “own” an insured institution if that person owns 25 percent or more of the insured institution's voting stock, or 10 percent of the voting shares if no other person owns more. These standards would also apply to an individual acting in concert with others so as to have such ownership or control. Absent the FDIC's consent, persons subject to the prohibitions of Section 19 will be required to divest their control or ownership of shares above the foregoing limits.

    B. Standards for Determining Whether an Application Is Required

    Except as indicated in paragraph (5), below, an application must be filed where there is present a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction for a covered offense by any adult or minor treated as an adult, or where such person has entered a pretrial diversion or similar program regarding that offense. Before an application is considered by the FDIC, all of the sentencing requirements associated with a conviction or conditions imposed by the pretrial diversion, or similar program, including but not limited to, imprisonment, fines, condition of rehabilitation, and probation requirements, must be completed, and the case must be considered final by the procedures of the applicable jurisdiction. The FDIC's application forms as well as additional information concerning Section 19 can be accessed at the FDIC website. The link is: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/forms/section19.html.

    (1) Convictions

    There must be present a conviction of record. Section 19 does not cover arrests, pending cases not brought to trial, acquittals, or any conviction th