Federal Register Vol. 83, No.158,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 158 (August 15, 2018)

Page Range40429-40652
FR Document

83_FR_158
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 40429 - Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United StatesPDF
83 FR 40617 - Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Extension of ClearancePDF
83 FR 40549 - Notice of Termination of the Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, UtahPDF
83 FR 40621 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
83 FR 40513 - Notice of Agreement FiledPDF
83 FR 40550 - Filing of Plats of Survey; NVPDF
83 FR 40631 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; HearingPDF
83 FR 40548 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Incidental Take Permit Application, Habitat Conservation Plan for the Alabama Beach Mouse, and Environmental Assessment for Gulf Place East Parking Lot in Gulf Shores, ALPDF
83 FR 40567 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Rhodes TechnologiesPDF
83 FR 40638 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 40575 - Meeting of Humanities PanelPDF
83 FR 40634 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 40499 - Senior Executive Service: Membership of Performance Review BoardPDF
83 FR 40648 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 40619 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: QSA Customer Feedback ReportPDF
83 FR 40632 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 40455 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LAPDF
83 FR 40627 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 40641 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 40630 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 40642 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 40620 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; HearingPDF
83 FR 40637 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD)PDF
83 FR 40458 - Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2018 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Gray TriggerfishPDF
83 FR 40577 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 40487 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Attainment Plan for Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute SO2PDF
83 FR 40651 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Tax and Trade Bureau Information Collection RequestsPDF
83 FR 40618 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
83 FR 40617 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
83 FR 40617 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of NebraskaPDF
83 FR 40519 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Data Collection Materials for the Annual Performance Reporting of the Administration for Community Living's American Indian, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiian ProgramsPDF
83 FR 40517 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
83 FR 40571 - Notice of Entering Into a Compact With the MongoliaPDF
83 FR 40571 - Cumulative Report of Rescissions Proposals Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974PDF
83 FR 40619 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Washington County, Pa.PDF
83 FR 40624 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 40636 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of Existing Information Collection Request: Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking RequirementsPDF
83 FR 40649 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable Cardioverter DefibrillatorsPDF
83 FR 40625 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 40629 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 40532 - Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention; Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian CommunitiesPDF
83 FR 40515 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 40502 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38-Spartanburg, South Carolina; Authorization of Production Activity; AFL Telecommunications, LLC; (Optical Cable for Data Transfer); Duncan, South CarolinaPDF
83 FR 40516 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 40618 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, and Commissions Relating to Sales of Defense Articles and Defense ServicesPDF
83 FR 40519 - Announcement of Intent To Issue One OPDIV-Initiated Supplement to BCFS Health and Human Services Under the Standing Announcement for Residential (Shelter) Services for Unaccompanied Children, HHS-2017-ACF-ORR-ZU-1132PDF
83 FR 40569 - The Cadmium in Construction Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
83 FR 40499 - Notice of Request for Expression of Interest for Potential Sites for Headquarters Office LocationsPDF
83 FR 40433 - Conditions for Payment of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Indemnity ClaimsPDF
83 FR 40503 - Proposed Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
83 FR 40504 - Proposed Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
83 FR 40542 - Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Rail Transportation SecurityPDF
83 FR 40549 - Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact (Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota)PDF
83 FR 40549 - Indian Gaming; Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Taking Effect in the State of CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 40451 - Making Permanent the Attorney Advisor ProgramPDF
83 FR 40501 - Retail Exemptions Adjusted Dollar LimitationsPDF
83 FR 40509 - Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned MVP Southgate Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping SessionPDF
83 FR 40505 - Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To IntervenePDF
83 FR 40512 - Sanford Energy Associates, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 40507 - El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the South Mainline Expansion ProjectPDF
83 FR 40512 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 40508 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 40509 - Reliability Technical Conference; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference CommentsPDF
83 FR 40499 - Request for Nominations of Members for the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, Specialty Crop Committee, and National Genetics Advisory CouncilPDF
83 FR 40542 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Immigrant Petition by Alien EntrepreneurPDF
83 FR 40546 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Document Verification Request and SupplementPDF
83 FR 40543 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for Reduced FeePDF
83 FR 40547 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Certificate of CitizenshipPDF
83 FR 40544 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322PDF
83 FR 40545 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for Certification of Military or Naval ServicePDF
83 FR 40568 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of an Existing Collection in Use Rap Back Services Form (1-796)PDF
83 FR 40541 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 40524 - Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease ProductPDF
83 FR 40520 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved ApplicationPDF
83 FR 40524 - Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products-Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Reopening of the Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 40522 - Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 40502 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Common Core of Data (CCD) School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) 2018-2020PDF
83 FR 40454 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CAPDF
83 FR 40553 - United States v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
83 FR 40541 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Sulphur, LA), as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
83 FR 40514 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the Joint Commission (TJC) for Continued Approval of its Psychiatric Hospital Accreditation ProgramPDF
83 FR 40575 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 40572 - Privacy Act of 1974: Systems of RecordsPDF
83 FR 40651 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
83 FR 40525 - Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian CommunitiesPDF
83 FR 40502 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; “Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery”PDF
83 FR 40505 - Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 40508 - Holloman Lessee, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 40506 - Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 40504 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 40578 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 40485 - Mail Preparation ChangesPDF
83 FR 40587 - Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, et al.PDF
83 FR 40601 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to ATS Reporting to TRACE of Transactions in U.S. Treasury SecuritiesPDF
83 FR 40605 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by MIAX PEARL, LLC To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 40595 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 40583 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 40578 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Incorporate the “PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds” Into the Market Data Enterprise License Proposed by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLCPDF
83 FR 40591 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Incorporate BX Rule 7039 Into the Market Data Enterprise License Proposed by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLCPDF
83 FR 40599 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 1.5, Definitions, Exchange Rule 14.6, Obligations for Companies Listed on the Exchange, and Exchange Rule 14.11, Other SecuritiesPDF
83 FR 40611 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Correct Certain References, Provide Transparency to Existing Processes and Amend Existing Practices in Connection With the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Electronic Pool Notification RulesPDF
83 FR 40582 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 40610 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 40576 - National Aeronautics & Space Administration; John H. Glenn Research CenterPDF
83 FR 40576 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 40445 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
83 FR 40438 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 40443 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 40457 - Connect America FundPDF
83 FR 40513 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
83 FR 40540 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 40552 - Steel Racks From ChinaPDF
83 FR 40540 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 40540 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 40551 - Steel Trailer Wheels From China; Institution of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationsPDF
83 FR 40569 - Recognizing Private Sector Certification Programs for Criminal Justice RestraintsPDF
83 FR 40568 - Body Armor Manufacturer WorkshopPDF
83 FR 40577 - Request for Reinstatement: Certificate of Medical Examination, OF 178, 3206-0250PDF
83 FR 40460 - Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System, National Capital Region, Special Events and DemonstrationsPDF
83 FR 40453 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying BenefitsPDF
83 FR 40551 - Request for New Information Collection Under the Paperwork Reduction Act: Stakeholders SurveysPDF

Issue

83 158 Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Contents Agency Agency for International Development NOTICES Senior Executive Service: Membership of Performance Review Board, 40499 2018-17601 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

NOTICES Request for Expression of Interest for Potential Sites for Headquarters Office Locations, 40499-40501 2018-17555 Requests for Nominations: National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, Specialty Crop Committee, and National Genetics Advisory Council; Correction, 40499 2018-17537
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Conditions for Payment of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Indemnity Claims, 40433-40438 2018-17554 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement: United States v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., 40553-40567 2018-17521 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application from the Joint Commission for Continued Approval of its Psychiatric Hospital Accreditation Program, 40514-40515 2018-17519 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2019 National Survey of Early Care and Education, 40516-40517 2018-17560 Evaluation of Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking Program, 40515-40516 2018-17563 Funding Announcements: Intent to Issue One OPDIV-Initiated Supplement to BCFS Health and Human Services under the Standing Announcement for Residential Services for Unaccompanied Children, 40519 2018-17558 Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 40517-40519 2018-17575 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA, 40454 2018-17522 Safety Zones: Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA, 40455-40457 2018-17595 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Performance Reporting of the American Indian, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiian Programs, 40519-40520 2018-17576 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Rhodes Technologies, 40567-40568 2018-17605 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Common Core of Data School-Level Finance Survey 2018-2020, 40502-40503 2018-17523 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40503-40504 2018-17552 2018-17553
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana: Attainment Plan for Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute SO2 Nonattainment Areas, 40487-40498 2018-17582 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus SAS Airplanes, 40438-40443 2018-17482 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 40445-40451 2018-17483 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 40443-40445 2018-17481 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: QSA Customer Feedback Report, 40619-40620 2018-17598 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Connect America Fund, 40457-40458 2018-17479 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40513 2018-17478 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 40504-40505, 40508, 40512-40513 2018-17505 2018-17540 2018-17541 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: El Paso Natural Gas Co., LLC; South Mainline Expansion Project, 40507 2018-17542 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; MVP Southgate Project, 40509-40512 2018-17545 Hydroelectric Applications: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 40505-40506 2018-17544 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Holloman Lessee, LLC, 40508-40509 2018-17507 Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC, 40505 2018-17508 Sanford Energy Associates, LLC, 40512 2018-17543 Post-Technical Conference Comments: Reliability Technical Conference, 40509 2018-17539 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 40506-40507 2018-17506 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 40513-40514 2018-17609 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking Requirements, 40636-40637 2018-17568 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 40621-40624 2018-17610 Diabetes Mellitus, 40630-40631, 40641-40648 2018-17591 2018-17592 2018-17593 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 40624-40627, 40629-40630 2018-17565 2018-17566 2018-17569 Hearing, 40620-40621, 40631-40632 2018-17589 2018-17607 Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator, 40637-40638 2018-17588 Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators, 40649-40651 2018-17567 Vision, 40627-40629, 40632-40636, 40638-40640, 40648-40649 2018-17594 2018-17597 2018-17599 2018-17602 2018-17604 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Waiver of Compliance, 40651 2018-17516 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Incidental Take Permit Application, Habitat Conservation Plan for the Alabama beach mouse, Gulf Place East Parking Lot, Gulf Shores, AL, 40548-40549 2018-17606 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application, 40520-40522 2018-17526 Guidance: Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products—Questions and Answers, 40524-40525 2018-17525 Meetings: Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee, 40522-40524 2018-17524 Priority Review Vouchers: Rare Pediatric Disease Product, 40524 2018-17527 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Retail Exemptions Adjusted Dollar Limitations, 40501-40502 2018-17546 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: AFL Telecommunications, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 38, Spartanburg, SC, 40502 2018-17561 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Gaming: Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact (Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota), 40549 2018-17550 Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Taking Effect in the State of California, 40549 2018-17548 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian Communities, 40525-40540 2018-17515 2018-17564 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Indian Gaming Commission

See

National Park Service

International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Steel Trailer Wheels from China, 40551-40552 2018-17471 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Steel Racks from China, 40552-40553 2018-17476 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Justice Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Rap Back Services Form, 40568 2018-17529
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Body Armor Manufacturer Workshop, 40568-40569 2018-17466 Recognizing Private Sector Certification Programs for Criminal Justice Restraints, 40569 2018-17467 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Utah; Termination, 40549-40550 2018-17611 Plats of Surveys: Nevada, 40550-40551 2018-17608 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Cumulative Report of Rescissions Proposals Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 40571 2018-17571 Millenium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Compact with Mongolia, 40571-40572 2018-17574 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 40572-40575 2018-17517 2018-17518 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 40575-40576 2018-17603 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Stakeholders Surveys, 40551 2018-17129 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 40540 2018-17472 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 40540 2018-17477 National Institute of Mental Health, 40540 2018-17474 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico: 2018 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish, 40458-40459 2018-17586 National Park National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System, National Capital Region, Special Events and Demonstrations, 40460-40485 2018-17386 Neighborhood Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40576 2018-17484 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Amendment Applications: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John H. Glenn Research Center, 40576-40577 2018-17486 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: The Cadmium in Construction Standard, 40569-40570 2018-17557 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Clearance for Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 40502 2018-17510 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans: Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 40453-40454 2018-17351 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certificate of Medical Examination, 40577 2018-17428 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Mail Preparation Changes, 40485-40487 2018-17498 NOTICES New Postal Products, 40577-40578 2018-17585 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 40578 2018-17500 2018-17501 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Trade: Steel; Adjusting Imports Into the U.S. (Proc. 9772), 40429-40432 2018-17703 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40582-40583, 40610-40611 2018-17487 2018-17488 Applications: Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, et al., 40587-40591 2018-17497 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 40599-40601 2018-17490 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 40601-40605 2018-17496 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 40611-40617 2018-17489 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 40583-40587, 40595-40599 2018-17493 2018-17494 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 40605-40610 2018-17495 Nasdaq BX, Inc., 40591-40595 2018-17491 Nasdaq PHLX LLC, 40578-40582 2018-17492 Selective Selective Service System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40617 2018-17625 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Nebraska, 40617-40618 2018-17577 Small Business Investment Company License Surrenders, 40617-40618 2018-17578 2018-17579 2018-17580 Social Social Security Administration RULES Attorney Advisor Program, 40451-40453 2018-17547 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Statement of Political Contributions, Fees, and Commissions Relating to Sales of Defense Articles and Defense Services, 40618-40619 2018-17559 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 40541 2018-17528 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuances of Service Exemptions: Norfolk Southern Railway Co.; Washington County, PA, 40619 2018-17570 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Rail Transportation Security, 40542 2018-17551 Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40651-40652 2018-17581 U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Certificate of Citizenship, 40547-40548 2018-17533 Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322, 40544-40545 2018-17532 Document Verification Request and Supplement, 40546-40547 2018-17535 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, 40542-40543 2018-17536 Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service, 40545-40546 2018-17530 Request for Reduced Fee, 40543-40544 2018-17534 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: Intertek USA, Inc. (Sulphur, LA), 40541-40542 2018-17520 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.

83 158 Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 53 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0061] RIN 0579-AE14 Conditions for Payment of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Indemnity Claims AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting as a final rule, with changes, an interim rule that amended the regulations pertaining to certain diseases of livestock and poultry to specify conditions for payment of indemnity claims for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The interim rule provided a formula allowing us to split such payments between poultry and egg owners and parties with which the owners enter into contracts to raise or care for the eggs or poultry based on the proportion of the production cycle completed. That action was necessary to ensure that all contractors are compensated appropriately. The interim rule also clarified an existing policy regarding the payment of indemnity for eggs destroyed due to HPAI and required a statement from owners and contractors, unless specifically exempted, indicating that at the time of detection of HPAI in their facilities, they had in place and were following a biosecurity plan aimed at keeping HPAI from spreading to commercial premises.

DATES:

Effective on August 15, 2018, we are adopting as a final rule the interim rule published at 81 FR 6745-6751, on February 9, 2016. The amendments in this final rule are effective on September 14, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Denise Brinson, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In an interim rule 1 effective and published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2016 (81 FR 6745-6751, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0061), we amended the regulations pertaining to certain diseases of livestock and poultry to specify conditions for payment of indemnity claims for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The interim rule provided a formula allowing us to split such payments between poultry and egg owners and parties with which the owners enter into contracts to raise or care for the eggs or poultry based on the proportion of the production cycle completed. That action was necessary to ensure that all contractors are compensated appropriately. The interim rule also provided for the payment of indemnity for eggs required to be destroyed due to HPAI, thus clarifying an existing policy. Finally, the interim rule required owners and contractors, unless specifically exempted, to provide a statement that at the time of detection of HPAI in their facilities, they had in place and were following a biosecurity plan aimed at keeping HPAI from spreading to commercial premises.

1 To view the interim rule, supporting document, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0061.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before April 11, 2016. We received 18 comments by that date. They were from industry stakeholders, an animal welfare organization, and individuals. The issues raised by the commenters are discussed below.

Apportionment Formula

A number of commenters expressed concerns about the methodology set out by the interim rule for determining how to apportion funds between owner and contractor. These concerns mostly pertained to equitability and transparency, with some addressing specific sectors of the poultry industry.

Several commenters stated that the formula is flawed because it effectively apportions zero value to the preparatory work done by the contractor prior to the beginning of the production cycle. According to the commenters, contractors incur costs prior to receiving the birds, e.g., for bedding, fuel, and the labor required to prepare the facilities. An indemnity payment, even if made early in the production cycle, may not be sufficient for many contractors to recover these up-front costs.

The Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301) authorizes the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to make payments for birds destroyed due to HPAI based on the fair market value of the birds. While owners and contractors may have additional costs associated with the raising of the birds, the determination of fair market value accounts for the production practices and the inputs necessary to raise the species of bird. The Animal Health Protection Act does not, however, authorize us to cover all losses from HPAI, so costs incurred for certain supplies and labor performed prior to confirmation of disease may not be covered.

One of the commenters cited above further stated that, due to the initial costs contractors incur, losses for a contractor resulting from an outbreak may exceed the value of the flock. In the commenter's view, the distribution formula set out in the February 2016 interim rule does not accurately reflect the relative impacts of an HPAI outbreak on owner and contractor. The commenter recommended that, in determining the value of the loss to the contractor, APHIS should use a 5-flock average for each impacted contractor operation, based on the settlement sheets provided by the owner to the contractor.

The February 2016 interim rule set out a formula whereby the apportionment of indemnity payments to owners and contractors was based on the duration in days of the contract, as signed prior to the disease outbreak. The interim rule did include a provision, however, stating that if determining the length of service contract is impractical or inappropriate, then APHIS may use other methods as deemed appropriate. This provision allows APHIS, when appropriate, to use previous flock averages to assist in determining the contractor's portion of the indemnity payment, as the commenter suggested.

A commenter stated that contractors' loss of income resulting from bird disposal and cleanup following depopulation should be factored into our formula. Noting that contractors are often directly involved with the bird disposal, the commenter stated that affected growers will lose not only the income from the flock affected by and destroyed because of HPAI, but also income from one or more flocks that cannot be raised on the premises due to the shutdown time required. While such a shutdown will also impact the owners somewhat, they can minimize economic losses by increasing placement with unaffected contractors. The contractor, who has no such recourse, therefore would bear the greater impact from such a shutdown, a difference that should be reflected in the apportionment of indemnity payments.

Under the Animal Health Protection Act, APHIS can make indemnity payments of up to 100 percent of the fair market value for live birds that must be destroyed because of HPAI. Further, the Act also authorizes APHIS to pay for certain costs associated with cleanup, disinfection, and disposal of birds and materials, such as bedding and litter, as necessary to eliminate the virus. The regulations in 9 CFR 53.2 and 53.7 also provide for such payments. While the Animal Health Protection Act does not allow APHIS to compensate owners and contractors directly for loss of income due to a shutdown of operations, the range of activities for which we do pay indemnities will go some way towards offsetting such costs.

Commenters stated that our indemnity apportionment formula should take the type and age of the birds into account. A standard cost division for all poultry is not equitable, it was suggested, because some birds require more of an investment than others. One commenter stated that specific provisions should be added to the rule to address HPAI losses experienced by breeder hen and pullet contract growers because their flocks are kept for much longer durations than broiler flocks.

These comments appear to be directed more toward our methodology for determining fair market value of the birds rather than the formula we use for apportioning indemnity payments between owners and contractors. The former is beyond the scope of the present rulemaking. That said, our formulas for determining the fair market value of destroyed poultry for the purpose of indemnifying owners and growers already take into account such factors as the type, age, and production potential of the birds. These formulas, also referred to as appraisal calculators, are developed specifically for each segment of the industry and species of bird.

Transparency was another issue raised by the commenters. A commenter suggested that we needed to gather more data in order to devise a fair method of apportioning indemnity payments between owners and contractors. Another commenter suggested that we should update and make more transparent our formulas for calculating indemnities.

We apportion indemnity payments between owner and contractor based on the terms of the contract between the two parties and the duration of the period during which the contractor possessed the birds or eggs. Thus, the amount of the indemnity received by the contractor from APHIS will depend largely on the terms of the contract. APHIS does not play a role in those contractual arrangements. Our indemnity calculation formulas, referred to by the second commenter above, are the means by which we determine the fair market value of birds and eggs destroyed due to HPAI and, thereby, the total amount of compensation due the indemnified party. As we have already noted, addressing these calculators is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking; however, the calculators are subject to continual review to ensure that the economic assumptions on which they are based are correct and that they adequately reflect standard industry practices.

Finally, one commenter stated that APHIS should indemnify farms that are not infected with HPAI but are indirectly affected by an HPAI outbreak. The commenter suggested that such farms may be affected economically by being unable to restock if located in a quarantine or control zone.

The Animal Health Protection Act authorizes APHIS to make payments for birds or eggs destroyed due to HPAI based on their fair market value. APHIS recognizes that some owners and contractors whose flocks do not have HPAI may still have limited ability to place birds or eggs due to movement control restrictions and, consequently, may face financial hardships. However, the Animal Health Protection Act only authorizes payment of indemnity to owners and contract growers of diseased birds or eggs that are destroyed and not to owners or contractors whose premises were only indirectly impacted.

Biosecurity

The February 2016 interim rule contained a requirement stating that, in order to be eligible to receive indemnity payments, both poultry or egg owners and contractors had to provide to APHIS a statement that at the time of detection of HPAI in their facilities, they had in place and were following a biosecurity plan. A list of recommended biosecurity measures was also included, as well as exemptions from the biosecurity statement requirement for certain relatively small facilities. Some commenters questioned whether the requirements were sufficiently stringent overall, while others focused more specifically on the exemptions for smaller facilities.

The various issues raised by these commenters, along with changes we are making in response to some comments, are discussed in detail below. One change we are making for the sake of clarity is to add a definition to § 53.1 of poultry biosecurity plan, which we define in this final rule as a document utilized by an owner and/or contractor describing the management practices and principles that are used to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious diseases of poultry at a specific facility.

One commenter stated that self-certification is not a reliable method for ensuring the use of best practices in biosecurity on poultry- or egg-producing premises because the self-certifying owners and growers will have an economic interest in ensuring their certifications. The commenter recommended that APHIS enforce biosecurity requirements by conducting unannounced spot inspections and, when violations are found, subjecting the violators to serious financial consequences.

We believe the commenter has raised some legitimate concerns about the efficacy of self-certification. In this final rule, we are adding provisions for verifying that the owner and/or contractor does have a biosecurity plan in place and that the plan is, in fact, being implemented. Those provisions are discussed in greater detail below.

Some commenters advocated for more rigorous biosecurity requirements. One commenter suggested that even if APHIS declines to do targeted inspections, it should at least require that there is a biosecurity plan in place prior to any HPAI outbreak or destruction of animals. The commenter stated that allowing owners and contractors to meet the requirement after an outbreak would provide a huge economic incentive to misrepresent the state of biosecurity planning at a facility in its attestation. Requiring a biosecurity statement prior to an outbreak, on the other hand, would motivate owners and contractors to address biosecurity planning earlier. Another commenter suggested that facilities subject to the requirement should have had a plan in place for 6 months prior to the outbreak, have had no lapses during that period, have trained their employees in biosecurity, and be liable for penalties for submitting false claims.

Since the publication of the February 2016 interim rule, we have taken steps to strengthen our biosecurity requirements. In a notice 2 published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2017, and effective on July 5, 2017 (82 FR 21187-21188, Docket No. APHIS-2016-0103), we advised the public of our determination to update the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) Program Standards. The NPIP Program Standards is a document that provides detailed information on how to meet the requirements contained in the NPIP regulations. The NPIP Standards can be amended via notice rather than through a lengthy rulemaking process, thereby providing us with the flexibility to ensure that program requirements remain in sync with current industry practices. The May 2017 final notice followed an earlier notice of availability, upon which we did not receive any public comments. Among other changes, our updates to the NPIP Program Standards included the addition of a set of 14 biosecurity principles addressing such issues as training and biosecurity protocols for farm personnel; maintaining a line of separation between the poultry house(s) and the birds inside from any potential disease sources; control of birds, rodents, and insects; procedures for maintaining clean water supplies; and procedures for auditing biosecurity plans. A facility's biosecurity plan must address all 14 principles in order to ensure that it complies with our requirements.

2 To view the notices and the Program Standards, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0103.

The auditing process that we have developed as one of the 14 biosecurity principles addresses concerns expressed by the commenters regarding the need to have a biosecurity plan in place before a facility is affected by HPAI. Facilities will be audited at least once every 2 years or a sufficient number of times during that period to satisfy their Official State Agency (OSA),3 a term we define in 9 CFR 145.1 and 146.1 as the State authority we recognize as a cooperator in the administration of NPIP requirements, that the facility's biosecurity plan complies with our 14 biosecurity principles, i.e., with the NPIP Standards. The audit will include, but may not be limited to, an evaluation of the biosecurity plan itself and documentation showing that the plan is being implemented.

3 We note that the State of Hawaii does not participate in the NPIP or have an OSA as defined in §§ 145.1 and 146.1. Audits on facilities in Hawaii may be performed by APHIS or an APHIS representative.

To be recognized as compliant with our biosecurity principles and eligible for indemnity, owners and/or contractors whose biosecurity plans fail the audit described above must have a check audit performed by a team appointed by the National NPIP Office and must demonstrate they have implemented applicable biosecurity measures.

The auditing procedures are described in a new paragraph (e) that we are adding to § 53.11 in this final rule and in greater detail in the NPIP Program Standards.

A number of commenters opposed exempting smaller facilities from the biosecurity certification requirement. It was stated that weak biosecurity at a facility of any size may result in the spread of HPAI and that some facilities that the interim rule exempted from the biosecurity requirement were, in fact, affected during the 2014-2015 HPAI outbreak. One commenter stated that the flock size thresholds for exempted facilities needed to be lowered considerably. According to the commenter, the bird density on some of the exempted facilities was still high enough to pose a risk of spreading HPAI.

While it is true that weak biosecurity on a farm of any size could lead to spread of disease, the farms that were affected during the 2014-2015 outbreak were overwhelming large commercial facilities. There are approximately 18,900 operations that will be subject to the biosecurity statement requirement, out of 233,770 poultry producers in the United States. Those 18,900 operations, however, produce or house approximately 99 percent of the poultry in the United States. Exempting the smaller facilities, therefore, allows us to focus our resources on the operations that raise or house 99 percent of the nation's poultry supply. While bird density on some smaller operations may be high enough to pose a risk of spreading HPAI due to environmental contamination when biosecurity is lacking, as noted above, 99 percent of the nation's poultry reside and are raised on non-exempt operations. Lowering the flock-size threshold would increase the regulatory burden on small producers, which were not a major contributing factor in disease spread during the 2014-2015 HPAI outbreak. In addition, if the small farms participate in the NPIP because they are selling poultry, they would have to have a biosecurity plan to comply with the NPIP Program Standards.

In the preamble to February 2016 interim rule, we had stated that an additional reason for our focus on large facilities is that their operators had suffered the most devastating impacts during the 2014-2015 outbreak. A commenter disputed that rationale, stating that because smaller contractors may have lost their entire flocks to depopulation, they may have been affected more adversely than the owners with whom they contracted, since the latter may have other, unaffected contractors with whom to place their products.

While the loss of any size flock adversely affects the contractor, all flocks that were infected by HPAI during the 2014-2015 outbreak were completely depopulated, including those owned by large-scale producers. During the 2014-2015 HPAI outbreak, there were 21 infected backyard flocks totaling approximately 10,000 birds versus 211 commercial flocks totaling approximately 50 million birds. In the aggregate, then, the impact on large commercial producers was much greater.

Furthermore, in some cases, depopulation may also have greater impacts on individual commercial farms than on smaller facilities. Smaller flock owners and contractors are more likely to be diversified. A small contract grower with 500 birds is unlikely to be able to make a living on selling the eggs or the meat from those birds. For that reason, he or she may have other occupations or businesses or may raise other livestock. Commercial producers, on the other hand, focus on raising poultry, so depopulation of their flocks may leave them without immediate alternatives.

A commenter questioned whether removing the exemption for smaller facilities would really place an undue regulatory burden on the owners and contractors operating such facilities. The commenter suggested that due to the lower bird density on smaller facilities, owners and contractors on small facilities may have to make fewer adaptations to their existing biosecurity procedures than would those on larger ones. That being the case, the commenter suggests, our biosecurity requirements may not place a greater regulatory burden on smaller facilities than on larger ones.

In our view, the biosecurity requirements included in this final rule and the NPIP Program Standards would likely prove more burdensome for smaller facilities than for larger ones. Many smaller owners and contractors raise free-range chickens. To mitigate the chance of exposure of their flocks to HPAI and comply with our biosecurity principles, small growers and contractors would likely have to construct enclosures to prevent exposure to wild birds and waterfowl. With fewer birds on their premises, smaller owners and contractors might have to spend more per bird to construct such enclosures than would larger ones.

Miscellaneous

One commenter questioned our justification for publishing an interim rule. The commenter stated that we did not provide evidence that the Administrative Procedure Act's “good cause” exemption from the regular notice and comment rulemaking process should have applied to the interim rule. In the commenter's view, we did not clearly state what public interest was served by our issuing an interim rule on an emergency basis rather than a proposed rule followed by a final rule.

In our view, emergency action was necessary due to the possibility of another HPAI outbreak occurring during the spring wild bird migration season. In order to prevent the spread of the disease, we needed to ensure timely and equable compensation to both owners and contractors for flocks destroyed due to HPAI.

Finally, we are adding a new paragraph (f) to § 53.11, describing the notice-based procedure we will use to update the biosecurity principles and other sections of the NPIP Program Standards. Proposed updates will be announced to the public through a Federal Register notice in accordance with the NPIP regulations in 9 CFR 147.53(e).

Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

This final rule also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12372 and 12988.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This action has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which 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, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This final rule is considered an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action. In accordance with guidance on complying with Executive Order 13771, the single primary estimate of the cost of this rule is $9.3 million, the mid-point estimate annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount rate. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

APHIS is adopting as a final rule, with changes, an interim rule that amended the regulations pertaining to certain diseases of livestock and poultry to specify conditions for payment of indemnity claims for HPAI. The interim rule provided a formula allowing us to split such payments between poultry and egg owners and parties with which the owners enter into contracts to raise or care for the eggs or poultry based on the proportion of the production cycle completed. The interim rule also clarified an existing policy regarding the payment of indemnity for eggs destroyed due to HPAI. The interim rule also required a statement from owners (including independent growers) and contractors (contract growers), unless exempt, indicating that at the time of detection of HPAI in their facilities, they had in place and were following a biosecurity plan aimed at keeping HPAI from spreading to commercial premises. Under this final rule, we are removing the self-certification and adding provisions for verifying that the owner and/or contractor does have a biosecurity plan in place and that the plan is, in fact, being implemented.

At the time of the most recent outbreak, the regulations in part 53 did not specify that the indemnity be split between owners and contractors. When APHIS pays to compensate owners and contractors for losses, that compensation should be distributed to parties who suffer losses based on the terms of the contract. The vast majority of contracts are expected to reflect the relative level of inputs or investments of the parties who suffer losses.

Inadequate biosecurity measures may have led to HPAI introduction or spread within and among some commercial facilities. Therefore, this final rule also requires large owners and contractors to have in place, at the time of detection of HPAI, and have been following a poultry biosecurity plan that is compliant with the biosecurity standards outlined in the NPIP Program Standards, in order to receive compensation for claims arising out of the destruction of animals or eggs destroyed due to an outbreak of HPAI. Note that the NPIP is a cooperative Federal-State-Industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases.

The entities affected by this rule are U.S. facilities primarily engaged in breeding, hatching, and raising poultry for meat or egg production, and facilities primarily engaged in slaughtering poultry. There were about 18,900 farms that would be subject to the provisions of this rule in the 2012 Agricultural Census. Almost all commercial operations raising broilers are contract growers.4 5

4 MacDonald, J.M. Technology, Organization, and Financial Performance in U.S. Broiler Production, EIB-126 USDA Economic Research Service. June 2014.

5 2011 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Version 4.

The United States is the world's largest poultry producer and the second-largest egg producer. The combined value of production from broilers, eggs, and turkeys, and the value of sales from chickens in 2016 was $38.7 billion. In 2016, the United States exported poultry meat valued at about $3.3 billion. Following the first HPAI findings in December 2014, a number of trading partners imposed complete or partial bans on shipments of U.S. poultry and poultry products. All but one of these restrictions from the 2014-15 outbreak have since been lifted. United States poultry and poultry product exports declined by about 31 percent from 2014 through 2016. Exports in 2017 were at approximately the same level as 2016.

Broilers account for nearly all U.S. chicken consumption. Broiler production and processing primarily occurs within highly integrated production systems. Owners of the processing facilities also own the birds that are processed and contract with growers (contract growers) to raise those birds before processing. Expanded broiler production has been made possible to a large extent by the vertically integrated production system and through the use of production contracts.

Under the system of production contracts, the contractor normally supplies the grow-out house with all the necessary heating, cooling, feeding, and watering systems. The contractor also supplies the labor needed in growing the birds. The owner normally supplies the chicks, feed, veterinary medicines, and transportation. Contractors have exclusive contracts with an owner and receive payment for the services that they provide, with premiums and discounts tied to the efficiency with which feed is converted to live-weight broilers, the minimization of mortality, or the number of eggs produced. Specific contract terms and the period covered can vary.

Embedded in the value of a bird at any point in time is the value of inputs by both owners and contractors. Contractors' costs are more or less fixed and are heavily committed early in the production cycle. Prior to the publication of the interim rule, indemnity payments went directly to the owner of the birds who, depending on the terms of the contractual arrangement, might or might not have compensated the contractor. It is important to finalize these regulations to share indemnity payments between poultry owners and contractors, both of whom have productive assets imbedded in the value of the bird.

APHIS' determination of the total amount of indemnity will remain the same under the rule as before. However, to determine the appropriate payment split between owner and contractor, APHIS may have to examine contract specifics on a case-by-case basis. This rule does not change the total amount of compensation paid in a given situation, but will ensure equitable distribution of that compensation between the owner and contractor. This rule benefits contractors who otherwise may suffer uncompensated economic losses from participating in an eradication program.

This rule also specifies the appropriate reference to eggs and a description of the appraisal of the value of eggs destroyed due to HPAI, simply clarifying existing practice for the indemnification of destroyed eggs and will not change the total amount of any compensation paid in a given future situation.

This final rule requires large owners and contractors to follow 14 industry-standard biosecurity principles. These principles are laid out in the NPIP Program Standards. The vast majority of contractors have some level of biosecurity in place on their operations, or were in the process of voluntarily adopting biosecurity measures prior to the implementation of the interim rule.

There are approximately 18,900 poultry operations that will be subject to this requirement. There will be one-time costs and annual costs for some poultry operations associated with this rule. One-time costs include the development of a biosecurity plan, and equipment purchases for those facilities that need to implement structural biosecurity measures in order to be fully compliant with the NPIP biosecurity principles. In addition, some producers will incur additional recurring biosecurity training costs necessary to be compliant with these regulations.

The biosecurity measures needed on a given operation are specific to that operation. The vast majority of operations already have some level of biosecurity in place on their operations, as a result of contractual obligations, participation in existing government/industry programs, compliance with existing regulations, or existing company policies, thereby reducing the need for many poultry operations to implement such measures from scratch. Most will be able to adhere to the NPIP biosecurity principles by making small operational changes and identifying and enumerating current standard operating procedures in their biosecurity plans. Some poultry operations will have to implement new operational or structural biosecurity measures in order to be fully compliant with the NPIP biosecurity principles. Based on discussions with industry, the measures that are most likely to involve changes for poultry operations concern the biosecurity categories of training, cleaning and disinfection of equipment, and the treatment of water. For the few poultry operations that need additional vehicle cleaning and disinfection, we estimate that the total one-time costs for equipment will be from about $48,000 to $439,000.

The vast majority of affected poultry operations have access to municipal water or a sufficiently deep well to meet the standards laid out in the biosecurity principles. For poultry operations that need to treat water we estimate that total one-time costs for equipment will range from about $570,000 to $1.1 million. Many operations affected by this rule will need to review their existing biosecurity plans and some will need to develop new plans. We estimate that if 5 percent of affected poultry operations need to develop new biosecurity plans and 95 percent need to review existing biosecurity plans, the total one-time cost could be between $1.8 million and $2 million.

We estimate that the total additional annual biosecurity training will cost from about $5.3 million to $9.3 million. In addition, annual costs of sanitizers used in vehicle cleaning and disinfection could range from about $2,550 to $10,200 in total for those few operations needing additional cleaning and disinfection. Annual costs of chemicals for water treatment could range from about $164,000 to $328,500 in total for those few operations needing water treatment. We estimate that the total cost of performing audits of the biosecurity plans at all affected facilities will be between $2.8 million and $3.3 million. Because these audits will be performed every 2 years, we assume that one half of this cost is incurred each year.

This rule directly benefits poultry operations who otherwise may suffer uncompensated economic losses from participating in an HPAI eradication program. In addition, the development or revision of biosecurity requirements may help to avert future HPAI outbreaks or prevent the spread of disease during an outbreak. To the extent that the rule contributes to the elimination of HPAI, entities at all levels of the poultry industry as well as consumers will benefit over the long term.

The 2015 HPAI outbreak had a substantial impact on the U.S. poultry sector. The birds lost during the outbreak accounted for about 12 percent of the U.S. table-egg laying population and 8 percent of the estimated inventory of turkeys grown for meat. Losses in the egg sector, including layers and eggs, were estimated at nearly $1.04 billion. Layers accounted for a large majority of the birds lost due to the outbreak with those losses compounded by extensive losses of layer pullets, young birds that mature into replacement layers. Turkey losses were magnified by the relatively large size of the birds and smaller inventory. Almost 600,000 breeding turkeys were lost. Market and breeding turkey losses due to the 2015 outbreak were estimated at $530 million.

Many destination markets for U.S. poultry commodities levied trade restrictions on U.S. poultry exports, distorting markets and exacerbating economic losses for all poultry sectors. Although very few broilers were affected by the outbreak, trade restrictions decreased overseas demand for broiler products and contributed to much lower 2015 and 2016 broiler prices compared to pre-outbreak levels.

APHIS paid indemnities for euthanized poultry and destroyed eggs as well as paying for the euthanasia, cleaning and disinfection of poultry premises and equipment, and testing for the HPAI virus to ensure poultry farms can be safely repopulated. In total, the U.S. Department of Agriculture spent about $850 million on these activities related to the 2015 outbreak.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.

APHIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, APHIS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the burden requirements included in this final rule will be approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0440.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 53

Animal diseases, Indemnity payments, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 9 CFR part 53 that was published at 81 FR 6745-6751, on February 9, 2016, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

PART 53—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, PLEUROPNEUMONIA, RINDERPEST, AND CERTAIN OTHER COMMUNICABLE DISEASES OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY 1. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

2. Section 53.1 is amended by adding a definition of Poultry biosecurity plan in alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 53.1 Definitions.

Poultry biosecurity plan. A document utilized by an owner and/or contractor describing the management practices and principles that are used to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious diseases of poultry at a specific facility.

3. Section 53.10 is amended as follows: a. By removing paragraph (g) introductory text; b. By revising paragraph (g)(1); and c. By adding an OMB citation at the end of the section.

The revision and addition read as follows:

§ 53.10 Claims not allowed.

(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the Department will not allow claims arising out of the destruction of animals or eggs destroyed due to an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza unless the owner of the animals or eggs and, if applicable, any party that enters into a contract with the owner to grow or care for the poultry or eggs, had in place, at the time of detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza, and was following a poultry biosecurity plan that meets the requirements of § 53.11(e).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0440)
4. Section 53.11 is amended as follows: a. By adding paragraphs (e) and (f); and b. By adding an OMB citation at the end of the section.

The additions read as follows:

§ 53.11 Highly pathogenic avian influenza; conditions for payment.

(e)(1) The owner and, if applicable, the contractor, unless exempted under § 53.10(g)(2), must have a poultry biosecurity plan that is approved by the Administrator. Approved biosecurity principles are listed in the NPIP Program Standards, as defined in § 147.51 of this chapter. Alternative biosecurity principles may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with § 147.53(d)(2) of this chapter.

(2)(i) The biosecurity plan shall be audited at least once every 2 years or a sufficient number of times during that period to satisfy the owner and/or contractor's Official State Agency that the plan is in compliance with the biosecurity principles contained in the NPIP Program Standards. The audit will include, but may not be limited to, a review of the biosecurity plan, as well as documentation that it is being implemented.

(ii) To be recognized as being in compliance with the biosecurity principles and eligible for indemnity, owners and contractors who fail the initial audit conducted by the NPIP Official State Agency must have a check audit performed by a team appointed by National NPIP Office and must demonstrate that they have implemented applicable biosecurity measures. The team will consist of an APHIS poultry subject matter expert, the Official State Agency, and a licensed, accredited, industry poultry veterinarian.

(f) Proposed updates to the NPIP Program Standards will be announced to the public through a Federal Register notice, as described in § 147.53(e) of this chapter.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0440)
Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of August 2018. Greg Ibach, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-17554 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0709; Product Identifier 2018-NM-100-AD; Amendment 39-19359; AD 2018-17-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs), installed on the inboard ailerons, elevators, and rudder, had degraded insulation resistance in the direct drive solenoid valve (DDSOV), due to incorrect sealing application. This AD requires a check of the insulation resistance of the DDSOV of each affected EHA and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective August 30, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 30, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by October 1, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For Airbus SAS service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. For Moog Aircraft Group service information identified in this final rule, contact Moog Aircraft Group, Plant 4, 160 Jamison Road, East Aurora, NY 14052-0018; phone: 716-652-2000; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.moog.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-2018-0709.

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-2018-0709; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations 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:

Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3218.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0141, dated July 3, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Occurrences were reported of EHA units that were returned to the manufacturer (MOOG Aircraft Group) with degraded insulation resistance in the direct drive solenoid valve (DDSOV). Investigation results revealed that moisture ingress, due to incorrect sealing application, had caused this degradation.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the DDSOV being unable to command or maintain the EHA in active mode, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

Due to similarity of design, all five EHA positions could be affected, inboard aileron EHAs (Functional Item Number (FIN) 4CR1 and FIN 4CR2), elevator EHAs (FIN 2CT1 and FIN 2CT2) and the rudder EHA (FIN 3CY). Prompted by these findings, MOOG Aircraft Group improved the manufacturing process to ensure adequate sealing capability of the DDSOV and issued the applicable SB [MOOG Aircraft Group Service Bulletins CA67001-27-05; CA67006-27-04; and CA67008-27-04] providing a screening procedure. To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the AOT [Alert Operators Transmission A27P009-16] and the Airbus SB [Service Bulletin A350-27-P020], providing instructions to restore the EHA to nominal performance.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time insulation check of each affected EHA, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Corrective actions include replacing or reidentifying affected EHAs. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0709.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A350-27-P020, dated February 22, 2018. This service information describes procedures for an insulation resistance check (detailed inspection) of the DDSOV of each affected EHA and applicable corrective actions.

Moog Aircraft Group has issued Service Bulletin CA67001-27-05, dated February 21, 2018. This service information identifies affected EHAs for certain inboard ailerons and describes, among other actions, procedures for applicable corrective actions.

Moog Aircraft Group has issued Service Bulletin CA67006-27-04, dated February 21, 2018. This service information identifies affected EHAs for certain elevators and describes, among other actions, procedures for applicable corrective actions.

Moog Aircraft Group has issued Service Bulletin CA67008-27-04, dated February 21, 2018. This service information identifies affected EHAs for certain rudders and describes, among other actions, procedures for applicable corrective actions.

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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Requirements of This AD

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. This AD also requires sending the results of the check to AirbusWorld.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the insulation resistance in the DDSOV can degrade to unsafe levels within three months, which could lead to the DDSOV being unable to command or maintain the EHA in active mode, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that, for the same reason, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0709; Product Identifier 2018-NM-100-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs for Required Actions Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Up to 24 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $2,040 $0 Up to $2,040 Up to $22,440.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

    Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Up to 30 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $2,550 Up to $518,314 Up to $520,864.

    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the check results on U.S. operators to be $85 per product.

    According to the manufacturer, some or all 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 for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    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 above, I certify that this AD:

    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.

    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): 2018-17-05 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19359; Docket No. FAA-2018-0709; Product Identifier 2018-NM-100-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 30, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs), installed on the inboard ailerons, elevators, and rudder, had degraded insulation resistance in the direct drive solenoid valve (DDSOV), due to incorrect sealing application. We are issuing this AD to address this condition, which could lead to the DDSOV being unable to command or maintain the EHA in active mode, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD, the definitions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD apply.

    (1) An affected EHA is an EHA installed on inboard ailerons, elevators, and rudder, as listed by part number and serial number in the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, except those that are paint marked, as specified in the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Moog Aircraft Group Service Bulletin CA67001-27-05, dated February 21, 2018 (aileron).

    (ii) Moog Aircraft Group Service Bulletin CA67006-27-04, dated February 21, 2018 (elevator).

    (iii) Moog Aircraft Group Service Bulletin CA67008-27-04, dated February 21, 2018 (rudder).

    (2) A serviceable EHA is an EHA having a part number and serial number not listed in the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD; or an affected EHA having a paint mark as specified in the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (3) Group 1 airplanes are those that have an affected EHA installed. Group 2 airplanes are those that do not have an affected EHA installed.

    (h) Initial Insulation Resistance Check

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes, which have not been inspected in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A27P009-16: Within 3 months after the airplane has reached 700 flight hours since airplane first flight, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish an insulation resistance check (detailed inspection) of the DDSOV of each affected EHA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P020, dated February 22, 2018.

    (2) For Group 1 airplanes, which have been inspected in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A27P009-16: Within 3 months after the airplane has reached 36 months since airplane first flight, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish an insulation resistance check of the DDSOV of each affected EHA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P020, dated February 22, 2018.

    (i) Additional Check and Corrective Action

    (1) If during the check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, the measured insulation resistance is 15 Megohms (MOhms) or less, before next flight, replace the affected EHA with a serviceable EHA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P020, dated February 22, 2018.

    (2) If during the check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, the measured insulation resistance is more than 15 MOhms, within 3 months after the airplane has reached 36 months since airplane first flight, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish an insulation resistance check of the DDSOV of each affected EHA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P020, dated February 22, 2018.

    (3) Depending on measured resistance result of the check required by paragraph (h)(2) or (i)(2) of this AD, within the applicable compliance time defined in figure 1 to paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, accomplish the applicable corrective action(s) defined in figure 1 to paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P020, dated February 22, 2018; or the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    ER15AU18.001 (j) Reporting

    For each check required by paragraph (h)(2) or (i)(2) of this AD: Within 30 days after each check required by paragraph (h)(2) or (i)(2) of this AD or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report the results, including no findings, using the online reporting application in AirbusWorld, as specified in Appendix A. “Inspection Report” of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-27-P020, dated February 22, 2018.

    (k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes: From the effective date of this AD, no person may install an affected EHA on any airplane.

    (l) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (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 Section, 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 2018-0141, dated July 3, 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-2018-0709.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3218.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus SAS Service Bulletin A350-27-P020, dated February 22, 2018.

    (ii) Moog Aircraft Group Service Bulletin CA67001-27-05, dated February 21, 2018.

    (iii) Moog Aircraft Group Service Bulletin CA67006-27-04, dated February 21, 2018.

    (iv) Moog Aircraft Group Service Bulletin CA67008-27-04, dated February 21, 2018.

    (3) For Airbus SAS service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) For Moog Aircraft Group service information identified in this AD, contact Moog Aircraft Group, Plant 4, 160 Jamison Road, East Aurora, NY 14052-0018; phone: 716-652-2000; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.moog.com.

    (5) 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.

    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 5, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17482 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1022; Product Identifier 2017-NM-098-AD; Amendment 39-19357; AD 2018-17-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the lip heater assemblies of the inlet ice protection system of the cabin air compressor (CAC) due to chafing. This AD requires changing the airplane electrical connectors and the routes of certain wire bundles, and installing new or modified left and right CAC inlet duct assemblies. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 19, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, 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 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-2017-1022.

    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-2017-1022; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joe Salemeh, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3536; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2017 (82 FR 54302). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failures of the CAC inlet ice protection system (CIPS) inlet lip heater assemblies due to chafing of the CIPS inlet lip heater wire harness against adjacent structures. The NPRM proposed to require changing the airplane electrical connectors and the routes of certain wire bundles, and installing new or modified left and right CAC inlet duct assemblies. We are issuing this AD to address any damage to the CIPS inlet lip heater wire bundle, which could cause an electrical short and potential loss of functions essential for safe flight of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request for Clarification of Affected Spare Parts

    Oman Air requested clarification regarding whether the proposed AD applies only to the airplane line numbers specified in the service information, or whether the proposed AD would also require modification of spare ducts.

    Oman Air stated that the applicability in the proposed AD includes those airplanes that are specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017. Oman Air also stated that the service information also affects spare CAC inlet duct assemblies with part numbers specified in the service information. Oman Air commented that the service information recommended that the spares be modified in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, or any later FAA-approved revision. Oman Air stated that there is no mention of spares in the proposed rule, no compliance time associated with the spares, and no parts installation prohibition paragraph.

    We agree to clarify. This AD applies only to the airplanes specified in the applicability, which includes Boeing Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 002, dated April 20, 2018. Modification of spare parts is not required by this AD because operators must maintain affected airplanes in the required configuration. The FAA is not mandating action on spare parts, but an operator that wants to use those parts and not discard them must do the modification using the component service information. In addition, the existing spare parts cannot be installed after the accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017, because the electrical connectors are different due to the modifications in the component service information and the airplane service information. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Use the Information Notice

    All Nippon Airways (ANA), Boeing, and United Airlines (UAL) requested that the FAA use Boeing Information Notice B787-A-30-00-0019-02A-931E-D, Issue 001, dated December 15, 2017, as a source when referencing Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017. Boeing stated that the information notice informs operators of a wire termination reference error that does not affect system function or airplane safety. ANA stated that the correction in the information notice must be incorporated in conjunction with the incorporation of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017. UAL stated that the use of the information notice would avoid unnecessary requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC).

    We agree with the commenters. We agree that the information notice corrects a wiring termination reference error for certain configurations to make it consistent with the 787 Wiring Diagram Manual and that accomplishing the service information with the wiring error does not affect system function or airplane safety. The manufacturer has revised the service information to correct the wiring termination reference error; therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require accomplishment of the actions in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 002, dated April 20, 2018. We have also added paragraph (h) to this AD to give credit for actions completed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017. In addition, we have given credit for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017, in conjunction with Boeing Information Notice B787-A-30-00-0019-02A-931E-D, Issue 001, dated December 15, 2017. We redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 002, dated April 20, 2018. This service information describes procedures for changing the airplane electrical connectors and the routes of certain wire bundles, and installing new or modified left and right CAC inlet duct assemblies. 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 66 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Change and installation 20 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,700 $32,937 $34,637 $2,286,042

    According to the manufacturer, all 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 for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all 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 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 and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

    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 above, 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, 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.

    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): 2018-17-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19357; Docket No. FAA-2017-1022; Product Identifier 2017-NM-098-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 002, dated April 20, 2018.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice/Rain protection system wiring.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the Cabin Air Compressor (CAC) inlet ice protection system (CIPS) inlet lip heater assemblies due to chafing of the CIPS inlet lip heater wire harness against adjacent structures. We are issuing this AD to address any damage to the CIPS inlet lip heater wire bundle, which could cause an electrical short and potential loss of functions essential for safe flight of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Required Actions

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 002, dated April 20, 2018.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 001, dated March 22, 2017, in conjunction with Boeing Information Notice B787-A-30-00-0019-02A-931E-D, Issue 001, dated December 15, 2017.

    (i) 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 (j) 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, 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) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(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.

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Joe Salemeh, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3536; email: [email protected]

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB300019-00, Issue 002, dated April 20, 2018.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Boeing 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.

    (4) 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.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 5, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17481 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0028; Product Identifier 2017-NM-143-AD; Amendment 39-19356; AD 2018-17-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604 Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that the safe life limits of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) attachment pins and trunnions were not listed in certain airworthiness limitations (AWLs) and that the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not serialized. This AD requires revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the latest revision of the AWLs, serialization of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions, and repair or replacement of damaged HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 19, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.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-2018-0028.

    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-2018-0028; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7239; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2018 (83 FR 5587) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the safe life limits of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not listed in certain AWLs and that the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not serialized. The NPRM proposed to require revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the latest revision of the AWLs, serialization of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions, and repair or replacement of damaged HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. We are issuing this AD to address failure of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions, which could lead to a disconnect of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of the airplane.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-24, dated July 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a review of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) system, it was discovered that the safe life limits of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not listed in the Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Also, the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not serialized making it impossible to keep accurate records of the life of these parts. Failure of these pins and trunnions could lead to a disconnect of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of the aeroplane.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of AWL tasks into the maintenance schedule and serialization of HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. Some aircraft require AWL tasks and serialization of the attachment pins only, while others require AWL tasks and serialization of the trunnions and attachment pins [and repair or replacement if damaged (including linear scratches, pits, spalling, dents, or surface texture variations)].

    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-2018-0028.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Allow Using Later Revisions of the Service Information

    NetJets requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be revised to specify the latest time limits/maintenance checks (TLMC) revisions. NetJets noted that some of the TLMC documents referenced in the proposed AD have been revised. NetJets also requested that we revise the proposed AD so that operators can use later approved revisions of the TLMC documents to show compliance without requesting an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

    We partially agree with the commenter's request. In this circumstance, the specific tasks required by this AD have not changed in the latest available service information from the earlier revisions of the service information specified in the NPRM. We have therefore revised this AD to refer to the latest available service information and revised paragraph (k) of this AD to provide credit for actions done using earlier revisions of certain service information. However, we may not refer to any document that does not yet exist. In general terms, we are required by Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document only if the OFR approved it for “incorporation by reference.” See 1 CFR part 51.

    To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an AMOC with this AD under the provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. We cannot reference a specific revision not yet in existence so the only option is to request an AMOC.

    Request To Use a Service Bulletin Instead of a TLMC

    Disney Aviation Group requested that the proposed AD be revised to use actions in a service bulletin instead of the TLMC for any required inspections. The commenter noted that most operators have an electronic subscription that automatically gives them the newest revision of the TLMC documents. The commenter stated that since the TLMCs have been updated since the draft AD was issued, operators will not be able to comply with the AD, and will have to request an AMOC. The commenter noted that service bulletins are not revised as often as TLMC documents, and when they are updated they are not superseded by future revisions. The commenter pointed out that other manufacturers issue service bulletins with similar requirements and the related ADs require those service bulletins.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. As noted previously, we have revised this AD to refer to the latest available TLMC documents. We cannot, however, mandate how a given manufacturer makes their service information available. Since Bombardier, Inc. has chosen to provide the TLMCs in a separate document, rather than a service bulletin, that is what operators must use to show compliance with this AD. We have therefore not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information.

    The following service information describes procedures for serializing the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0760, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0626, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-034, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-005, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.

    The following service information identifies airworthiness limitation tasks for revising the life limits for HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

    • Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 39, dated January 8, 2018.

    • Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural)—Pre SB 601-0280,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 46, dated January 8, 2018.

    • Section 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601-0280,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 46, dated January 8, 2018.

    • Section 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601-0360,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 46, dated January 8, 2018.

    • Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 42, dated January 8, 2018.

    • Section 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 42, dated January 8, 2018.

    • Section 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 42, dated January 8, 2018.

    The following service information describes life limits for certain HSTA attachment pins and trunnion supports. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

    • Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 604 CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 30, dated December 4, 2017. This service information describes, among other tasks: Task 27-42-01-108, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Trunnion Support; Part No. 601R92386-1/-3;” and Task 27-42-01-112, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Upper and Lower Attachment Pins; Upper Pin Part No. 600-92384-5/-7 or 601R92310-1/-3 and Lower Pin Part No. 600-92383-5/-7 or 601R92309-1/-3.”

    • Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 605 CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated December 4, 2017. This service information describes, among other tasks: Task 27-42-01-108, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Trunnion Support; Part No. 601R92386-1/-3;” and Task 27-42-01-112, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Upper and Lower Attachment Pins; Upper Pin Part No. 600-92384-5/-7 or 601R92310-1/-3 and Lower Pin Part No. 600-92383-5/-7 or 601R92309-1/-3.”

    • Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 650 CL-650 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 5, dated December 4, 2017. This service information describes, among other tasks: Task 27-42-01-108, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Trunnion Support; Part No. 601R92386-1/-3;” and Task 27-42-01-112, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Upper and Lower Attachment Pins; Upper Pin Part No. 600-92384-5/-7 or 601R92310-1/-3 and Lower Pin Part No. 600-92383-5/-7 or 601R92309-1/-3.”

    The following service information describes procedures for identifying damage to HSTA attachment pins and trunnions, and repair or replacement instructions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

    • Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 600-27-42-002, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.

    • Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 604-27-42-011, “General Repair—HSTA Trunnion P/N 601R92386-1/-3,” dated December 15, 2016.

    • Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 604-27-42-012, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.

    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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 137 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Serialization Up to 20 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $1,700 $449 Up to $2,149 Up to $294,413.

    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    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 above, I certify that this AD:

    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.

    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): 2018-17-02 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19356; Docket No. FAA-2018-0028; Product Identifier 2017-NM-143-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc., airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Model CL-600-1A11 (600) airplanes, serial numbers 1002 and 1004 through 1085 inclusive.

    (2) Model CL-600-2A12 (601) airplanes, serial numbers 3001 through 3066 inclusive.

    (3) Model CL-600-2B16 (601-3A and 601-3R Variants) airplanes, serial numbers 5001 through 5194 inclusive.

    (4) Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5990 inclusive, and 6050 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the safe life limits of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) attachment pins and trunnions were not listed in certain airworthiness limitations (AWLs) and that the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not serialized. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions, which could lead to a disconnect of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision for Model CL-600-1A11 (600), Model CL-600-2A12 (601), and Model CL-600-2B16 (601-3A and 601-3R Variants) Airplanes

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the life limit AWL tasks identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance time is within 500 flight cycles of the effective date of this AD, or at the applicable time (in terms of landings) specified in the applicable AWL task identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) For Model CL-600-1A11 (600) airplanes, Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 39, dated January 8, 2018.

    (2) For Model CL-600-2A12 (601) airplanes, the applicable task specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of this AD, as identified in Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 46, dated January 8, 2018.

    (i) Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural)—Pre SB 601−0280.”

    (ii) Section 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601−0280.”

    (iii) Section 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601−0360.”

    (3) For Model CL-600-2B16 (601-3A and 601-3R Variants) airplanes, the applicable task specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), or (g)(3)(iii) of this AD, as identified in Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 42, dated January 8, 2018.

    (i) Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural).”

    (ii) Section 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural).”

    (iii) Section 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural).”

    ER15AU18.002 (h) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision for Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) Airplanes

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(4) of this AD: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new life limit AWL Task 27-42-01-108, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Trunnion Support; Part No. 601R92386-1/-3,” and Task 27-42-01-112, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Upper and Lower Attachment Pins; Upper Pin Part No. 600-92384-5/-7 or 601R92310-1/-3 and Lower Pin Part No. 600-92383-5/-7 or 601R92309-1/-3,” as specified in the applicable time limits maintenance checks (TLMC) manuals identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance time is within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or at the applicable time specified in the applicable AWL task, whichever occurs later.

    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 604 CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 30, dated December 4, 2017.

    (2) For airplanes having serial numbers 5701 through 5990 inclusive: Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 605 CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated December 4, 2017.

    (3) For airplanes having serial numbers 6050 and subsequent: Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 650 CL-650 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 5, dated December 4, 2017.

    (i) Serialization of HSTA Attachment Pins and Trunnions

    For airplanes identified in table 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, or prior to performing a maintenance task required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, as applicable, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection for damage (including linear scratches, pits, spalling, dents, or surface texture variations), and add serial numbers to the HSTA trunnions, lower attachment pin, and upper attachment pin, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in table 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD. If any damage to the HSTA trunnions or attachment pins is found, repair the damage in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD; or using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature. If the damaged HSTA trunnion or attachment pin cannot be repaired in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the damaged HSTA trunnion or attachment pin with a serviceable serialized HSTA trunnion or attachment pin, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in table 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 600-27-42-002, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.

    (2) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 604-27-42-011, “General Repair—HSTA Trunnion P/N 601R92386-1/-3,” dated December 15, 2016.

    (3) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 604-27-42-012, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ER15AU18.003 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C (j) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), or (k)(1)(iii) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 38, dated March 28, 2017.

    (ii) Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural)—Pre SB 601-0280,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 45, dated March 28, 2017.

    (iii) Section 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601-0280,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 45, dated March 28, 2017.

    (iv) Section 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601-0360,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 45, dated March 28, 2017.

    (v) Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 41, dated March 28, 2017.

    (vi) Section 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 41, dated March 28, 2017.

    (vii) Section 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 41, dated March 28, 2017.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), or (k)(2)(iii) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 604 CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 29, dated June 16, 2017.

    (ii) Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 605 CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated June 16, 2017.

    (iii) Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 650 CL-650 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 4, dated June 16, 2017.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(3)(i), (k)(3)(ii), (k)(3)(iii), or (k)(3)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0760, dated February 25, 2013.

    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0626, dated February 25, 2013.

    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-034, dated February 25, 2013.

    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-005, dated February 25, 2013.

    (l) Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an HSTA attachment pin, unless the pin has a serial number.

    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplane with serial number 5301 and subsequent, an HSTA trunnion, unless the HSTA trunnion has a serial number.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York 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 ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. 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, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-24, dated July 12, 2017, 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-2018-0028.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7239; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected]

    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 600-27-42-002, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.

    (ii) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 604-27-42-011, “General Repair—HSTA Trunnion P/N 601R92386-1/-3,” dated December 15, 2016.

    (iii) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 604-27-42-012, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.

    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0760, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.

    (v) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0626, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.

    (vi) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-034, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.

    (vii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-005, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.

    (viii) Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 39, dated January 8, 2018.

    (ix) Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 46, dated January 8, 2018.

    (A) Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural)—Pre SB 601-0280.”

    (B) Section 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601-0280.”

    (C) Section 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601-0360.”

    (x) Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601A-5, Revision 42, dated January 8, 2018.

    (A) Section 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural).”

    (B) Section 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural).”

    (C) Section 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural).”

    (xi) Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 604 CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 30, dated December 4, 2017.

    (xii) Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 605 CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 18, dated December 4, 2017.

    (xiii) Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 650 CL-650 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 5, dated December 4, 2017.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com.

    (4) 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.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 5, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17483 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2018-0033] RIN 0960-AI23 Making Permanent the Attorney Advisor Program AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are making permanent the attorney advisor program, which has proved to be an integral tool in providing timely decisions to the public while maximizing the use of our administrative law judges (ALJs). The attorney advisor initiative permits some attorney advisors to develop claims, including holding prehearing conferences, and, in cases in which the documentary record clearly establishes that a fully favorable decision is warranted, issue fully favorable decisions before a hearing is conducted. We expect that by making the attorney advisor program permanent, we will be able to continue to reduce the number of pending claims at the hearing level of our administrative review process and provide more timely service to claimants.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Swansiger, Office of Hearings Operations, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 605-8500. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 800-772-1213 or TTY 800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background of the Attorney Advisor Program

    Under the attorney advisor program, certain attorney advisors may develop claims and, in appropriate cases, issue fully favorable decisions before a hearing.

    We first created the attorney advisor program in 1995 through notice and comment rulemaking for a limited period of two years.1 The program's success prompted us to renew it several times until it expired in April 2001.2 On August 9, 2007, we published an interim final rule that reinstituted the attorney advisor program in order to provide more timely service to the increasing number of applicants for Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments based on disability.3 We considered the public comments we received on the interim final rule, and on March 3, 2008, we issued a final rule without change.4

    1 60 FR 34126 (June 30, 1995).

    2 62 FR 35073 (extending expiration date to June 30, 1998); 63 FR 35515 (extending expiration date to April 1, 1999); 64 FR 13677 (extending expiration date to April 1, 2000), 64 FR 51892 (extending expiration date to April 2, 2001).

    3 72 FR 44763.

    4 73 FR 11349.

    As before, we intended the attorney advisor program to be a temporary modification to our procedures, but with the potential to become a permanent program. Therefore, we included in sections 404.942(g) and 416.1442(g) of the interim final rule a provision that the program would end on August 10, 2009, unless we decided to either terminate the rule earlier or extend it beyond that date by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. Since that time, we have periodically extended the sunset date.5 The current sunset date for the program is August 2, 2019.6

    5 74 FR 33327 (extending the expiration date to August 10, 2011); 76 FR 18383 (extending the expiration date to August 9, 2013); 78 FR 45459 (extending the expiration date to August 7, 2015); 80 FR 31990 (extending the expiration date to August 4, 2017); 82 FR 34400 (extending the expiration date to February 5, 2018); and 83 FR 711 (extending the expiration date to August 3, 2018).

    6 83 FR 28992 (extending the expiration date to August 2, 2019).

    We explained in the 2008 final rule that the number of requests for hearings had increased significantly in recent years. From 2008 to the present, the number of pending hearing requests has continued to remain high, and we anticipate that we will receive several hundred thousand hearing requests in fiscal year 2018 and in fiscal year 2019.7 To preserve the maximum degree of flexibility and manage our hearings-level workloads effectively, we have decided to make the attorney advisor rule permanent.

    7 Our budget estimates indicate that we expect to receive approximately 582,000 hearing requests in fiscal year 2018 and 578,000 in fiscal year 2019 (available at: https://www.ssa.gov/budget/FY19Files/2019CJ.pdf).

    Time Savings and Other Benefits of Making the Program Permanent

    Under the attorney advisor program, attorney advisors conduct certain prehearing proceedings and, when the record clearly establishes that a fully favorable decision is warranted, may issue a fully favorable decision before an ALJ holds a hearing. Thus, the attorney advisor program allows us to issue fully favorable decisions more quickly in appropriate cases, which, in turn, allows claimants to receive disability benefits under title II or disability payments under title XVI months, or perhaps even a year, earlier than if they had to wait for a hearing before an ALJ. As well, since attorney advisors may issue fully favorable decisions in cases that would otherwise require an ALJ to hold a hearing and issue a decision, the program allows ALJs to spend their time adjudicating more complex cases.

    As an added benefit of the program, even if an attorney advisor cannot issue a fully favorable decision after conducting prehearing proceedings, the summary the attorney advisor drafts during his or her review can be valuable to the ALJ, helping to expedite the hearing process. Moreover, prehearing proceedings by an attorney advisor do not delay the scheduling of a hearing unless a fully favorable decision is in process. Thus, if the attorney advisor is unable to issue a fully favorable decision after conducting prehearing proceedings, the case returns to its original place in line and continues under our standard hearing process, with no delays caused by the attorney advisor's review. For these reasons, making the attorney advisor program permanent benefits claimants by giving them a chance to receive a fully favorable decision more quickly and by expediting the overall hearings process, and it benefits ALJs and their support staff by allowing them to receive helpful case summaries from attorney advisors who assist with developing the record in cases that are selected for prehearing proceedings but that still require a hearing before an ALJ.

    Regulatory Procedures Justification for Issuing a Final Rule Without Notice and Comment

    We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 when we develop regulations. Generally, the APA requires that an agency provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing a final rule. The APA provides exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures because they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

    We find that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this regulatory change as a final rule without prior public comment. We find that prior public comment is unnecessary because this final rule merely removes the sunset provision of 20 CFR 404.942 and 416.1442 and does not make any substantive changes to the attorney advisor program. Importantly, we developed the attorney advisor program through notice and comment rulemaking in 1995, and we requested public comments again when we reinstituted the program, without change, in 2007. We received only three public comments in response to our 2007 interim final rule, and two of them supported the rule. The current rules expressly provide that we may extend the program beyond the current expiration date by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register. Accordingly, in light of the technical nature of the rule, and because we requested and addressed public comments on the attorney advisor program on two prior occasions, we find there is good cause to issue this final rule without prior public comment.

    In addition, because we are not making any substantive changes to the attorney advisor program, we find that there is good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of a substantive rule provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). To ensure that we have uninterrupted authority to use attorney advisors to address the number of pending cases at the hearing level, we find that it is in the public interest to make this final rule effective on the date of publication.

    Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule meets the requirements for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563. Therefore, OMB has reviewed this final rule.

    Executive Order 13771

    This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is administrative in nature and results in no more than de minimis costs.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404

    Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old-age, Survivors and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social security.

    20 CFR Part 416

    Administrative practice and procedure; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending subpart J of part 404 and subpart N of part 416 of Chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE

    (1950- )

    Subpart J—[Amended]
    1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    § 404.942 [Amended]
    2. In § 404.942, remove paragraph (g). PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart N—[Amended] 3. The authority citation for subpart N continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    § 416.1442 [Amended]
    4. In § 416.1442, remove paragraph (g).
    [FR Doc. 2018-17547 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4022 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in September 2018. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.

    DATES:

    Effective September 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hilary Duke ([email protected]), Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4400 ext. 3839. (TTY users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400, ext. 3839.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website (http://www.pbgc.gov).

    PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

    The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for September 2018.1

    1 Appendix B to PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes interest assumptions for valuing benefits under terminating covered single-employer plans for purposes of allocation of assets under ERISA section 4044. Those assumptions are updated quarterly.

    The September 2018 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for August 2018, these assumptions represent no change in the immediate rate and are otherwise unchanged.

    PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

    Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during September 2018, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

    PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

    Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022

    Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

    PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.

    2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 299 is added at the end of the table to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 299 9-1-18 10-1-18 1.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 299 is added at the end of the table to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 299 9-1-18 10-1-18 1.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    Issued in Washington, DC. Hilary Duke, Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17351 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0782] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow commercial filming. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 9 p.m. on August 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0782, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on August 25, 2018, to allow filming and a photoshoot for commercial advertisement. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Carl T. Hausner, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17522 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0348] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on August 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0348 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 about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Morgan, Sector New Orleans Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2231, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On April 9, 2018, AFX Pro, LLC, notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on August 25, 2018, for the National Guard Association of the United States Annual Conference. The fireworks will be launched from a barge in the Mississippi River at the approximate mile marker (MM) 96.2 above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA. In response, on May 14, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA (83 FR 22225). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended June 13, 2018, we received no comments.

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this August 25, 2018 display will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile section of the river. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the fireworks display.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on May 14, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on August 25, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Lower Mississippi River, between mile markers (MMs) 95.7 and 96.7 above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. fireworks display.

    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) 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 (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. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017).

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

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 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.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour and fifteen minutes that will prohibit entry between MM 95.7 and MM 96.7 on the Lower Mississippi River above Head of Passes. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0348 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0348 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA from mile marker (MM) 95.7 to MM 96.7 above Head of Passes.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on August 25, 2018.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: August 10, 2018. K.M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17595 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 14-54, 16-64, and 18-5] Connect America Fund AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, an information collection associated with the rules for the Connect America Fund Phase II auction contained in the Commission's Connect America Fund Orders, FCC 14-54, FCC 16-64, and FCC 18-5. This document is consistent with the Connect America Fund Orders, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the new information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    The amendment to § 54.315(c)(1)(ii) published at 83 FR 15982, April 13, 2018 is effective August 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission submitted new information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on June 7, 2018. OMB approved the new information collection requirements on July 31, 2018. The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's Connect America Fund Orders, FCC 14-54, published at 79 FR 39164, July 9, 2014, FCC 16-64, published at 81 FR 44414, July 7, 2016 and FCC 18-5, published at 83 FR 15982, April 13, 2018. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1256. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules published on July 7, 2016 and April 13, 2018. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1256, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected] To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on July 31, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 54.315(b) and (c) and the amendment to 47 CFR 54.315(c)(1)(ii) published at 81 FR 44414, July 7, 2016 and 83 FR 15982, April 13, 2018. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1256. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1256.

    OMB Approval Date: July 31, 2018.

    OMB Expiration Date: July 31, 2021.

    Title: Application for Connect America Fund Phase II Auction Support—FCC Form 683.

    Form Number: FCC Form 683.

    Type of Review: New information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not-for-profit institutions, and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 400 respondents; 800 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2-12 hours (on average).

    Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirements, on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection 47 U.S.C. 154, 254 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,600 hours.

    Total Annual Cost(s): No Cost.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Although most of the information collected in FCC Form 683 will be made available for public inspection, the Commission will withhold certain information collected in FCC Form 683 from routine public inspection. Specifically, the Commission will treat certain financial and technical information submitted in FCC Form 683 as confidential. In addition, an applicant may use the abbreviated process under 47 CFR 0.459(a)(4) to request confidential treatment of the audited financial statements that are submitted during the post-selection review process. However, if a request for public inspection for this technical or financial information is made under 47 CFR 0.461, and the applicant has any objections to disclosure, the applicant will be notified and will be required to justify continued confidential treatment. To the extent that an applicant seeks to have other information collected in FCC Form 683 or during the post-selection review process withheld from public inspection, the applicant may request confidential treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will use the information collected under this information collection to determine whether Connect America Fund Phase II auction winning bidders are eligible to receive Phase II auction support. In its USF/ICC Transformation Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-161, 76 FR 78385, December 16, 2011, the Commission comprehensively reformed and modernized the high-cost program within the universal service fund to focus support on networks capable of providing voice and broadband services. The Commission created the Connect America Fund and concluded that support in price cap areas would be provided through a combination of “a new forward-looking model of the cost of constructing modern multi-purpose networks” and a competitive bidding process (the Connect America Fund Phase II auction or Phase II auction). The Commission also sought comment on proposed rules governing the Connect America Fund Phase II auction, including basic auction design and the application process.

    In the Connect America Fund Phase II auction, service providers will compete to receive support of up to $1.98 billion over 10 years to offer voice and broadband service in unserved high-cost areas. The Commission adopted new rules to implement the reforms, conduct the Phase II auction, and determine whether Phase II auction winning bidders are eligible to receive Phase II support. In its April 2014 Connect America Order, FCC 14-54, the Commission adopted various rules regarding participation in the Phase II auction, the term of support, and the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation process. In its Phase II Auction Order, FCC 16-64, the Commission adopted rules to govern the Phase II auction, including a two-stage application process that includes a pre-auction short-form application to be submitted by parties interested in bidding in the Phase II auction and a post-auction long-form application that must be submitted by winning bidders seeking to become authorized to receive Phase II auction support. In its Phase II Auction Procedures Public Notice, FCC 18-6, 83 FR 13590, March 29, 2018, the Commission adopted the final procedures for the Phase II auction, including the long-form application disclosure and certification requirements for winning bidders seeking to become authorized to receive Phase II auction support. In its Phase II Auction Order on Reconsideration, FCC 18-5, the Commission modified its previously-adopted letter of credit rules to provide some additional relief for Phase II auction support recipients by reducing the costs of maintaining a letter of credit. Based on the Commission's experience with auctions and consistent with the record, this two-stage application process balances the need to collect information essential to conducting a successful auction and authorizing Phase II support with administrative efficiency.

    Under this information collection, the Commission will collect information from Connect America Fund Phase II auction winning bidders to determine the recipients of Phase II auction support. To aid in collecting this information, the Commission has created FCC Form 683, which the public will use to provide the disclosures and certifications that must be made by Phase II auction winning bidders in the Connect America Fund Phase II auction seeking to become authorized for Phase II support. Commission staff will review the information collected in FCC Form 683 as part of the post-selection review process to determine whether a long-form applicant is eligible to receive Phase II support.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17479 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 121004518-3398-01] RIN 0648-XG421 Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2018 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the gray triggerfish recreational sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) for the 2018 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS has projected that the 2018 recreational annual catch target (ACT) for Gulf gray triggerfish has been met. Therefore, NMFS closes the recreational sector for Gulf gray triggerfish on August 17, 2018, and it will remain closed through the end of the fishing year on December 31, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf gray triggerfish resource.

    DATES:

    This temporary rule is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, on August 17, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren Waters, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes gray triggerfish, under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All gray triggerfish weights discussed in this temporary rule are in round weight.

    The 2018 recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for Gulf gray triggerfish specified in 50 CFR 622.41(b)(2)(iii) is 241,200 lb (109,406 kg) and the recreational ACT is 217,100 lb (98,475 kg).

    As specified by 50 CFR 622.41(b)(2)(i), NMFS is required to close the recreational sector for gray triggerfish when the recreational ACT is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the 2018 recreational ACT for Gulf gray triggerfish was reached. Accordingly, this temporary rule closes the recreational sector for Gulf gray triggerfish effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, August 17, 2018, and it will remain closed through the end of the fishing year on December 31, 2018.

    During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for gray triggerfish in or from the Gulf EEZ are zero. The prohibition on possession of Gulf gray triggerfish also applies in Gulf state waters for a vessel issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish.

    As specified in 50 CFR 622.34(f), there is a seasonal closure for Gulf gray triggerfish at the beginning of each fishing year from January 1 through the end of February; therefore, after the closure implemented by this temporary rule is effective on August 17, 2018, the recreational harvest or possession of Gulf gray triggerfish will not again be permitted until March 1, 2019.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf gray triggerfish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(b)(2)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for gray triggerfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the closure provisions was subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect gray triggerfish. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially allow the recreational sector to exceed the recreational ACL.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17586 Filed 8-10-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 158 Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 7 [NPS-NCR-25928; PPNCNAMAS0, PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000] RIN 1024-AE45 Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System, National Capital Region, Special Events and Demonstrations AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service proposes to revise special regulations related to demonstrations and special events at certain national park units in the National Capital Region. The proposed changes would modify regulations explaining how the NPS processes permit applications for demonstrations and special events. The rule would also identify locations where activities are allowed, not allowed, or allowed but subject to restrictions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE45 by any of the following methods:

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

    Hardcopy: Mail or hand deliver to National Park Service, National Mall and Memorial Parks, 900 Ohio Drive SW, Washington, DC 20024, Attn: Brian Joyner.

    Instructions: All comments received must include the agency name (National Park Service) and RIN (1024-AE45) for this rulemaking. Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any way other than those specified above. Comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To view comments received through the Federal eRulemaking portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter 1024-AE45 in the search box.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian D. Joyner, Chief of Staff, National Park Service, National Mall and Memorial Parks, (202) 245-4468, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The National Mall and areas surrounding the White House in Washington, DC are managed by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf of the American people. These areas are contained within two administrative units of the National Park System: The National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park.

    National Mall and Memorial Parks

    Within the National Mall and Memorial Parks, the NPS administers more than 1,000 acres of park land within the District of Columbia, including 14 units of the national park system: Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument, Constitution Gardens, Ford's Theatre National Historic Site, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial, Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site, the Mall, Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Washington Monument and Plaza, World War I Memorial, and World War II Memorial. The National Mall and Memorial Parks also contains more than 150 reservations, circles, fountains, squares, triangles, and park spaces in the center of Washington, DC that were created as part of the L'Enfant plan of the city.

    The National Mall is a preeminent national landscape that is home to the enduring symbols of our country including various trees and gardens that symbolize cultural and diplomatic exchanges and gifts from other nations. It includes a combination of formally designed areas, such as the Mall and the grounds of the Washington Monument, as well as natural areas, such as the Tidal Basin and West Potomac Park. The National Mall also contains monuments, memorials, statues, and other commemorative works that honor important persons, historical events, and the ideals of democracy. The monuments, memorials, and sites in the National Mall and Memorial Parks connect visitors directly with American history and values, cultural heritage, and the sacrifices of so many, supporting our national identity as well as individual connections to the larger national and international experience. The NPS protects the valuable urban green space within the National Mall and Memorial Parks that accommodates a variety of passive and active recreational activities for a diverse population.

    President's Park

    President's Park comprises three distinct cultural landscapes that are each fundamental to the park and provide the setting for the “President's Park” as defined by Pierre L'Enfant in 1791. The White House is the oldest public building in the District of Columbia and has been the home and office of every president of the United States except for George Washington. The White House, including its wings, serves as the residence of the first family, offices for the president and staff, and an evolving museum. Lafayette Park to the north of the White House is a 19th-century public park redesigned in the 1960s. The park is bounded by H Street to the north, Madison Place to the east, Pennsylvania Avenue to the south, and Jackson Place to the west. Lafayette Park is an example of early American landscape design and the 19th century neighborhood of the president. The Ellipse area, or President's Park South, to the south of the White House grounds is another important cultural landscape. President's Park South consists of the elliptical park area known as the Ellipse, Sherman Park to the northeast, and the First Division Memorial Park to the northwest. Lafayette Park and the Ellipse provide a dignified transition area from an urban environment to the White House environs. They also protect and enhance views to and from the White House and provide a setting for the public to view the White House. Many national monuments and memorials are found throughout the park, illustrating the significant role of President's Park as a symbolic location within the urban landscape of the nation's capital.

    Demonstrations and Special Events

    The buildings, structures, and grounds that compose the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park are national symbols of American democracy. Citizens from the United States and around the world come to these areas to participate in American democracy, celebrate freedom, and experience our nation's history and culture. The NPS receives regular requests from the public to conduct demonstrations, which include various types of expressive activity such as marches and art displays, at locations within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. The NPS also receives requests to hold special events, such as wedding ceremonies, national celebratory events, and sporting activities, at the same locations. Each year, the NPS issues an average of 750 permits for demonstrations and 1,500 permits for special events within the NPS units subject to 36 CFR 7.96 (as explained below). Most of these activities are held within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. The NPS also issues an average of 800 permits for commercial filming within these parks each year. The NPS dedicates significant resources to processing permit applications and managing permitted activities in a manner that mitigates impacts to park resources, secures sensitive locations, and keeps visitors safe.

    Proposed Rule

    The NPS proposes to revise the regulations applicable to demonstrations and special events that are held within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. The NPS intends these revisions to (i) modify regulations explaining how the NPS processes permit applications to conduct activities in these areas; and (ii) better identify locations where activities are allowed, not allowed, or allowed but subject to restrictions. The NPS intends these changes to provide greater clarity to the public about how and where demonstrations and special events may be conducted in a manner that protects and preserves the cultural and historic integrity of these areas.

    The supplementary information contained below will explain the proposed changes to existing regulations in section 7.96 of Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 7.96). These regulations govern activities within the National Mall and Memorial Parks, President's Park, and other administrative units subject to section 7.96. These other units—such as portions of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, National Capital Parks-East, George Washington Memorial Parkway, and Rock Creek Park—are located nearby the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. The NPS encounters management issues related to demonstrations and special events in these locations that are similar to those encountered in the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. In some cases, a single event such as a foot race will cross through several of these units. The administrative benefit of having a uniform set of regulations and permit processes for units in close proximity to one another supports applying the proposed changes in this rule to all of the units that are subject to section 7.96. This will allow the NPS to better manage these events and provide service to the public. The applicability of section 7.96 to the National Mall and Memorial Parks, President's Park, and these other units is discussed in more detail below.

    A summary of the proposed changes is contained in the following table, along with a citation of the regulation that would be changed. The proposed changes are discussed below in the order they appear in the table below. In addition to the changes listed below, the proposed rule would reorganize several paragraphs in section 7.96 without changing any of the text.

    No. Proposed change Citation 1 Remove several units from the applicability of § 7.96 7.96(a) 2 Adopt definitions of “demonstrations” and “special events” from 36 CFR part 2 7.96(g)(1)(i) and (ii) 3 Move the definition of “structure” to the definitions section in § 7.96(g)(1) 7.96(g)(1) and (5)(ix)(A)(4) 4 Consider changing the number of people that could take part in a demonstration without a permit at specific locations 7.96(g)(2)(ii) 5 Require a permit for the erection of structures during a special event or demonstration regardless of the number of participants 7.96(g)(2) and (g)(5)(vi)(E) 6 Consider requiring permit applicants to pay fees to allow the NPS to recover some of the costs of administering permitted activities that contain protected speech 7.96(g)(3) 7 Establish permanent security zones at President's Park where public access is currently prohibited 7.96(g)(3)(i) 8 Modify and establish restricted zones at memorials on the National Mall where special events and demonstrations would not be allowed in order to preserve an atmosphere of contemplation 7.96(g)(3)(ii) 9 Modify regulations explaining how the NPS processes permit applications for demonstrations and special events 7.96(g)(3) and (4) 10 Adopt criteria in 36 CFR part 2 for reviewing permit applications that apply to other NPS areas. Remove redundant criteria in § 7.96 7.96(g)(4) and (5) 11 Establish a maximum permit period of 30 days, plus a reasonable amount of time needed for set up and take down of structures before and after a demonstration or special event 7.96(g)(4)(vi) 12 Identify locations where structures may not be used, and restrict the height, weight, equipment, and materials of structures when they are permitted during special events and demonstrations 7.96(g)(5)(vi) 13 Apply existing sign restrictions (e.g. supports, dimensions) in President's Park to other locations within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park 7.96(g)(5)(vii) 14 Other minor changes to § 7.96 7.96(g) 1. Remove Several Units From the Applicability of 7.96

    The National Capital Region (NCR) is an administrative grouping of National Park System units that are located in and around metropolitan Washington, DC. NPS regulations at 36 CFR 7.96 apply to certain park units located within the NCR. These special regulations modify the general regulations in 36 CFR part 2 that apply to all areas administered by the NPS, but only for those parks identified in section 7.96.

    Paragraph (a) of section 7.96 lists the park units in the NCR that are subject to the special regulations in that section. This rule would revise paragraph (a) to limit applicability and scope of the NCR special regulations to the following park areas:

    • All park areas located in Washington, DC • the George Washington Memorial Parkway • all park areas located within National Capital Parks East (an administrative grouping of park units in the NCR that are generally located east of the U.S. Capitol) • the portion of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park that is located in Washington, DC and Montgomery County, Maryland

    The special regulations in section 7.96 exist to address unique management issues that are present in these park units in the NCR but not present in other parks in the NCR or elsewhere in the country. One of these issues—especially for park units near the National Mall and the White House—is how to manage the high volume, magnitude, and impacts of special events and demonstrations. Section 7.96 addresses this issue with special rules that govern these activities. One of these rules requires individuals and organizations to send permit applications for demonstrations and special events to a central permit office in Washington, DC, for review and processing. The NPS routes all permit applications through this office, and then to the impacted park(s), to avoid potential confusion about where applications should be sent. It would be confusing to require the public to send permit applications directly to each park unit because there are so many areas administered by the NPS in the NCR, many of which are in close proximity to one another. Other unique management issues faced by these parks in the NCR include the Presidential Inauguration, other national celebration events, security needs associated with the White House Complex and the Executive Office Building, and the use of athletic fields near the National Mall. These activities are also addressed by special regulations in section 7.96.

    Park units that are not identified in paragraph (a) of section 7.96 follow general NPS regulations in part 2. This is consistent with 36 CFR 1.2(c), which provides that the NPS general regulations in part 2 apply unless there are NPS special regulations for individual park areas. The general regulations in part 2 address special events and demonstrations in sections 2.50 and 2.51. Instead of using a central office, permit applications for these other parks are sent directly to park headquarters and processed by the administrative office at the park unit.

    Section 7.96 already applies to the park units identified in this proposed rule. The proposed changes to paragraph 7.96(a) in this rule would remove the following park units from the applicability and scope of the NCR special regulations in section 7.96:

    • Three parks in Virginia—Manassas National Battlefield Park, Prince William Forest Park, and Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts • The portion of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park that is located outside the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, Maryland

    By removing these parks from scope and applicability of the NCR special regulations, they instead would be governed by the general regulations for special events and demonstrations found in sections 2.50 and 2.51. Although these parks are organized within the administrative grouping of the NCR, they are located further away from the metropolitan core of Washington, DC. This reduces any confusion about where permit applications should be sent. It is not necessary or efficient that permit applications for these outlying NCR parks be routed through the centralized permit office in Washington, DC. Allowing these outlying NCR parks to operate their own permit offices that can receive permit applications directly is consistent with how other NCR parks outside the Washington, DC, metropolitan area (i.e., Antietam National Battlefield, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and Monocacy National Battlefield) have operated for decades. Instead of using a central permit office in Washington, DC, visitors would send permit applications for these outlying parks to the administrative offices of each park, to the attention of the superintendent:

    Park unit Mailing address Manassas National Battlefield Park 12521 Lee Highway, Manassas, VA 20109, (703) 754-1861. Prince William Forest Park 18100 Park Headquarters Road, Triangle, VA 22172, (703) 221-4706. Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts 1551 Trap Road, Vienna, VA 22182-1643, (703) 255-1808. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, MD 21740, (301) 739-4200.

    The other special regulations in section 7.96 either are not relevant to these parks (e.g. staging the Presidential Inauguration, organized athletic events, and taxi cab operations around National Memorials) or are addressed by NPS regulations in 36 CFR part 2 (e.g. fishing and camping). In order to maintain the existing prohibition on bathing, swimming or wading throughout the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, the proposed rule would state that paragraph (e) of section 7.96 would apply to the portions of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park that are located in Maryland outside of Montgomery County.

    2. Revise Definitions of “Demonstrations” and “Special Events”

    NPS general regulations in 36 CFR part 2 define the term “demonstrations” and “special events.” These terms apply to activities that occur within all units of the National Park System except for those units identified in section 7.96 and located within the NCR. Section 7.96(g)(1) contains definitions for the terms “demonstration” and “special events” that apply only to those units identified in section 7.96 and located within the NCR. For both sets of definitions, the term “demonstration(s)” is defined to include activities that are considered expression and speech that are protected by the First Amendment. Special events are described or defined to include other activities that do not enjoy the same heightened protection under the First Amendment. The definitions of “demonstration(s)” in section 2.51 and section 7.96(g)(1) are the same. The list of types of special events in section 2.50 and the definition in section 7.96(g)(1) are similar, but different in some ways. A comparison is displayed in the table below:

    Part 2 Section 7.96 definition Demonstration(s) Includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services, and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers. 36 CFR 2.51(a) Includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(1)(i). Special Events Sports events, pageants, regattas, public spectator attractions, entertainments, ceremonies, and similar events. 36 CFR 2.50(a) Includes sports events, pageants, celebrations, historical reenactments, regattas, entertainments, exhibitions, parades, fairs, festivals and similar events (including such events presented by the National Park Service), which are not demonstrations under paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section, and which are engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term also does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers. 36 CFR 7.96(g)(1)(ii).

    In order to avoid confusion that may arise from having separate but similar definitions in part 2 and section 7.96(g), the NPS proposes to remove the definition of “demonstration” in section 7.96(g)(1) and refer to the definition in section 2.51 instead. For the same reason, the NPS proposes to remove the definition of “special events” in section 7.96(g)(1) and refer to the activities listed in section 2.50(a) instead. Even though the description of special events in section 2.50(a) and the definition of “special events” in section 7.96(g)(1) are worded differently, the NPS does not regard them as substantively different. The NPS does not consider referring to the part 2 terminology as a definition in section 7.96(g)(1) to be a substantive change to the meaning of special events. The description in section 2.50(a) is broad enough to include celebrations, historical reenactments, entertainments, exhibitions, parades, fairs, and festivals, which are part of the current definition in section 7.96(g)(1) but not part of the description of special events in 2.50(a). The description in section 2.50(a) is also broad enough to include other events, such as marathons, that are common within the National Mall and Memorial Parks. The statement in the definition in section 7.96(g)(1) that special events include events presented by the NPS would be moved to a new definition of “events” that is explained below. This means that the NPS will continue to issue permits for NPS-sponsored events like the Fourth of July Celebration as a means of reserving park lands for these events.

    The definition in section 7.96 states that special events are those activities that do not qualify as demonstrations. This affects how the event is managed because certain regulations in section 7.96 treat demonstrations and special events differently. For example, demonstrations involving 25 or fewer people generally may be held without a permit. This permit exception does not apply to special events. Other provisions in section 7.96 apply to demonstrations and special events in the same manner.

    The NPS proposes to streamline these regulations by defining the term “events,” which would mean both demonstrations and special events, as those terms are defined in sections 2.50 and 2.51. This definition will also include a statement that events do not include casual park use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers. This caveat is included in both current definitions of “demonstration(s)” in parts 2 and 7 and in the current definition of “special event” in section 7.96. The NPS proposes to replace the existing phrase “which does not have an intent or propensity,” which is used in the definition of “special events” in section 7.96, with the phrase “that is not reasonably likely,” which is used in the definitions of “demonstration(s)” in parts 2 and 7. The NPS prefers to have one standard for determining what constitutes casual park use and believes the “reasonably likely” standard is more objective and easier to understand than a standard that requires NPS law enforcement staff to discern the intent of a person or group. This would provide greater clarity to the public about what types of activities are subject to the regulations in section 7.96. The NPS will retain use of the terms “demonstrations” and “special events” in certain locations within section 7.96 where the distinction is necessary to ensure that NPS does not overly restrict speech that enjoys heightened protections under the First Amendment.

    The NPS will remove the text in the section 7.96 definition that states that special events are those activities that do not qualify as demonstrations. Experience managing events has shown that some demonstrations have elements that are special events. The NPS specifically seeks comments on how it might further differentiate between the demonstration element(s) and the special event element(s) of a single activity. What factors should the NPS consider when differentiating between the demonstration and special event elements of a single activity? How should the NPS regulate activities that have elements of demonstrations and special events? The NPS seeks comments on the definitions and treatment of demonstrations and special events. What additional factors should the NPS consider when determining whether an activity is a demonstration or a special event?

    3. Move the Definition of “Structure” to the Definitions Section in 7.96(g)(1)

    Section 7.96(g)(5)(ix) contains regulations that apply to Lafayette Park. These regulations prohibit the erection, placement, or use of structures of any kind except for those that are hand-carried and certain speakers' platforms depending upon the size of the demonstration. In order to understand what is prohibited, the regulations define the term “structure” in section 7.96(g)(5)(ix)(A)(4). The definition includes most items that could be erected or placed within the park, with limited exceptions for signs, attended bicycles and baby strollers, and wheelchairs and other similar devices.

    The NPS proposes to move the definition of “structure” from section 7.96(g)(5)(ix)(A)(4), to the definitions section in 7.96(g)(1). This would clarify that the definition of the term “structure” applies anywhere that term is used in section 7.96. This includes section 7.96(g)(5)(vi), which regulates the use of structures in connection with demonstrations and special events located within any unit identified in section 7.96(a). This includes the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. This change would reduce the potential for confusion about the meaning of the term “structure” in section 7.96. The existing definition in 7.96(g)(5)(ix)(A)(4) has proven to be workable and clearly understood. Moving the term to the definitions section would make it easier for the public to find and understand the meaning of this term. The NPS proposes to add trailers, jumbotrons, light towers, delay towers, portable restrooms, and mobile stages to the definition of a structure because these items are commonly requested as part of larger events.

    4. Consider Changing the Number of People That Could Take Part in a Demonstration Without a Permit at Specific Locations

    Section 7.96(g)(2) states that a demonstration or special event may be held only pursuant to a valid permit. There are some important exceptions, however, for demonstrations. Demonstrations involving 25 persons or fewer may be held without a permit. This exception in section 7.96(g)(2)(i) is known as the “small group exception.” In addition to the small group exception, section 7.96(g)(2)(ii) identifies several locations where demonstrations of larger groups may be held without a permit. Up to 500 persons may demonstrate at Franklin Park and McPherson Square without a permit, up to 100 persons may demonstrate at U.S. Reservation No. 31 without a permit, and up to 1,000 persons may demonstrate at Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway without a permit.

    The NPS seeks comment on whether it should increase the maximum number of persons that may demonstrate at Franklin Park and McPherson Square without a permit. The NPS also requests comment on whether it should establish new exceptions for Farragut Square and Dupont Circle that would allow demonstrations larger than 25 persons to occur without a permit. The NPS has determined that the maximum number of persons that can participate in an event without the need for a medical station with advanced life support is 2,500 for each location. This number represents the outer limit of how many people could demonstrate in each location without a permit in order to maintain public safety. If the NPS raises the maximum numbers of persons that may demonstrate in Franklin Park, McPherson Square, Farragut Square, or Dupont Circle without a permit, these numbers would be less than 2,500 in order to maintain public order, health, and safety, and mitigate impacts to park resources. The NPS seeks comment, however, on whether the numbers could be raised in a manner that better aligns the current limits with sizes and locations of the designated areas in order to increase opportunities for spontaneous demonstrations.

    Alternatively, the NPS seeks comment on whether it should lower the numbers of persons that may demonstrate in Franklin Park, McPherson Square, U.S. Reservation No. 31, and Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway without a permit. The NPS would not lower those numbers below 25 persons which is consistent the small group exception. Lowering those numbers would allow the NPS to better manage and anticipate demonstrations occurring on NPS-administered lands.

    5. Require a Permit for the Erection of Structures During a Special Event or Demonstration Regardless of the Number of Participants

    The NPS proposes to require a permit in order to erect structures, other than small lecterns or speakers' platforms, during any demonstration or special event—even those demonstrations that would not otherwise require a permit because of their small size or location. Current regulations generally require a permit to hold a demonstration or special event in the NCR. These regulations allow a permit-holder to erect structures to meet messaging and logistical needs. In some circumstances, NPS regulations allow smaller demonstrations to occur without a permit.

    Demonstrations involving 25 or less participants fall under the “small group exception” and do not require a permit. Except for Lafayette Park (where only speakers' platforms are allowed in accordance with a permit) and the White House Sidewalk (where no structures are allowed), current regulations state that demonstrations falling under the small group exception may not erect structures other than small lecterns or speakers' platforms. This proposed rule would further define the types of structures that small groups may erect without a permit by stating that speakers' platforms must be no larger than three (3) feet in length, three (3) feet in width, and three (3) feet in height. This size limitation is consistent with existing regulations that allow the NPS to issue a permit for “soapbox” speakers' platforms in Lafayette Park if the size of the demonstration is less than 100 persons. The proposed rule would also clarify that individuals and groups of less than 25 may erect other structures, including larger speakers' platforms, if they obtain a permit.

    In five park areas within the NCR, current regulations allow for larger demonstrations to occur without a permit, provided the demonstrations involve less than a maximum number of participants. These five parks are Franklin Park (500 person limit), McPherson Square (500 person limit), U.S. Reservation No. 31 at 18th Street and H Street NW (100 person limit), Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway west of 23rd Street and south of P Street NW (1,000 person limit), and U.S. Reservation No. 46 at 8th and D Streets, SE (25 person limit). Unlike the regulations for demonstrations falling under the small group exception, the regulations establishing the permit exception areas at Franklin Park, McPherson Square, U.S. Reservation No. 31, Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, and U.S. Reservation No. 46 do not prohibit the use of structures. As a result, demonstrations involving the use of structures are allowed without a permit in these five areas if they fall under the size limits.

    The NPS has determined that the absence of a permit requirement before erecting a structure in these five parks poses a negative impact to park resources and visitor safety. Without a permit, demonstrators erecting structures are not aware of the location of any underground water lines in turf areas, or when and what type of matting may be necessary to protect turf, marble, or granite, or ensure that the structure is safe.

    There was a long-term demonstration at McPherson Square in 2012, where among other actions, demonstrators attempted to erect a large and unsafe barn-like structure made up of a wooden frame of boards and planks. A permit was not required because the size of the demonstration was less than 500 people. Construction was stopped when U.S. Park Police officers observed the situation and consulted local safety officials who condemned the structure as unsafe. The same demonstration involved a large number of tents of various sizes, including dome, A-frame, and outfitter tents, that covered a majority of the Square. Demonstrators used these tents for sleeping, meetings, as a library, as temporary restroom facilities (with buckets), and as a mess hall (with propane), These tents and the individuals using them created a public health nuisance that detracted from health and well-being. NPS personnel and participants reported human waste found around tents or in trash receptacles. Rodent burrows were observed and rodents were reported seen at night. Flammable liquids were observed outside of tents. Ultimately the NPS was able to remove these structures, after receiving many complaints from surrounding residents and businesses, and documentation of unsafe and unhygienic conditions at McPherson Square. The U.S. Park Police requested and spent approximately $480,000 for emergency operations to maintain law and order in connection with this event. This amount does not include additional funds that the NPS spent to restore and rehabilitate the condition of the park after the event. This incident revealed that requiring a permit would better protect park resources and keep visitors safe when structures are erected—no matter the size of the demonstration.

    Without a permit requirement, NPS managers are less informed about the presence of structures and therefore in many cases are unable to ensure public safety, address traffic concerns, and protect park resources. Requiring a permit for structures—no matter the size of the demonstration—would allow NPS staff to work with permit applicants regarding their proposed structure and address legitimate concerns about visitor safety and resource protection. A permit would not be required for small lecterns, speakers' platforms, portable signs, or banners because these items do not raise the same concerns about public health, safety, and resource protection. A permit would not be required for individuals engaging in casual park use with objects such as small chairs, wheelchairs, picnic shelters, beach umbrellas, or small tables because this activity would not be considered an event under the regulations.

    6. Consider Requiring Permit Applicants To Pay Fees To Allow the NPS To Recover Some of the Costs of Administering Permitted Activities That Contain Protected Speech

    The NPS has the authority to recover all costs of providing necessary services associated with special use permits. 54 U.S.C. 103104. This authority allows the NPS to recover all costs incurred by the NPS in receiving, writing, and issuing the permit, monitoring the permitted use, restoring park areas, or otherwise supporting a special park use. Under current NPS policy, the NPS does not charge cost recovery if the proposed activity is an exercise of a right, such as a demonstration. In current practice, the NPS recovers costs associated with special events, but not demonstrations. The NPS recovers an application processing fee and is in the process of developing a more robust cost recovery program that would allow the NPS to recover additional costs associated with special events, including administrative, equipment, and monitoring costs.

    Demonstrations can have substantial impacts on resources, resulting in a financial burden to the federal government, particularly where structures are involved. The NPS specifically seeks comment on the merits of recovering costs associated with permitted demonstrations, and on how any cost recovery should be done. The NPS seeks comment on how it could establish a set of clearly defined, objective categories and criteria in advance for what costs would be recovered. These categories could include direct costs associated with event management (other than costs for law enforcement personnel and activities), set up and take down of structures; material and supply costs such as barricades and fencing needed for permitted activities; costs for the restoration, rehabilitation, and clean-up of a permitted area such as sanitation and trash removal; permit application costs; and costs associated with resource damage such as harm to turf, benches, poles, and walkways. The NPS requests comment on whether it should establish an indigency waiver for permittees who cannot afford to pay cost recovery, and how this waiver program could be implemented to safeguard the financial information of permittees. The NPS is interested only in how this waiver could be applied to permitted demonstrations, not special events. The NPS seeks comment on how it could implement protocols to ensure that costs recovered from administering permits associated with demonstrations are documented and assessed to permittees in a uniform and appropriate manner. If the NPS decides to recover some costs associated with permit applications for demonstrations, it requests comment on how it could provide reasonable advance notice to permittees about the types and amounts of costs that could be recovered.

    7. Establish Permanent Security Zones at President's Park Where Public Access is Prohibited

    Section 7.96(g)(3)(i) allows the NPS to issue permits for demonstrations on the White House sidewalk, Lafayette Park, and the Ellipse. Permits may not be issued for special events in these locations, except for the Ellipse and for annual commemorative wreath-laying ceremonies related to statues in Lafayette Park. Although the regulations allow for demonstrations and special events in some of these locations, the NPS has temporarily closed to general public access certain park areas in the vicinity of the south fence line of the White House and in and around First Division Memorial Park and Sherman Park. The United States Secret Service requested these closures to ensure necessary security and safety for the adjacent White House complex, its occupants, and the public. The NPS proposes to close these areas in the manner requested by the United States Secret Service by adding closure language to section 7.96.

    For the areas in the vicinity of the south fence line, the Secret Service determined that their location, visibility, and public access present a significant potential area of risk for individuals attempting to penetrate the secure perimeter of the White House Complex and gain unlawful access onto the grounds of the White House. Restricting public access to the south fence line would not only serve to lessen the possibility of individuals unlawfully accessing the White House grounds, but will also create a clear visual break to enable Secret Service personnel to identify any individuals attempting to scale the White House fence. The NPS implemented this closure on a temporary basis in April 2017 under its authority in 36 CFR 1.5.

    For the areas in and around the First Division Memorial Park and Sherman Park, the Secret Service determined that parts of these areas must be kept clear for security reasons. The First Division area has been subject to closures on a temporary and recurring basis since August 11, 2004. The Sherman Park area has been subject to closures on a temporary and recurring basis since December 4, 2009. Neither demonstrations nor special events are currently allowed in these areas, so this rule change would not remove these areas from the public forum. State Place and Hamilton Place have been closed to general vehicle traffic for some time. Even with these closures in place, the public can continue to see the White House's south façade from the Ellipse. The closures would not adversely affect the park's natural, aesthetic, or cultural values given the existing and ongoing public safety and security measures and alerts in Washington, DC since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    8. Establish Additional Restricted Zones at Memorials on the National Mall Where Special Events and Demonstrations Are Not Allowed in Order To Preserve an Atmosphere of Contemplation Memorial Restricted Areas

    This rule would create restricted areas at the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial. Demonstrations and special events would be prohibited in these restricted areas, except for official commemorative ceremonies. These restricted areas are similar to the restricted areas at the Lincoln Memorial, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which were established decades ago and are intended to help maintain an appropriate atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence in these memorial areas, while allowing designated official commemorative ceremonies. NPS regulations establishing the restricted area at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial were upheld in Oberwetter v. Hilliard, 639 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 2011). This rule would also expand the restricted area at the Washington Monument to account for the area around the Monument's base that has been substantially landscaped with granite pavers and marble benches up to its circle of flags. The rule would also include clearer maps of the existing restricted areas at the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. The updated map of the restricted areas at the White House would depict the proposed security closures discussed in the prior section.

    These restrictions further the NPS's interest in securing these memorials and maintaining the intended atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence, and in providing the contemplative visitor experience intended for the memorials. The restrictions in this rule are limited and apply only to those areas necessary to further the interests identified above. At each location, there are several other nearby areas available for a more full range of free expression, including demonstrations and special events. Maps showing the location of restricted areas would be available online at https://home.nps.gov/nama/learn/management/index.htm and at National Mall and Memorial Parks headquarters at 900 Ohio Drive SW, Washington, DC 20024.

    The rule would make slight modifications to the restricted area at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in order to help the NPS manage events. These modifications would slightly scale back the areas where sound and stage equipment are currently not allowed. This would allow for other groups to walk on the exterior pathways and place equipment along the reflecting pool for larger events. In addition, the striped restricted areas—where demonstrations and special events are currently prohibited—would be scaled back to the inside of the north and west sidewalks on the top of the wall.

    World War II Memorial

    Authorized by an Act of Congress at 107 Stat. 90 (1993), the World War II Memorial honors the service of sixteen million members of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, the support of millions of others on the homefront, and the ultimate sacrifice of more than 400,000 Americans. Dedicated on May 29, 2004, the World War II Memorial serves as a tribute to the legacy of “The Greatest Generation.” The granite, bronze, and water elements of the Memorial harmoniously blend with the lawns, trees, and shrubbery of the surrounding landscape on the National Mall.

    The 24 bronze bas-relief panels that flank the Memorial's Ceremonial Entrance offer glimpses into the human experience at home and at war. Fifty-six granite columns, split between two half-circles framing the rebuilt Rainbow Pool with its celebratory fountains, symbolize the unprecedented wartime unity among the forty-eight states, seven federal territories, and the District of Columbia. Bronze ropes tie the columns together, while bronze oak and wheat wreaths represent the nation's industrial and agricultural strengths. Two 43-foot tall pavilions proclaim American victory on the Atlantic and Pacific fronts.

    At the center of the World War II Memorial is the Freedom Wall Plaza. The Freedom Wall is located on the west side of the Plaza. The Wall contains 4,048 Gold Stars, each of which represents 100 American military deaths. During World War II, when a man or woman went off to serve in the war, his or her family often displayed a blue star on a white field with a red border in their window. If the family member died in the war effort, the family would replace the blue star with a gold star that revealed that family's sacrifice. Beneath the gold stars on the Freedom Wall appears the simple but poignant engraved message: “Here We Mark the Price of Freedom,” which pays silent and solemn tribute to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Much like a formal gathering where the guest or place of honor is at center, the Freedom Wall with its gold stars is the Memorial's place of honor, which symbolizes the number of American dead and missing from World War II. The restricted area would be located in front of the Freedom Wall and extend to the western edge of the Rainbow Pool.

    Korean War Veterans Memorial

    Authorized by an Act of Congress at 110 Stat. 3226 (1986), the Korean War Veterans Memorial honors members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in the Korean War. Dedicated on July 27, 1995, the Memorial is located on the National Mall just south of the Lincoln Reflecting Pool. Viewed from above, the Korean War Veterans Memorial is a circle intersected by a triangle. Visitors approaching from the east first come to the triangular Field of Service, where a group of 19 stainless-steel statues depicts a squad on patrol. Strips of granite and scrubby juniper bushes suggest the rugged Korean terrain, while the statues' windblown ponchos recall the harsh weather. This symbolic patrol represents soldiers from a variety of ethnic backgrounds in the U.S. Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marines.

    On the north side of the statues is a granite curb which lists the 22 countries that sent troops or gave medical support in defense of South Korea. On the south side is a black granite wall, whose polished surface mirrors the statues, intermingling the reflected images with faces etched into the granite. The mural is based on actual photographs of unidentified American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Walking past the Field of Service, visitors approach the circular Pool of Remembrance. The Pool is encircled by a grove of trees and provides a quiet setting for contemplation. The numbers of those killed, wounded, missing in action, and held prisoner-of-war are etched nearby in stone. Opposite this counting of the war's toll is another granite wall which bears a simple but poignant engraved message inlaid in silver: “Freedom Is Not Free.” The restricted area would encompass most of the Memorial. The perimeter of the restricted area would be marked by the exterior walkways and by the placement of ground-level markers to mark its eastern boundary, similar to markers identifying the eastern boundary of the restricted areas at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial

    Authorized by an Act of Congress at 110 Stat. 4157 (1986), the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial was dedicated on October 16, 2011. The Memorial helps preserve the memory of Dr. King as a visionary, a faith leader and public intellectual, an unwavering advocate of social justice, and a martyr to peace, equality, and justice. On the steps of the nearby Lincoln Memorial, a clear symbol of freedom, Dr. King delivered his first national address, “Give Us the Ballot” in 1957. He returned to the Lincoln Memorial as a key figure supporting the 1963 March on Washington. There, in the defining moment of his leadership in the movement for civil rights, Dr. King delivered his immortal “I Have a Dream” speech.

    The Memorial is located on the banks of the Tidal Basin between the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson Memorials and accentuates Dr. King's story within the larger narrative of the nation. The Memorial encompasses four acres, and comprises elements of architecture, water features, sculpture and inscriptions, that together create a sense of place and a setting for remembrance and celebration. At the north entry portal, the Mountain of Despair's two stones are parted and the Stone of Hope is pushed forward toward the horizon; the missing piece of what was once a single boulder. The emergent Stone of Hope represents the struggle felt by Dr. King whose image is carved in it and gazes over the Tidal Basin toward a future society of justice and equality.

    The quotations chosen for the plaza's Inscription Walls represent Dr. King's messages of justice, democracy, hope, and love. Fourteen of Dr. King's quotes are engraved on a 450-foot crescent shaped granite wall. These quotes span his involvement with the Montgomery bus boycotts in Alabama in 1955 to his last sermon delivered at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, in 1968, four days before his assassination. The restricted area would encompass almost all of the plaza in the Memorial that begins when the visitor emerges from the portal through the Mountain of Despair.

    Washington Monument

    The Washington Monument honors both the nation's first President and his legacy. Built between 1848 and 1884, the Monument is the nation's foremost memorial to President Washington and the tallest masonry structure in the world at approximately 555 feet tall. Dedicated in 1884, the Washington Monument shows the enduring gratitude and respect held by the citizens of the United States for President Washington and his contributions to the fight for independence and founding of our Nation. The Washington Monument is surrounded by a circular colonnade of 50 aluminum flagpoles that display American flags. These flags represent the 50 states and are displayed at all times during the day and night to symbolize our enduring freedom.

    In 2014, the Washington Monument plaza and its marble benches were rehabilitated with the installation of granite pavers that extend from the Monument to the circle of flags. From the Washington Monument plaza, visitors can also see grand vistas south to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, east to the Capitol, north to the White House, and west to the Lincoln Memorial.

    When the current restricted area for the Washington Monument was established, there was an inner circle surrounding the base of the Monument that was encircled by a roadway. The restricted area included the inner circle and extended to the roadway. This took advantage of an obvious physical boundary to mark the edge of the restricted area. The roadway was removed in 2001 and is now covered by the granite plaza that was completed in 2014. This granite plaza extends from the Monument beyond the old location of the roadway out to the circle of flags. In order to provide certainty to the public about the extent of the restricted area, and to allow more visitors to experience the grand vistas south to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, east to the Capitol, north to the White House, and west to the Lincoln Memorial, the NPS proposes to expand the restricted area outward approximately 48 feet to include the entire granite plaza that surrounds the Monument out to the circle of flags. Visitors would thus be able to readily identify the expanded restricted area because it is delineated by the circle of flags which is marked by a post and chain fence that surrounds the plaza. The granite plaza is also a different material than the concrete sidewalks that lead to it. The NPS believes it is important to reserve the entire granite plaza as a place where an atmosphere of calm, tranquility and reverence is maintained, so that visitors may contemplate the meaning of the Monument and of George Washington, while leaving ample space nearby for demonstrations and special events. For many people, standing in the granite plaza or sitting on one of its marble benches will be as close as they get to the Monument because of the obelisk's limited occupant capacity and hours of operation.

    9. Modify Regulations Explaining How the NPS Processes Permit Applications for Demonstrations and Special Events

    Sections 7.96(g)(3) and (4) describe how the public can submit a permit application to the NPS for a demonstration or special event, and how the NPS will process that application. The NPS proposes to make several changes to these regulations in order to provide greater clarity and certainty to the public about how the NPS processes permit applications. Applying for a commercial filming permit at the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park is governed by regulations in 43 CFR part 5, which are not affected by this proposed rule.

    Waiver of 48-Hour Permit Application Deadline

    Section 7.96(g)(3) requires that applicants submit permit applications at least 48 hours in advance of any demonstration or special event. Under existing regulations, this requirement can be waived by the Regional Director if the size and nature of the activity will not reasonably require the commitment of park resources or personnel in excess of that which are normally available or which can reasonably be made available within the necessary time period. The NPS proposes to replace this waiver language by stating that notwithstanding the 48-hour requirement, the Regional Director will reasonably seek to accommodate spontaneous demonstrations, subject to all limitations and restrictions applicable to the requested location, provided such demonstrations do not include structures and provided the NPS has the resources and personnel available to manage the activity. Reactions to specific or imminent occurrences, including but not limited to a presidential action, congressional vote, or Supreme Court decision, often result in requests for spontaneous demonstrations. Adding this statement would provide more flexibility for spontaneous demonstrations, while allowing the Regional Director to ensure that the NPS and the U.S. Park Police have the law enforcement capacity to safely manage events that are requested with less than 48-hours notice. The proposed language would clarify for the public that structures may not be used for events that are not requested at least 48 hours in advance. This is the minimum amount of time the NPS needs to evaluate the safety concerns and resource impacts associated with the use of structures.

    Removal of 24-Hour Deemed Granted Status for Demonstrations

    Section 7.96(g)(3) states that applications for demonstrations are deemed granted, subject to all limitations and restrictions applicable to the park area, unless denied within 24 hours of receipt. Permit applications that are “deemed granted” after this 24-hour period remain subject to terms and conditions that are negotiated between the applicant and the NPS. This negotiation can result in the permit application being denied, partially denied, or modified by the NPS as it receives more information from the permittee about the requested event. This is particularly the case when applicants request permits for large and complex demonstrations with structures that raise resource and public safety concerns. In some cases, the NPS receives information from the applicant in the weeks or days before the event begins. This can result in the NPS imposing permit terms and conditions just before the event in order to mitigate concerns related to park resources and public order and safety. The result is that permit applications that have been “deemed granted” are often times subject to a lengthy review process that can be confusing for permit applicants. The NPS proposes to remove the “deemed granted” language in section 7.96(g)(3) and replace it with language in section 7.96(g)(4) that better reflects how the NPS processes permit applications. These changes are discussed below.

    Timeline To Respond to an Application

    Section 7.96(g)(4)(1) states that the NPS processes permit applications for demonstrations and special events in order of receipt. This regulation also states that the NPS will not accept applications more than one year in advance of a proposed event (including set-up time). An application is considered received at the time and date stamped on the application by a staff member of the NPS Permits Management Division. Applications are only stamped if they contain basic information about the requested event. At minimum, an application must provide the location, purpose and plan for the event, time and date, number of people who will participate, and contact information. Instead of the 24-hour “deemed granted” provision, the NPS proposes that it will provide an initial response for all permit applications for demonstrations within three business days of receipt. Within that time frame, the NPS would notify the applicant that the permit application has been characterized in one of three ways: Approved, Provisionally Reserved, or Denied. The NPS anticipates that this notification will be in the form of an electronic communication (e.g. text message, email) indicating the category of disposition and—if the application is provisionally reserved—stating that the NPS will follow-up with the applicant for more information. If the NPS fails to send the electronic communication to the permit applicant within three business days of receiving the application, then the permit application will be approved. The NPS anticipates that it will use electronic communication with applicants in order to provide more rapid and timely information. The NPS proposes to clarify in the regulations that only those applications that contain basic information about the event (location, time and date, purpose and plan for the event, number of people who will participate, and contact information) will be subject to the three-business day initial response period. Applications that do not contain this information prevent the NPS from making an initial determination about their status. The NPS would notify applicants if their applications do not contain enough information to make an initial determination and would identify the information that must be provided.

    Applications for special events will not be subject to this requirement and therefore will not be considered approved after any specified period of time. The NPS will respond to applications for special events as soon as practicable given the workload and available resources in the Division of Permits Management when the application is received. The NPS will provide an opportunity for the applicant to characterize the event as either a demonstration or a special event. The NPS, however, will apply the definitions of demonstration and special event to determine the type of activity requested by a permit application for purposes of whether an initial response must be provided within three business days. For events that contain elements of both demonstrations and special events, only the demonstration elements will be approved if the NPS fails to notify the applicant that those elements are either provisionally reserved or denied within three business days.

    The NPS believes that the increased volume and complexity of applications for events necessitates an increase in the amount of time it has to provide information back to the applicant about the status of a particular request. Under existing regulations, an application for a demonstration is deemed granted, based on language in the decision in Quaker Action IV, 516 F.2d 717 (1975), unless the NPS denies the application within 24 hours. In this way, permit applicants can understand the status of their application for a demonstration within 24 hours, although applications that are deemed granted remain “subject to all limitations and restrictions applicable to said park area.” The NPS proposes to extend the timeframe for either denying an application for a demonstration or providing an applicant a reservation of space from 24 hours to three business days. This would account for the substantial increase in the volume and complexity of permit applications over time. In 1975, for example, the NPS processed 705 permit applications for demonstrations and events located within NPS units subject to section 7.96. In 1976, the NPS processed 876 applications. By comparison, the NPS processed 2,986 permit applications in 2016, plus an additional 800 commercial filming permits for television and motion pictures. In 2017, the NPS processed 4,658 permit applications for demonstrations, special events, and commercial filming. In the last ten years, the NPS processed an average of almost 3,000 permits per year, including demonstrations, special events, and commercial filming. Requested events have become more complex with advancements in staging, structures, and audio-visual technology. The increased complexity of events is reflected in the personnel services costs necessary to manage them. On average, permit processing activities require more than five full time employees at a cost of $700,000 per year. Events such as running and bicycle races cost the United States Park Police an average of $40,000 per event. More complex events are much more expensive. For example, the United States Park Police spent approximately $500,000 to manage the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The United States Park Police and the National Mall and Memorial Parks staff spent approximately $730,000 to manage the HBO Concert for Valor in November 2014 and approximately $350,000 to manage the Landmark Music Festival in September 2015.

    Categories for the Disposition of Permit Applications

    The NPS proposes that applications for demonstrations and special events would be initially categorized in one of three ways: Approved, Provisionally Reserved, or Denied. The NPS proposes to process applications in each category differently, as described below. The NPS believes that these categories will provide more information to the public about the status of their applications than is provided by the existing regulations.

    If the NPS approves a permit application, the NPS would send a permit to the applicant for the specific event requested as soon as practicable. The permit would contain terms and conditions that would not be subject to change or negotiation. The permit could contain conditions reasonably consistent with the requirements of public health and safety and protection of park resources. The permit could also contain reasonable limitations on the equipment used and the time and area within which the event is allowed. A permit for a special event could also require the applicant to file a cost recovery deposit in an amount adequate to cover costs such as restoration, rehabilitation, and clean-up of the area used, and other costs resulting from the event. In addition, a permit for a special event may require the acquisition of liability insurance in which the United States is named as co-insured in an amount necessary to protect the United States. The NPS would reasonably seek to accommodate requests from the applicant for changes to the permitted event after the permit application has been approved. Minor changes may not require the establishment of new permit conditions. The NPS may require the applicant to agree to new permit conditions in order to accommodate material changes such as changes to the nature and purpose of the event, the location of the event, the type and number of structures involved, or the number or notoriety of participants.

    Existing regulations allow the ranking U.S. Park Police supervisory official in charge to revoke a permit or part of a permit for a demonstration if continuation of the event presents a clear and present danger to the public safety, good order or health or for any violation of applicable law or regulation. Existing regulations allow the Regional Director to exercise reasonable discretion to revoke a permit for a special event at any time. The NPS is replacing these two standards of revocation with one, uniform standard that applies to both demonstrations and special events. This will give permit holders more certainty about the validity of their permit and the conditions that could result in its revocation. The NPS proposes to allow the Regional Director or the ranking U.S. Park Police supervisory official in charge to revoke a permit or part of a permit for any violation of its terms or conditions, or if the event presents a clear and present danger to the public safety, good order, or health, or for any violation of applicable law or regulation. Any such revocation shall be in writing. The NPS exercises discretion when faced with minor violations of permit conditions and seeks to work with permittees to resolve such violations prior to revoking a permit. The NPS seeks comment on whether the regulations should state that it may only revoke a permit for “material” violations of permit conditions.

    If the NPS categorizes a permit application as provisionally reserved, the NPS would reserve the requested location, date, and time for the applicant, but would not approve the application and issue a permit until it receives additional information. During the provisionally reserved stage, the NPS would work diligently to resolve all outstanding questions in order to determine whether the request can be approved or denied. If the NPS receives an application more than 60 days prior to the requested event, the NPS would provide the applicant with an initial, comprehensive list of outstanding issues and requested information no later than 40 days prior to the requested event. If not provided on the initial application, the NPS would likely ask for information about equipment and facilities to be used, and whether there is any reason to believe that there will be an attempt to disrupt, protest, or prevent the event. The NPS could request additional information from the applicant based upon the applicant's response to the initial list. This exchange of information could occur through written correspondence, or through one or more logistical meetings among the NPS and the applicant. The NPS would make all reasonable efforts to approve or deny a permit application at least 30 days in advance of a requested event. Permit applicants would be required to provide the NPS with all requested information before the NPS approves or denies an application.

    If the NPS denies a permit application, it would notify the applicant in writing that it is unable to accommodate the requested event. The NPS would notify the applicant if the application could be approved or provisionally reserved if certain aspects of the request are modified. If the applicant notifies the NPS that it would consider modifying its application for the requested event, the NPS would work with the applicant to modify the application in a manner that it could be approved or provisionally reserved. Modifications could include fewer participants, less staging, a different footprint for the event, different structures incident to it, a different date or time of day or the order of the event, or an alternative location that could accommodate the requested event. In this case, the applicant would not be required to submit a new application. The modified application would be processed based upon the date it was initially received by the NPS. If the applicant is not willing to modify its application in a manner and with enough advance notice that would allow the NPS to accommodate the event, the application would be denied.

    10. Adopt Criteria in 36 CFR Part 2 for Reviewing Permit Applications That Apply to Other NPS Areas. Remove Redundant Criteria in 7.96

    Sections 7.96(g)(4)(vii) and (5)(v) contain criteria that the Regional Director can use to approve or deny permit applications for events within the NCR. Sections 2.50(a) and 2.51(f) contain criteria that park superintendents can use to approve or deny permit applications for events in other units of the National Park System. Several of the criteria in parts 2 and 7 are similar to each other. In order to simplify and streamline its regulations, the NPS proposes to remove criteria from section 7.96 and instead refer to similar criteria stated in sections 2.50 and 2.51. In some circumstances, however, the NPS would maintain the criteria in section 7.96 if those criteria address particular management issues associated with the NCR. The rule would clarify that even where the criteria in section 2.50 and 2.51 are adopted in section 7.96, the Regional Director—not the park superintendent—has the authority to approve or deny permit applications for units that are subject to section 7.96. This authority is currently delegated to the Permits Management Division at the National Mall and Memorial Parks. The table below indicates the criteria that would apply to special events and demonstrations within the NCR and the citation where those criteria are located in existing regulations. These criteria help the NPS address the management issues indicated in the table.

    Criterion Existing citation Management issue Demonstrations and Special Events A fully executed prior application for the same time and place has been received, and a permit has been or will be granted authorizing activities which do not reasonably permit multiple occupancy of the particular area 7.96(g)(4)(vii)(A) Multiple Occupancy. The event is of such a nature or duration that it cannot reasonably be accommodated in the particular area applied for; the Regional Director shall reasonably take into account possible damage to the park, including trees, shrubbery, other plantings, park installations and statues 7.96(g)(4)(vii)(C) Site Capacity and Suitability. The application proposes activities contrary to any of the provisions of this section or other applicable law or regulation 7.96(g)(4)(vii)(D) Conformity with Laws and Regulations. Present a clear and present danger to the public health and safety 2.50(a)(5) Public Health and Safety. Special Events Only Cause injury or damage to park resources 2.50(a)(1) Resource Impairment. Be contrary to the purposes for which the natural, historic, development and special use zones were established; or unreasonably impair the atmosphere of peace and tranquility maintained in wilderness, natural, historic, or commemorative zones 2.50(a)(2) Value Impairment. Unreasonably interfere with interpretive, visitor service, or other program activities, or with the administrative activities of the NPS 2.50(a)(3) Conflict with Park Operations. Substantially impair the operation of public use facilities or services of NPS concessioners or contractors 2.50(a)(4) Conflict with Concessionaire or Contractor Operations. Result in significant conflict with other existing uses 2.50(a)(6) Conflict with Other Uses. Whether the objectives and purposes of the proposed special event relate to and are within the basic mission and responsibilities of the National Capital Region, National Park Service 7.96(g)(5)(v)(A) Mission Alignment. Whether the park area requested is reasonably suited in terms of accessibility, size, and nature of the proposed event 7.96(g)(5)(v)(B) Site Capability and Suitability.

    The NPS proposes to remove two criteria in section 7.96 that apply only to special events and are no longer needed for the reasons stated in the table below.

    Special Events Only Criterion Existing citation Reason for removal Whether the proposed special event can be permitted within a reasonable budgetary allocation of National Park Service funds considering the event's public appeal, and the anticipated participation of the general public therein 7.96(g)(5)(v)(C) The NPS seeks full cost recovery for special events and should not bear costs associated with permitting, monitoring, and supporting special event activities, other than those sponsored by the NPS. Whether the proposed event is duplicative of events previously offered in National Capital Region or elsewhere in or about Washington, DC 7.96(g)(5)(v)(D) The described area is too broad to consider when determining whether an event is duplicative of another event. This criteria does not account for events that are similar but held at different times. Applicants may request to have separate events in different locations with the NCR that commemorate the same figure or occasion. 11. Establish a Maximum Permit Period of 30 Days, Plus a Reasonable Amount of Time Needed for Set Up and Take Down of Structures Before and After the Event

    Section 7.96(g)(4)(vi) states that the NPS will issue permits authorizing demonstrations or special events for seven days in the White House area (except the Ellipse) and for four months in the Ellipse and all other park areas. The permit validity period is different for activities related to inaugural events. In the White House area (except the Ellipse), the permit validity period for inaugural activities is October 24 through April 1 for reasonable and necessary set-up and take-down activities for the White House Sidewalk and Lafayette Park. In the Ellipse and all other park areas, the permit validity period for inaugural activities is December 7-February 10 for reasonable and necessary set up and take down activities for Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site and Sherman Park.

    The NPS proposes to adjust the permit validity period to an amount of time not to exceed 30 days, plus a reasonable amount of time necessary for set-up and take down of structures associated with an event. The NPS will determine a reasonable amount of time for set-up and take down of structures based upon information provided by the permit applicant. If a permit application requests the use of structures such as tents or stages, the NPS would consult the Turf Management and Event Operations Guide for the Mall, Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, and Thomas Jefferson Memorial to assess potential impacts to park resources. The NPS could limit the amount of time a structure may be allowed on turf to a period less than maximum period duration, including for events presented by the NPS, in order to mitigate adverse impacts to the resources identified in the Guide. Upon request, the Regional Director could renew a permit for additional, consecutive periods of 30 days or less. Permittees would be required to submit requests for renewals to the NPS at least 10 days prior to the expiration of an existing permit. This would provide enough time for the NPS to check the availability of the location and issue the permit. Consistent with the applicable resource management policies, the NPS proposes to require events with structures to move to a different location after the expiration of a permit in order to mitigate impacts to resources such as turf and irrigation systems and historic and cultural vistas within the NCR. The NPS could require, in its discretion, events without structures to be moved to a different location if necessary to mitigate the same impacts.

    The proposed change to the maximum permit duration would establish a uniform regulatory scheme for all park areas subject to section 7.96. The 30 day permit duration period would apply to all events, even those that do not have structures. This would simplify the regulatory framework and provide greater clarity to the public about the duration of permits. Reducing the maximum permit duration period from four months to 30 days (plus time needed to setup and breakdown structures) would also create more opportunities for applicants to apply for certain dates and locations within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. The NPS expects the number of permit applications to continue to increase over time. The proposed change in maximum period duration would increase opportunities for a variety of groups and individuals to use the areas within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park for demonstrations and special events.

    Section 7.96(g)(5)(vi)(D) states that any structures used in a demonstration extending beyond the maximum duration of a permit must be capable of being removed upon 24 hours notice and the site restored, or, the structure shall be secured in a fashion so as not to interfere unreasonably with the use of the park area by other permittees. The NPS proposes to remove this paragraph because it would no longer be necessary if the maximum permit duration period is revised to include time for take down of structures. If a structure poses a safety risk during a permitted event, the NPS would have the authority to revoke the portion of the permit allowing for the structure under paragraph (g)(6).

    12. Identify Locations Where Structures May Not Be Used, and Restrict the Height, Weight, Equipment, and Materials of Structures When They Are Permitted During Special Events and Demonstrations Significance of the Viewshed

    The NPS administers some of the most spectacular and historically significant landscapes in the country. Visual characteristics are often central to a park area's management and visitor experience, and visitors consistently identify scenic views as major reason for visiting parks. The National Mall Historic District and the Washington Monument and Grounds Historic District are both listed in the National Register of Historic Places at the national level of significance. The nominations for these Districts emphasize how scenic views and vistas contribute to the significance of these historic properties. These include planned views along the principal north-south and east-west axes of the National Mall, reciprocal views between major memorial sites, extended views along contributing streets and avenues, multidirectional views across component landscapes, and periodic views of resources from circulation routes, among others.

    Pierre Charles L'Enfant developed his 1791 plan for the city of Washington with keen attention to visual relationships among the sites he dedicated to public buildings and monuments. Nowhere was that concept more important than along the National Mall, where views west from the U.S. Capitol and south from the White House intersected at a proposed equestrian statue of George Washington. The primary vista west from the U.S. Capitol along L'Enfant's “Grand Avenue” to the site for a proposed equestrian statue of George Washington intersected with views south from the White House. L'Enfant's planned views also extended beyond the statue to the Potomac River. The L'Enfant Plan is itself listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

    The McMillan (Senate Park) Commission Plan of 1901-02 also focused on visual relationships, adapting L'Enfant's visual corridor as the basis for their planning for the Mall and advancing it to take in new memorial sites. The McMillan Commission conceived of sites ultimately occupied by the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson Memorials as the termination of principal views from the U.S. Capitol and the White House, respectively—creating the great cross axis of today's National Mall. The McMillan Plan also established a setback for new buildings to ensure that views along the east-west axis remained unimpeded, and subsequent development honored the National Mall's principal views.

    The construction of the Washington Monument itself established significant new views across the Mall, the city of Washington, and the developing region, and became the focus of important views from beyond the Mall. Other significant views were established as the landscape developed and incorporated into the principal view sheds or developed as new monuments, memorials, and buildings were constructed.

    Congress has recognized the significance of the viewshed within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. The Commemorative Works Act of 1986 (CWA) prohibits the construction of commemorative works within an areas designated as the “Reserve” unless they are approved by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission. The “Reserve includes the great cross-axis of the National Mall, extending from the United States Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and from the White House to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. In 2003, Congress amended the CWA and stated as one of its findings that the Reserve “is a substantially completed work of civic art” and that its integrity should be preserved.

    In 2018, the NPS conducted a visual impact analysis to assess the visual impacts of structures in various locations within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. The purpose of the study was to better understand the impact of structures associated with demonstrations and events have upon the historical and significant viewshed within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park. Visual impacts were assessed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and were depicted in both map form (viewshed analysis) and ground-level scenes (3D visualizations) that included a simple block, virtual structure at specified locations and standing heights. The viewshed analysis was used to demonstrate on maps certain visitor view points from which a proposed structure may be seen. The 3D visualizations simulated potential observable, actual surroundings with a proposed structure included. The goal of the visual impact analysis was to better understand how structures associated with demonstrations and special events within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park could adversely impact the historic and cultural viewshed. The NPS made the following key conclusions from the study:

    • The map analysis reinforces the linear (north-south and east-west) nature of the dominant views within and through the National Mall.

    • The map analysis demonstrates how topography and vegetation influence visibility.

    • There is a limited correlation between visual impacts and selected viewing points and structure points.

    • Viewable area maps reveal local versus broad/diffuse impacts to views.

    • Analysis reveals that structures close to memorials and within primary view corridors detract from the visitor experience and alter the perception of the historically significant characteristics of the landscapes of the National Mall and President's Park.

    • Structures set back from major Memorials and substantially offset from primary views and vistas are less disruptive to the characteristics that make the National Mall and individual memorials significant.

    The study suggests that locations that are especially vulnerable to impacts from the introduction of structures include (1) locations in close proximity to major monuments and memorials; (2) locations directly aligned with either of the two primary east-west and north-south axes; and (3) elevated and open locations. The study suggests that there are a number of potential structure locations that would result in only limited localized impacts. These include (1) the area south of the Reflecting Pool and its associated elm walks; (2) select locations within Constitution Gardens; and (3) the quadrants of the Ellipse outside of the 150-foot north-south vista between the White House and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. The proposed height restrictions for structures in this rule are based upon the NPS's evaluation of the visual impact analysis and are intended to allow the public to use these open forums in a manner that mitigates impacts to the significant viewsheds.

    Proposed Height Restrictions

    Section 7.96(g)(5)(vi) contains limitations regarding the use of structures in connection with permitted demonstrations and special events. As discussed above, the NPS proposes to require a permit in order to erect structures, other than small lecterns or speakers' platforms that would be allowed without a permit in most locations, during any demonstration or special event—even if those demonstrations would not otherwise require a permit because of their small size.

    The NPS also proposes to establish areas where structures would not be allowed and other areas where structures would be allowed but subject to maximum height restrictions. These proposed restrictions are based upon an evaluation of the visual impact analysis explained above. This evaluation and the visual impact analysis are available online at https://home.nps.gov/nama/learn/management/index.htm. A table explaining the proposed restrictions and a map identifying the restricted areas are found in the proposed rule. This table relates solely to the use of structures at locations and times where events may be permitted under section 7.96. Structures are not allowed at any location if the requested event is not allowed at that location.

    In addition to the restrictions in the table, the rule would prohibit the use of structures within the drip line of any tree located in Lafayette Park or the Ellipse. This restriction is a long-standing administrative practice of the NPS and is designed to protect the trees in these locations, which have cultural and historic value. The drip line of a tree indicates the outer extent of the tree root system.

    The Turf Resource at the National Mall and Memorial Parks

    On January 24, 2013, Secretary of the Interior Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3326, “Management and Protection of the National Mall and its Historic Landscape.” Order 3326 recognizes the National Mall as one of the most important landscapes in the United States and acknowledges that it experiences extreme and increasing levels of use. The Order sets forth a strategy for maintaining sustainable use of the National Mall in lights of the volume of requests to use this area. Part of this strategy prioritizes (1) increasing non-turf areas to better accommodate the use of temporary structures for appropriate permitted activities; (2) developing a professional turf management staff to identify and implement best practices for turf management and to develop permits that take those turf management concerns into consideration; and (3) updating permit conditions to require the use of best practices that ensure resource protection by addressing permit conditions for the expected level of attendance, duration of events, use of turf areas, the size and layout of temporary structures, and the location of structures on durable non-turf areas.

    As part of the NPS's implementation of the Order, the NPS completed a Turf Management and Event Operations Guide for the Mall, Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, and Thomas Jefferson Memorial in 2015. This Guide is used by the NPS when it considers the potential impacts of tents or temporary structures on turf areas within the National Mall and Memorial Parks. The Guide identifies non-turf areas such as walkways and hardscape panels as the preferred location for events of all types, particularly events using structures. The Guide allows the NPS to permit structures on turf panels, but subject to limitations stated in the Guide to protect the turf and promote public safety. Limitations include restrictions about duration, weight, equipment (e.g. stakes), and materials used for structures. The NPS consults the Guide and implements appropriate limitations on structures in the conditions of a permit.

    Existing NPS regulations in section 7.96(g)(5)(vi)(C) allow the Regional Director to impose reasonable restrictions upon the use of temporary structures in the interest of protecting the park areas involved, traffic and public safety considerations, and other legitimate park value concerns. In order to provide more clarity to the public about the types of restrictions that may be imposed, the proposed rule would state that these restrictions may include permit conditions regarding structures that are consistent with the turf management and event operations guidance related to duration, weight, equipment, and materials used.

    13. Apply Existing Sign Restrictions (e.g. Supports, Dimensions) in President's Park to Other Locations Within the National Mall and Memorial Parks and President's Park

    Sections 7.96(g)(5)(vii) and (ix) contain restrictions on the use of signs or placards on the White House Sidewalk and in Lafayette Park. These restrictions promote public safety, help secure sensitive locations, and mitigate adverse impacts to cultural and historical resources. The NPS proposes to apply these restrictions to events that plan to move from any location that is subject to the regulations in this section 7.96 to the White House Sidewalk or Lafayette Park, and events that plan to move or do in fact move from the White House Sidewalk or Lafayette Park to another location that is subject to the regulations in this section 7.96, even when those events are located outside of the White House Sidewalk or Lafayette Park. Applying these restrictions outside of the White House sidewalk and Lafayette Park in these circumstances would create a more uniform regulatory scheme for the public that will promote public safety and simplify event planning. People participating in demonstrations often begin in one park area where their signs are compliant with existing regulations and then move onto the White House sidewalk or into Lafayette Park where their signs are no longer compliant. This often results in negative interactions with law enforcement, who are then required to enforce regulations that were not applicable earlier in the event. These restrictions would apply to all groups participating in a demonstration or special event, including those who are not required to obtain a permit based upon their group size and/or location.

    14. Minor Changes to 36 CFR 7.96

    This rule would make a minor change to paragraph (e) in Section 7.96 to clarify the circumstances under which bathing, swimming, or wading is allowed. This provision clarifies that bathing, swimming, or wading in any fountain, pool, the Tidal Basin, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Rock Creek, or Constitution Gardens Pond is prohibited except where officially authorized or for the purpose of saving a drowning person. This rule would replace all references to the “Jefferson Memorial” in section 7.96 with the phrase “Thomas Jefferson Memorial” which is the actual name of the memorial. This rule would reorganize the defined terms in section 7.96(g)(1) in alphabetical order and remove the paragraph designations (i) through (x), in conformance with the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook.

    Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 13771)

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on information contained in a report entitled “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park System, National Capital Region, Special Events and Demonstrations” that is available online at https://home.nps.gov/nama/learn/management/index.htm.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the SBREFA. This rule:

    (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule will not result in direct expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments. This rule addresses public use of NPS lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. This rule does not regulate uses of private property. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of NPS-administered lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with NPS Special Park Use Permits and has assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0021 (expires 08/31/20). 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.

    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

    The NPS does not expect this rule to constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The NPS does not expect that a detailed statement under the NEPA would be required because the rule would likely be covered by a categorical exclusion. Categorical exclusion A.8 of Section 3.3 of the National Park Service NEPA Handbook (2015) would likely apply because the rule would modify an existing regulation in a manner that does not “increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area or causing physical damage to it, introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it, conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses, or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.” The NPS also expects that the rule would not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    Clarity of This Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7

    District of Columbia, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as follows:

    PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 10-137 and D.C. Code 50-2201.07.

    2. Amend § 7.96 by: a. Removing the phrase “Jefferson Memorial” where it appears and adding, in its place, the phrase “Thomas Jefferson Memorial”. b. Revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (g)(1), (g)(2) introductory text, (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii) introductory text, (g)(3)(ii)(A) through C), (g)(3)(ii)(E) through (H), (g)(4)(i), (g)(4)(iv). c. Removing and reserving paragraph (g)(4)(v). d. Revising paragraphs (g)(4)(vi), (g)(4)(vii) introductory text, (g)(4)(vii)(A) and (B), (g)(5), and (g)(6).

    The revisions to read as follows:

    § 7.96 National Capital Region.

    (a) Applicability of regulations. (1) This section applies to all park areas administered by the National Park Service located in the District of Columbia, the portion of the George Washington Memorial Parkway located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the portion of the National Capital Parks-East located in the State of Maryland, the portion of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park located in Montgomery County, and to other federal reservations in the environs of the District of Columbia, policed with the approval or concurrence of the head of the agency having jurisdiction or control over such reservations, pursuant to the provisions of the act of March 17, 1948 (62 Stat. 81).

    (2) Paragraph (e) of this section also applies to the portion of Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park located in Maryland outside of Montgomery County.

    (e) Bathing, Swimming, Wading—(1) Bathing, swimming, or wading in the following locations, except where officially authorized or for the purpose of saving a drowning person, is prohibited: Any fountain or pool, the Tidal Basin, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Rock Creek, and Constitution Gardens Pond.

    (2) Entering the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, the Washington Channel, or the Georgetown Channel from any park area identified in paragraph (a) of this section, except for the purpose of saving a drowning person, is prohibited.

    (g) Demonstrations and special events—(1) Definitions.

    Attended means that a responsible individual remains within three feet of an object.

    Demonstration has the meaning given in § 2.51(a) of this chapter.

    Ellipse means the park areas, including sidewalks adjacent thereto, within these bounds: On the south, Constitution Avenue NW; on the north, E Street NW; on the west, 17th Street NW; and on the east, 15th Street NW.

    Event means a demonstration or special event, including events presented by the National Park Service. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers.

    Korean War Veterans Memorial means the area within the plaza's exterior sidewalks.

    Lafayette Park means the park areas, including sidewalks adjacent thereto, within these bounds: On the south, Pennsylvania Avenue NW; on the north, H Street NW; on the east, Madison Place NW; and on the west, Jackson Place NW.

    Lincoln Memorial means that portion of the park area which is on the same level or above the base of the large marble columns surrounding the structure, and the single series of marble stairs immediately adjacent to and below that level.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial means most of the interior plaza facing the Inscription Wall, Mountain of Despair and Stone of Hope.

    National celebration event means an annual recurring special event regularly scheduled by the National Capital Region, which are listed in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section.

    Other park areas means all areas, including sidewalks adjacent thereto, other than the White House area, administered by the National Capital Region.

    Regional Director means the official in charge of the National Capital Region, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, or an authorized representative thereof.

    Special event means the activities listed in section 2.50(a) of this chapter before the text “are allowed . . . ”.

    Structure means:

    (i) Except as discussed in paragraph (ii) of this definition, a structure is any object that is not intended to be carried by permittees including, but not limited to:

    (A) Props and displays, such as coffins, crates, crosses, theaters, cages, and statues;

    (B) Furniture and furnishings, such as desks, chairs, tables, bookcases, cabinets, platforms, podiums, and lecterns;

    (C) Shelters, such as tents, boxes, trailers, and other enclosures;

    (D) Wagons and carts;

    (E) Jumbotrons, light towers, delay towers, portable restrooms, mobile stages; and

    (F) All other similar types of property that may tend to harm park resources, including aesthetic interests.

    (ii) It does not include hand-carried signs; bicycles, baby carriages and baby strollers lawfully in a park area that are temporarily placed in, or are being moved across, the park area, and that are attended at all times while in the park area; and wheelchairs and other devices in use by individuals with a disability.

    Thomas Jefferson Memorial means the circular portion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial enclosed by the outermost series of columns, and all portions on the same levels or above the base of these columns.

    Vietnam Veterans Memorial means the East and West Walls, Three Servicemen Statue, Vietnam Veterans Women's Memorial, Agent Orange Plaque and adjacent areas extending to and bounded by the furthermost curved pedestrian walkways on the north, west, and south, and a line drawn perpendicular to Constitution Avenue one hundred seventy-five (175) feet from the east tip of the memorial wall on the east (this is also a line extended from the east side of the western concrete border of the steps to the west of the center steps to the Federal Reserve Building extending to the Reflecting Pool walkway).

    Washington Monument and Plaza means the granite plaza from the circle of flags to the Monument and its interior.

    White House area means all park areas, including sidewalks adjacent thereto, within these bounds; on the south, Constitution Avenue NW; on the north, H Street NW; on the east, 15th Street, NW; and on the west, 17th Street NW.

    White House sidewalk means the south sidewalk of Pennsylvania Avenue NW, between East and West Executive Avenues NW.

    World War II Memorial Freedom Wall Plaza means the area from the Field of Stars to the Rainbow Pool.

    (2) Permit requirements. Events may be held only pursuant to a permit issued in accordance with the provisions of this section. The following exceptions apply unless the demonstration involves the use of a structure, other than small lecterns or speakers' platforms that are no larger than three (3) feet in length, three (3) feet in width, and three (3) feet in height, in which case a permit is required:

    (3) Permit applications. Permit applications may be obtained at the Division of Permits Management, National Mall and Memorial Parks, or online at www.nps.gov/nama. Applicants shall submit permit applications in writing on a form provided by the National Park Service so as to be received by the Regional Director at the Division of Permits Management at least 48 business hours in advance of any proposed event. Notwithstanding the 48-business hours requirement, the Regional Director will reasonably seek to accommodate spontaneous demonstrations, subject to all limitations and restrictions applicable to the requested location, provided such demonstrations do not include structures and provided the NPS has the resources and personnel available to manage the activity. The Regional Director will accept permit applications only during the hours of 8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted.

    (i) White House area. No permit may be issued authorizing demonstrations in the White House area, except for locations at the White House sidewalk, Lafayette Park and the Ellipse that are not closed to public access under paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A)-(D) of this section. No permit may be issued authorizing special events, except for locations at the Ellipse and except for annual commemorative wreath-laying ceremonies relating to the statues in Lafayette Park that are not closed to public access under paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A)-(D) of this section.

    (A) Public access is not allowed on the north and east exterior portions of First Division Memorial Park, including West Executive Avenue and State Place NW with adjacent roadways and sidewalks: from northwest corner of State Place and 17th Street NW; to include all areas of West Executive Avenue along the South fence Line of the White House Complex and across E Street, NW; to include the south sidewalk adjacent to the First Division Memorial Park; and all of E Street NW, from 17th Street NW east to the pedestrian walkway through First Division Memorial Park, except that the pedestrian walkway through First Division Memorial Park and the north sidewalk of E Street NW to the west pedestrian crosswalk on E Street NW will be accessible to pedestrians, unless protective measures or special events dictate otherwise.

    (B) Public access is not allowed on the north, south, and west exterior portions of the William T. Sherman Monument and Park, including East Executive Avenue and Alexander Hamilton Place NW, with adjacent roadways and sidewalks: From northeast corner of the park at Alexander Hamilton Place and 15th Street NW, running west on Alexander Hamilton Place NW to East Executive Avenue NW; to include all of Alexander Hamilton Place NW with adjacent north and south sidewalks; from southwest corner of E Street NW and East Executive Avenue NW running to the corner of E and 15th Streets NW; to include all of E Street NW, with the adjacent north sidewalk; from northwest comer of the park at Alexander Hamilton Place and East Executive Avenue NW running to the southwest comer of East Executive Avenue NW and across E Street NW; this includes all areas of East Executive Avenue along the south fence line and across E Street to the east pedestrian crosswalk. Notwithstanding the preceding closures, the center monument area and the sole pedestrian walkway between the northeast and southwest corners of the park and the north sidewalk of E Street NW to the east pedestrian crosswalk on E Street NW will be accessible to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., unless protective measures or special events dictate otherwise.

    (C) Public access is not allowed on E Street NW from the west crosswalk just east of West Executive Avenue NW to the east crosswalk just west East Executive Avenue NW, including the sidewalk and all areas adjacent to the South Fence Line of the White House Complex.

    (D) Public access is not allowed on the south sidewalk of Pennsylvania Avenue NW, adjacent to the North Fence Line of the White House Complex, from the security post located just north of West Executive Avenue NW to the security post located just north of East Executive Avenue NW. The area of sidewalk to be closed shall consist of a twenty (20′) foot portion of the sidewalk, extending out from the North Fence Line, leaving a five (5′) foot portion of the sidewalk for pedestrian access.

    (E) The closures described in paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A)-(D) of this section are identified in the following map and as further delineated with fencing in the park areas themselves. Exceptions for the pedestrian walkway at First Division Memorial Park and the center monument area and pedestrian walkway at William T. Sherman Monument and Park are not displayed in the map because they are subject to closure at any time for protective measures or special events.

    BILLING CODE 4312-52-P EP15AU18.004

    (ii) Other park areas. Events are not allowed in the following other park areas:

    (A) The Washington Monument and Plaza, except for the official annual commemorative Washington birthday ceremony.

    (B) The Lincoln Memorial, except for the official annual commemorative Lincoln birthday ceremony.

    (C) The Thomas Jefferson Memorial, except for the official annual commemorative Thomas Jefferson birthday ceremony.

    (E) The World War II Memorial Freedom Wall Plaza, except for official annual commemorative ceremonies on Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Pearl Harbor Day, Victory over Europe Day, and Victory over Japan Day.

    (F) The Korean War Veterans Memorial, except for official annual commemorative ceremonies on Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Invasion Day, and Armistice Day.

    (G) The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, except for the Forecourt area and except for official annual commemorative ceremonies for Dr. King's birthday and death, and the March On Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

    (H) Maps of the restricted areas designated in this paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section are as follows. The diagonal-lined portions of the maps show the areas where events are prohibited unless specifically excepted by this rule.

    EP15AU18.005 EP15AU18.006 EP15AU18.007 EP15AU18.008 EP15AU18.009 EP15AU18.010 BILLING CODE 4312-52-C

    (4) Permit processing. (i) NPS processes permit applications for events in order of receipt, subject to the exceptions for priority use in paragraphs (g)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section. The use of a particular area is allocated in order of receipt of the permit application. NPS will not accept applications more than one year in advance of a proposed event (including set-up time, if any). NPS will categorize permit applications in one of three ways: Approved, Provisionally Reserved, or Denied. Permit applications for demonstrations that are not acted on in the manner described above within three business days from the date of receipt by the NPS are approved, except those seeking waiver of numerical limitations applicable to Lafayette Park (paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section). NPS will consider an application to be received if it contains the following basic information about the proposed event: Location, purpose and plan for the event, time and date, estimated number of participants, and contact information. For purposes of this paragraph, NPS will have acted upon a permit application as of the time and date an electronic communication is sent to the applicant.

    (A) Approved permit applications. If the NPS is able to accommodate the requested event without receiving additional information, it will notify the applicant that the application is approved. Within a reasonable time after the initial notice of approval, the NPS will send a permit to the applicant for the requested event. The permit may contain conditions reasonably consistent with the requirements of public health and safety, protection of park resources, and the use of the park area. The permit may also contain reasonable limitations on the structures and equipment used and the time and area where the event is allowed. The NPS may revoke a permit only for the reasons stated in paragraph (g)(6) of this section.

    (B) Provisionally reserved permit applications. The NPS may notify the applicant that the NPS has reserved the requested location, date, and time, but that it will not approve the application and issue a permit until it receives additional information. During this approval stage, the NPS will work diligently to resolve all outstanding questions in order to determine whether the request can be approved or denied. If the NPS receives an application more than 60 days prior to the requested event, the NPS will provide the applicant with an initial, comprehensive list of outstanding issues and requested information no later than 40 days prior to the requested event. The NPS will make all reasonable efforts to approve or deny a permit application at least 30 days in advance of a requested event. Permit applicants must provide the NPS with all requested information before the NPS will approve or deny an application.

    (C) Denied permit application. The NPS will notify the applicant in writing if it is unable to accommodate the requested event. This notice will state that the applicant may inform the NPS that it would consider modifying its application for the requested event. If the NPS receives notice from the applicant that it is willing to modify its application, the NPS will work with the applicant to modify the application in a manner that it could be approved or provisionally reserved. If the applicant and the NPS cannot agree on modifications to the application that would allow it to be approved or provisionally reserved, or if the applicant does not inform the NPS that it is willing to modify its application with enough advance notice prior to the event, then the NPS will notify the applicant in writing that the application has been denied.

    (iv) Other events are permitted in park areas under permit for the National Celebration Events listed in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section to the extent that they do not significantly interfere with the National Celebration Events.

    (v) [Reserved]

    (vi) The Regional Director may issue permits for a maximum duration of 30 days. For an event that includes structures, the Regional Director may extend the maximum permit duration by an amount of time that may be needed for setup and breakdown of the structures. Upon request, the Regional Director may renew a permit for additional, consecutive periods of 30 days or less. Requests for renewals must be submitted to the NPS at least 10 days prior to the expiration of an existing permit. The Regional Director may deny a request for a permit renewal if another applicant has requested use of the same location and the location cannot reasonably accommodate multiple occupancy. As a condition of renewing a permit, the Regional Director shall require events with structures to move to a different location. The Regional Director may require events without structures to be moved to a different location if necessary to protect park resources and values.

    (vii) A permit for an event may be denied in writing by the Regional Director upon the following grounds:

    (A) A fully executed prior application for the same time and place has been received, and a permit has been or will be granted authorizing activities which do not reasonably permit multiple occupancy of the particular area.

    (B) The proposed event will present a clear and present danger to the public health and safety.

    (5) Permit limitations. The issuance of a permit is subject to the following limitations:

    (i) The Regional Director may restrict events on weekdays (except holidays) between the hours of 7:00 to 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:30 p.m. if it reasonably appears necessary to avoid unreasonable interference with rush-hour traffic.

    (ii) Special events are not permitted unless approved by the Regional Director. In determining whether to approve a proposed special event, the Regional Director will consider and base the determination upon the criteria in § 2.50(a)(1)-(6) of this chapter and the following criteria:

    (A) Whether the objectives and purposes of the proposed special event relate to and are within the basic mission and responsibilities of the National Capital Region, National Park Service.

    (B) Whether the park area requested is reasonably suited in terms of accessibility, size, and nature of the proposed special event.

    (iii) Prior notice must be provided to the Regional Director before erecting any structure. Structures are allowed in connection with permitted events for the purpose of symbolizing a message or meeting logistical needs such as first aid facilities, lost children areas, or the provision of shelter for electrical and other sensitive equipment or displays, provided that:

    (A) Structures are subject to the restrictions listed in the table below. Maps of the restricted areas follow the table.

    Structure Restrictions Map area Location Restriction Exceptions A Lincoln Memorial Structures are prohibited Podiums, tables, chairs, lighting and sound equipment. B Elm Trees Panels—3rd Street to 14th Street Structures are prohibited None. C Reflecting Pool and Walks on North and South Structures are prohibited Telecommunications equipment. D Constitution Gardens—West Structures may not exceed 15 feet in height None. E Constitution Gardens—East Structures may not exceed 30 feet in height and may not disrupt the viewshed from Virginia Ave NW to the Washington Monument None. F World War II Memorial Structures are prohibited Podiums, tables, chairs, sound equipment, and shade tents. G JFK Hockey Fields Structures may not exceed 45 feet in height None. H Ellipse Structures may not exceed 30 feet in height Stages, bleachers, and telecommunications equipment during the National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony may exceed 30 feet in height. I Washington Monument—Security Perimeter Structures are prohibited None. J Washington Monument Grounds—Central Panel West Structures are prohibited None. K Washington Monument Grounds—Northwest and Northeast Corners Structures may not exceed 30 feet in height None. L Washington Monument Grounds—First Tier Outside Restricted Area Structures may not exceed 20 feet in height None. M North-South 150-foot-wide Corridor Structures are prohibited None. N East of Washington Monument Grounds—Central East Structures may not exceed 20 feet in height None. O National Mall—3rd St. to 14th St. and Hardscape Between Elm Tree Panels Structures may not exceed 30 feet in height No height restriction for telecommunications equipment. P Thomas Jefferson Memorial Structures are prohibited Podiums, chairs, and sound equipment. Q Thomas Jefferson Memorial—East and West Precincts Structures may not exceed 30 feet in height None. R Tidal Basin Structures may not exceed 20 feet in height None. S Independence Ave. Staging Area Structures may not exceed 30 feet in height None. T Virginia Ave. (View to Washington Monument) Structures are prohibited None. U Polo Fields—near Ohio Drive Structures may not exceed 40 feet in height None. V Polo Fields—near West Basin Drive Structures may not exceed 30 feet in height None. W Ohio Drive—Ballfields between West Basin Drive and Inlet Bridge Structures may not exceed 30 feet in height None. X Ohio Drive—Ballfield near National Mall and Memorial Park Headquarters Structures may not exceed 45 feet in height None. Y Recreation Field South of Washington Monument; West of Holocaust Museum Structures may not exceed 35 feet in height None. Z Hains Point—Southernmost Point within East Potomac Park Structures may not exceed 45 feet in height None. EP15AU18.011 EP15AU18.012

    (B) All such structures shall be erected in such a manner so as not to harm park resources unreasonably and shall be removed as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the permitted event.

    (C) The Regional Director may impose reasonable restrictions upon the use of structures in the interest of protecting the park areas involved, traffic and public safety considerations, and other legitimate park value concerns. These restrictions may include limitations consistent with turf management and event operations guidance related to duration, weight, equipment, and materials used.

    (D) Structures may not be used outside designated camping areas for living accommodation activities such as sleeping, or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping), or storing personal belongings, or making any fire, or doing any digging or earth breaking or carrying on cooking activities. The above-listed activities constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that the participants, in conducting these activities, are in fact using the area as a living accommodation regardless of the intent of the participants or the nature of any other activities in which they may also be engaging.

    (E) Individuals or groups of 25 persons or fewer demonstrating under the small group permit exception of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, or individuals or groups demonstrating under the large group permit exceptions at the five parks designated in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section, are not allowed to use structures other than small lecterns or speakers' platforms, except for Lafayette Park (where only speakers' platforms are allowed in accordance with a permit) and the White House Sidewalk (where no structures are allowed). This provision does not restrict the use of portable signs or banners or preclude such individuals or groups from obtaining a permit in order to erect structures.

    (F) Structures are not permitted within the drip line of trees located within the White House area.

    (iv) Sound amplification equipment is allowed in connection with permitted demonstrations or special events, provided prior notice has been given to the Regional Director, except that the Regional Director reserves the right to limit the sound amplification equipment so that it will not unreasonably disturb nonparticipating persons in, or in the vicinity of, the area.

    (v) Events that plan to move from any location that is subject to the regulations in this section 7.96 to the White House Sidewalk or Lafayette Park, and events that plan to move from the White House Sidewalk or Lafayette Park to another location that is subject to the regulations in this section 7.96, must comply with the restrictions on signs placards set forth in paragraphs (g)(5)(ix)(C) and (g)(5)(x)(C) of this section for the duration of the event, even when it is located outside of the White House Sidewalk or Lafayette Park.

    (vi) A permit may contain additional reasonable conditions and additional time limitations, consistent with this section, in the interest of protecting park resources, the use of nearby areas by other persons, and other legitimate park value concerns.

    (vii) A permit issued under this section does not authorize activities outside of areas administered by the National Park Service. Applicants may also be required to obtain a permit from the District of Columbia or other appropriate governmental entity for demonstrations or special events sought to be conducted either wholly or in part in areas not administered by the National Park Service.

    (viii) The activities contemplated for the proposed event must conform with all applicable laws and regulations.

    (ix) In addition to the general limitations in this paragraph (g)(5), the following restrictions apply to the White House Sidewalk:

    (A) No more than 750 persons are permitted to conduct a demonstration on the White House sidewalk at any one time. The Regional Director may waive the 750 person limitation for the White House Sidewalk upon a showing by the applicant that good faith efforts will be made to plan and marshal the demonstration in such a fashion so as to render unlikely any substantial risk of unreasonable disruption or violence. In making a waiver determination, the Regional Director shall consider and the applicant shall furnish at least ten days in advance of the proposed demonstration, the functions the marshals will perform, the means by which they will be identified, and their method of communication with each other and the crowd. This requirement will be satisfied by completion and submission of the same form referred to in paragraph (g)(3) of this section.

    (B) Structures are not permitted.

    (C) No signs or placards shall be permitted on the White House sidewalk except those made of cardboard, posterboard or cloth having dimensions no greater than three feet in width, twenty feet in length, and one-quarter inch in thickness. No supports shall be permitted for signs or placards except those made of wood having cross-sectional dimensions no greater than three-quarter of an inch by three-quarter of an inch. Stationary signs or placards shall be no closer than three feet from the White House sidewalk fence. All signs and placards shall be attended at all times that they remain on the White House sidewalk. Signs or placards shall be considered to be attended only when they are in physical contact with a person. No signs or placards shall be tied, fastened, or otherwise attached to or leaned against the White House fence, lamp posts or other structures on the White House sidewalk. No signs or placards shall be held, placed or set down on the center portion of the White House sidewalk, comprising ten yards on either side of the center point on the sidewalk; Provided, however, that individuals may demonstrate while carrying signs on that portion of the sidewalk if they continue to move along the sidewalk.

    (D) No parcel, container, package, bundle or other property shall be placed or stored on the White House sidewalk or on the west sidewalk of East Executive Avenue NW, between Pennsylvania Avenue NW, and E Street NW, or on the north sidewalk of E Street NW, between East and West Executive Avenues NW; Provided, however, that such property, except structures, may be momentarily placed or set down in the immediate presence of the owner on those sidewalks.

    (E) Sound amplification equipment may not be used on the White House sidewalk, other than hand-portable sound amplification equipment which the Regional Director determines is necessary for crowd-control purposes.

    (x) In addition to the general limitations in this paragraph (g)(5), the following restrictions apply to Lafayette Park:

    (A) No more than 3,000 persons are permitted to conduct a demonstration in Lafayette Park at any one time. The Regional Director may waive the 3,000 person limitation for Lafayette Park upon a showing by the applicant that good faith efforts will be made to plan and marshal the demonstration in such a fashion so as to render unlikely any substantial risk of unreasonable disruption or violence. In making a waiver determination, the Regional Director shall consider and the applicant shall furnish at least ten days in advance of the proposed demonstration, the functions the marshals will perform, the means by which they will be identified, and their method of communication with each other and the crowd. This requirement will be satisfied by completion and submission of the same form referred to in paragraph (g)(3) of this section.

    (B) The erection, placement or use of structures of any kind are prohibited except for the following:

    (1) When one hundred (100) or more persons are participating in a demonstration in the Park, a speakers' platform as is reasonably required to serve the demonstration participants is allowed as long as such platform is being erected, dismantled or used, provided that only one speakers' platform is allowed per demonstrating group, and provided further that such speakers' platform is authorized by a permit issued pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section.

    (2) When less than one hundred (100) persons are participating in a demonstration in the Park, a “soapbox” speakers' platform is allowed as long as such platform is being erected, dismantled or used, providing that only one speakers' platform is allowed per demonstrating group, and provided further that the speakers' platform is no larger than three (3) feet in length, three (3) feet in width, and three (3) feet in height, and provided further that such speakers' platform is authorized by a permit issued pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section.

    (C) The use of signs is prohibited except for the following:

    (1) Hand-carried signs are allowed regardless of size.

    (2) Signs that are not being hand-carried and that are no larger than four (4) feet in length, four (4) feet in width and one-quarter (1/4) inch in thickness (exclusive of braces that are reasonably required to meet support and safety requirements and that are not used so as to form an enclosure of two (2) or more sides) may be used in Lafayette Park, provided that no individual may have more than two (2) such signs in the Park at any one time, and provided further that such signs must be attended at all times, and provided further that such signs may not be elevated in a manner so as to exceed a height of six (6) feet above the ground at their highest point, may not be arranged or combined in a manner so as to exceed the size limitations set forth in this paragraph, and may not be arranged in such a fashion as to form an enclosure of two (2) or more sides. For example, under this provision, two four-feet by four-feet signs may not be combined so as to create a sign eight feet long and four feet wide, and three such signs may not be arranged to create a sign four feet long and twelve feet wide, and two or more signs of any size may not be leaned or otherwise placed together so as to form an enclosure of two or more sides, etc.

    (xi) No permit will be issued for a demonstration on the White House Sidewalk and in Lafayette Park at the same time except when the organization, group, or other sponsor of such demonstration undertakes in good faith all reasonable action, including the provision of sufficient marshals, to insure good order and self-discipline in conducting such demonstration and any necessary movement of persons, so that the numerical limitations and waiver provisions described in paragraphs (g)(5)(ix) and (x) of this section are observed.

    (xii) In addition to the general limitations in this paragraph (g)(5), sound systems shall be directed away from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial at all times.

    (6) Permit revocation. The Regional Director or the ranking U.S. Park Police supervisory official in charge may revoke a permit or part of a permit for any violation of its terms or conditions, or if the event presents a clear and present danger to the public safety, good order, or health, or for any violation of applicable law or regulation. Any such revocation shall be in writing.

    David L. Bernhardt, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17386 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3010 [Docket No. RM2018-11; Order No. 4750] Mail Preparation Changes AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is initiating a review to determine when a mail preparation change is a rate change. This document informs the public of the docket's initiation, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background III. Request for Comments I. Introduction

    The Commission initiates this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to seek proposals for a standard and process to determine when a mail preparation change is a “changes in rates” under 39 U.S.C. 3622 in accordance with the recent decision in United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (IMb Opinion).

    II. Background

    The Commission continues to maintain that certain mail preparation changes are rate changes, and those changes should be regulated under 39 U.S.C. 3622. As participants in past associated dockets are aware, the issues involved in regulating mail preparation changes as “changes in rates” under 39 U.S.C. 3622 are varied and complex. The process involved in crafting a workable standard for regulating mail preparation changes under the price cap has been difficult and time-consuming. However, this difficulty does not necessarily render the efforts to create a standard futile. Accordingly, the Commission issues this ANPR requesting proposals from commenters for a standard and process to determine when an individual mail preparation change is a “change in rates” under 39 U.S.C. 3622 that is consistent with the recent guidance set forth in the IMb Opinion.

    In Docket No. R2013-10R, the Commission determined that a change to the Intelligent Mail barcoding (IMb) requirements was a rate change requiring compliance with the price cap under 39 U.S.C. 3622.1 The Postal Service appealed the Commission's determination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the Court). In United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 785 F.3d 740, 751 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the Court affirmed the Commission's conclusion that “changes in rates” under 39 U.S.C. 3622 could include changes to mail preparation requirements and were not limited to “only changes to the official posted prices of each product.” However, the Court remanded the matter to the Commission so that it could articulate an intelligible standard to determine when a mail preparation change was a “change in rates” subject to the price cap. Id. at 744.

    1 Docket No. R2013-10, Order on Price Adjustments for Market Dominant Products and Related Mail Classification Changes, November 21, 2013, at 5-35 (Order No. 1890). In this docket, the Commission briefly sets out the relevant history supporting the request for comment. For a complete history of the Commission proceedings leading up to this docket, please see Order No. 1890; Docket No. R2013-10R, Order Resolving Issues on Remand, January 22, 2016 (Order No. 3047); Docket No. R2013-10R, Order Resolving Motion for Reconsideration of Commission Order No. 3047, July 20, 2016 (Order No. 3441).

    In response to the Court's remand, the Commission initiated proceedings to establish a standard to be used for the regulation of mail preparation changes as “changes in rates.” 2 As a result of those proceedings, the Commission issued Order No. 3047, which set forth a standard to determine when a mail preparation change requires compliance with the price cap. The standard established in Order No. 3047 provided that a mail preparation change could have a rate effect when it resulted in the deletion or redefinition of rate cells as set forth by § 3010.23(d)(2).

    2 Docket No. R2013-10R, Order Establishing Procedures on Remand and Requesting Public Comment, July 15, 2015 (Order No. 2586).

    In establishing the standard set forth in Order No. 3047, the Commission used its regulation, § 3010.23(d)(2), to provide the framework. Section 3010.23(d)(2) provides that a classification change will have a rate effect when it results in the introduction, deletion, or redefinition of a rate cell. Under the Commission's rules, the Postal Service must include the effects of those classification changes in its calculation of the percentage change in rates under the price cap. 39 CFR 3010.23(d)(2). The standard in Order No. 3047 defined when a mail preparation change would be considered a classification change with rate effects under § 3010.23(d)(2). The standard set forth that deletion of a rate cell occurs when a mail preparation change caused the elimination of a rate, or the functional equivalent of an elimination of a rate by making the rate cell inaccessible to mailers. Order No. 3047 at 15. The standard defined redefinition of a rate cell to occur when a mail preparation change caused a significant change to a basic characteristic of a mailing, effectively changing the nature of the rate cell. For redefinition, the Commission stated that it would apply a significance analysis to determine at what point on the spectrum a mail preparation change caused a rate cell to be redefined under § 3010.23(d)(2). Id. at 16-17. Using these parameters, when a mail preparation change caused a rate cell to be deleted or redefined, it would constitute a rate change requiring compliance with the price cap.3

    3 In conjunction with Order No. 3047, the Commission initiated a separate rulemaking proceeding to develop a procedural rule that would ensure the Postal Service properly accounted for the rate effects of mail preparation changes in accordance with the Commission's standard articulated in Order No. 3047. Docket No. RM2016-6, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Motions Concerning Mail Preparation Changes, January 22, 2016, at 1-2 (Order No. 3048). The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Motions Concerning Mail Preparation Changes was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2016. See 81 FR 5085 (February 1, 2016). The rulemaking resulted in a final procedural rule concerning mail preparation changes. See Docket No. RM2016-6, Order Adopting Final Procedural Rule for Mail Preparation Changes, at 22-23, January 25, 2018 (Order No. 4393). The Order Adopting Final Procedural Rule for Mail Preparation Changes was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2018. See 83 FR 4585 (March 5, 2018). That rule is being revised as a result of the IMb Opinion.

    After Order No. 3047 was issued, the Postal Service requested the Commission reconsider its decision.4 In response, the Commission issued Order No. 3441 resolving the Postal Service's request for reconsideration and maintaining the standard as articulated in Order No. 3047. The Postal Service then petitioned the Court for review of the revised standard set forth in Order Nos. 3047 and 3441.5

    4 Docket No. R2013-10R, Motion for Reconsideration of Order No. 3047, February 22, 2016.

    5 Petition for Review, United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

    The Court issued its decision and vacated the Commission's standard in Order Nos. 3047 and 3441. IMb Opinion at 1255. In its decision, the Court concluded that the Commission's standard to determine when a mail preparation change was a rate change rested on an unreasonable interpretation of “changes in rates” under 39 U.S.C. 3622 that went beyond the meaning of the statute. Id.

    In its opinion, the Court referred to its previous decision in 2015 to remand the matter to the Commission, stating that this decision “laid down a marker for what might qualify as rates and `changes in rates.' Time and again [it] tied `rates' to payments by mailers to the Postal Service, and `changes in rates' to changes in those payments.” Id. at 1256. The Court explained that its 2015 decision affirmed the Commission's authority to regulate changes in posted prices and changes in mail preparation requirements because both could cause a change in rates paid by the mailer. Id. However, the Court vacated the Commission's standard set forth in Order No. 3047 because it viewed the standard as improperly regulating changes to mailers' costs as opposed to the price mailers pay. The Court stated that the standard cannot look “solely to mailer costs . . . without comparing those costs to the additional payment a mailer would avoid by making the mail preparation change” in order to predict whether mailers will pay a higher rate. Id. at 1260 (emphasis in original).

    Although the Court's IMb Opinion vacated the standard set forth by the Commission, it did not abrogate the Commission's authority to regulate mail preparation as “changes in rates” under the statute. Rather, the Court disagreed with the Commission's approach and found that the Commission's standard did not answer the question of whether a change to a mail preparation change would cause a mailer to pay a higher rate. The Court did not endorse any particular method to determine when a mail preparation change is a “change in rates” under 39 U.S.C. 3622, but provided its views on approaches that could potentially conform to the statute.

    In order to find that a mail preparation change is a rate change under 39 U.S.C. 3622, the Court indicated that the standard should be able to “single out mail preparation changes that induce mailers to shift to a higher-priced service.” Id. at 1259. The Court suggested that the Commission could have “tried to integrate mail preparation requirements into its authority over `changes in rates' with the following argument: Where an increase in mail preparation requirements for one cell will drive mailers to use a higher-priced cell, the resulting increase in volume in the latter should count against the rate cap.” IMb Opinion at 1256 (emphasis in original). The Court qualified this opinion by stating that it identified “this approach not in order to offer any final judgment on it but to indicate how treating a change in mail preparation requirements as a rate change might, as a matter of arithmetic, be integrated with the Commission's system of volumetric assessment.” Id.

    As suggested by the Court, the standard must look to predict mailer behavior in response to the mail preparation change in order to “single out mail preparation changes that induce mailers to shift to a higher-priced service.” Id. at 1259. To do so, the Court indicated that the Commission would have to compare mailers' compliance costs with the offsetting rate benefit in order to determine whether mailers would be driven to a higher rate cell and pay a higher rate. Id. at 1260. The Court acknowledged the complexity of this potential approach, especially where the mailer “costs (however estimated) would have to be compared with a benchmark—the rate increment faced by mailers—that would be quite precise.” Id.

    In response to the IMb Opinion, the Commission is continuing to explore whether a workable standard can be developed in order to determine when a mail preparation change is a rate change. The Commission seeks comment on the possibility of crafting a standard that would not only comport with the Court's decision but also be workable in the context of the Commission's proceedings.

    III. Request for Comments

    The Commission requests comments from interested parties to propose a standard and process to determine when a mail preparation change is a rate change under 39 U.S.C. 3622 that comports with the IMb Opinion. In proposing a new standard, commenters should respond to the parameters and guidance set forth by the Court in the recent IMb Opinion and explain how the suggested standard is consistent with those parameters. Specifically, commenters should propose a standard that could be used to predict “possible mailer migration to higher-priced products” to determine when a mail preparation change results in a “change in rates” under 39 U.S.C. 3622. In addition to comments proposing a standard in line with the IMb Opinion, commenters should propose a practical process for the Commission to determine and resolve disputes over whether a mail preparation change is a rate change.

    In creating a new docket for this proceeding, the Commission acknowledges that although the issue before the Commission centered on the Postal Service's change to the IMb requirements in Docket No. R2013-10, the standard eventually adopted by the Commission will apply to all future mail preparation changes. The Commission appreciates the complex nature of this issue and the input provided by commenters in previous attempts to establish a workable standard to regulate mail preparation changes as rate changes.

    Initial comments are due no later than 60 days after the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register. After reviewing the initial comments, the Commission will decide if reply comments are necessary. Commission rules require that comments (including reply comments) be filed online according to the process outlined at 39 CFR 3001.9(a), unless a waiver is obtained. Additional information regarding how to submit comments online can be found at: http://www.prc.gov/how-to-participate. All comments accepted will be made available on the Commission's website, http://www.prc.gov.

    Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    It is ordered:

    1. Interested persons may submit initial comments no later than 60 days from the date of the publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

    3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17498 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0700; FRL-9982-28—Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Attainment Plan for Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute SO2 Nonattainment Areas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision an Indiana submission to EPA dated October 2, 2015. The submission addresses attainment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Indianapolis (Marion County), Southwest Indiana (Daviess and Pike Counties), and Terre Haute (Vigo County) areas. Indiana also submitted a SIP revision request for the Morgan County area. In this proposed action, EPA is not addressing the Morgan County portion of the SIP revision request, and will address it separately in a future action. This plan (herein called a “nonattainment plan”) includes Indiana's attainment demonstration and other elements required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment demonstration, the nonattainment plan addresses the requirement for meeting reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), base-year and projection-year emission inventories, enforceable emissions limitations and control measures, and contingency measures. EPA proposes to conclude that Indiana has appropriately demonstrated that the plan provisions provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute areas by the applicable attainment date and that the plan meets the other applicable requirements under the CAA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0700 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:

    Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3901, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    Table of Contents I. Why was Indiana required to submit an SO2 plan for Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute? II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans III. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations and Longer-Term Averaging IV. Review of Indiana's Modeled Attainment Plans A. Model Selection B. Meteorological Data C. Emissions Data D. Emission Limits 1. Enforceability 2. Longer Term Average Limits E. Background Concentrations F. Comments Made During State Rulemaking G. Summary of Results V. Review of Other Plan Requirements A. Emissions Inventory B. RACM/RACT C. New Source Review (NSR) D. RFP E. Contingency Measures VI. EPA's Proposed Action VII. Incorporation by Reference VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Why was Indiana required to submit an SO2 plan for Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute?

    On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5, 2013, EPA designated a first set of 29 areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the Indianapolis (Marion County), Morgan County, Southwest Indiana (Daviess and Pike Counties), and Terre Haute (Vigo County) areas within Indiana. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area designations were effective October 4, 2013. Section 191(a) of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs for areas designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no later than April 4, 2015 in this case. Under CAA section 192(a), the states are required to demonstrate that their respective areas will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of designation, which is October 4, 2018.

    In response to the requirement for SO2 nonattainment plan submittals, Indiana submitted nonattainment plans for the Indianapolis, Morgan County, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute areas on October 2, 2015. EPA will address the Morgan County portion of the submittal in a future action. The remainder of this preamble describes the requirements that such plans must meet in order to obtain EPA approval, provides a review of the state's plans with respect to these requirements, and describes EPA's proposed action on the plans.

    II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans

    Nonattainment SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192. EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a document entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for SIP control strategies. Id., at 57 FR 13545-13549, 13567-13568. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs submitted under the 2010 NAAQS, in a document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,” available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. In this guidance EPA described the statutory requirements for a complete nonattainment area SO2 SIP, which includes: An accurate emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area; an attainment demonstration; demonstration of RFP; implementation of RACM (including RACT); new source review (NSR); enforceable emissions limitations and control measures; and adequate contingency measures for the affected area. A synopsis of these requirements is also provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the Illinois SO2 nonattainment plans, published on October 5, 2017 at 82 FR 46434.

    In order for EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192 and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, EPA may not approve a SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement, and no requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

    III. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations and Longer-Term Averaging

    CAA sections 172(c)(1), 172(c)(6) and 192(a) direct states with SO2 areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. General Preamble, at 13567-68. SO2 attainment plans must consist of two components: (1) Emission limits and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis which meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W which demonstrates that these emission limits and control measures provide for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the attainment date for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limits and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective emission limits and control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable (source specific limits must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).

    EPA's April 2014 guidance recommends that the emission limits be expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See 2014 guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance recommends that—should states and sources utilize longer averaging times—the longer-term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise would have set.

    The April 2014 guidance provides an extensive discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, EPA considered the nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact of use of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the standard, and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among the various factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a state's plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22 to 39. See also id. at Appendices B, C, and D.

    As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion. In a year with 365 days of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including this form of determining compliance with the standard, was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single hourly exceedance of the 75 ppb level does not create a violation of the standard. Instead, at issue is whether a source operating in compliance with a properly set longer term average could cause hourly exceedances, and if so the resulting frequency and magnitude of such exceedances, and in particular whether EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly set longer term average limit will provide that the three-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum hourly value will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of how EPA judges whether such plans “provide for attainment,” based on modeling of projected allowable emissions and in light of the NAAQS' form for determining attainment at monitoring sites, follows.

    For plans for SO2 based on 1-hour emission limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed emission rates. The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to result in attainment (i.e., in an “average year” 1 shows three, not four days with maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the “critical emission value.” The modeling process for identifying this critical emissions value inherently considers the numerous variables that affect ambient concentrations of SO2, such as meteorological data, background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach, the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission limit at this critical emission value.

    1 An “average year” is used to mean a year with average air quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T provides for averaging three years of 99th percentile daily maximum values (e.g., the fourth highest maximum daily concentration in a year with 365 days with valid data), this discussion and an example below uses a single “average year” in order to simplify the illustration of relevant principles.

    EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer-term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the “critical emissions value,” which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in its guidance document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit to be similar to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended that the longer-term average limit be set at a level that is comparably stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a downward adjustment from the critical emissions value) and that takes the source's emissions profile into account. As a result, EPA expects either form of emission limit to yield comparable air quality.

    Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the critical emission level, and in the longer-term average limit scenario, the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit well below the critical emission value. In an “average year,” compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with the source complying with a longer-term limit, it is possible that additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emission value at times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the longer-term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer-term limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is set well below the critical emission value), so a source complying with an appropriately set longer term limit is likely to have lower emissions at critical times than would be the case if the source were emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.

    As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, which results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an “average year,” these emissions cause the 5 highest maximum daily 1-hour average concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission limit of 700 pounds per hour (lbs/hour). It is theoretically possible for a source meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1000 lbs/hour, but with a typical emissions profile emissions would much more commonly be between 600 and 800 lbs/hour. In this simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds/hour, 1,100 lbs/hour, 500 lbs/hour, 900 lbs/hour, and 1,200 lbs/hour, respectively. (This is a conservative example because the average of these emissions, 900 lbs/hour, is well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third day would not have an exceedance that otherwise would have occurred, and the fourth day would have had a concentration below, rather than at 75 ppb. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.

    This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. As described in Appendix B of EPA's April 2014 SO2 nonattainment planning guidance, EPA found that the requirement for lower average emissions is highly likely to yield better air quality than is required with a comparably stringent 1-hour limit. Based on analyses described in appendix B of its 2014 guidance, EPA expects that an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set, comparably stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of having a lower number of exceedances and better air quality than an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the critical emission value. This result provides a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this result can be expected to occur.

    The question then becomes whether this approach—which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value—meets the requirement in sections 110(a)(1), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(6) and 192(a) for SIPs to contain emissions limitations and control measures to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants, it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the requirement to provide for attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective, in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement for lower emissions on average will result in days not having exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the critical emissions value. Additional policy considerations, such as in this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions variability without significant risk of violations, are also appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in judging whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long as 30 days, determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, will result in attainment, EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    The April 2014 guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer-term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the longer-term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may require use of an emission database from another source. The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit to determine a longer term average emission limit that may be considered comparably stringent.2 The guidance also addresses a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might occur under the longer term emission rate limit.

    2 For example, if the critical emission value is 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, and a suitable adjustment factor is determined to be 70 percent, the recommended longer term average limit would be 700 pounds per hour.

    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in Appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W).3 In 2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in appendix A to the April 23, 2014 SO2 nonattainment area SIP guidance document referenced above. Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.

    3 EPA published revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W) on January 17, 2017.

    As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment (i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality dispersion modeling (see appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, EPA believes that dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level concentrations of SO2.

    The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (EPA, 2010a).

    IV. Review of Indiana's Modeled Attainment Plans

    The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling that Indiana used in its attainment demonstrations.

    A. Model Selection

    Indiana's attainment demonstrations used AERMOD, the preferred model for these applications as identified in appendix W to CFR part 51. Indiana used version 14134 of this model, utilizing the regulatory default mode for all air quality modeling runs. This version of AERMOD was the most recent version at the time the state conducted its nonattainment planning; and, in any case, the results of this version are likely to be similar to those that more recent versions would provide. Therefore, EPA finds the use of this version of AERMOD acceptable.

    The receptor grids and modeling domain followed the recommended approaches from appendix W, Guidelines on Air Quality Models. Receptor spacing for each modeled facility fence line was every 50 meters with 100-meter spacing of receptors out to a distance of 500 meters beyond each facility. The distances between modeled facilities contained receptors which were spaced at 100-meter intervals. The 100-meter spacing receptor grid contained in excess of several thousand receptors for each modeled nonattainment area. The above receptor spacing and facility fence line receptors brought the total modeled receptors for Marion County to 17,925 receptors, including two additional receptors placed at the Marion County SO2 monitor locations; Vigo County to 7,111 receptors, including two receptors at each of the Vigo County SO2 monitors; and Daviess and Pike to 5,354 receptors, including two located at Daviess and Pike County SO2 monitors.

    Indiana did not assess impacts within any one facility's property from the emissions from other facilities. EPA reviewed Indiana's modeling results to assess whether any further modeling was warranted to evaluate impacts within of other facilities on any plant's property. For Southwest Indiana, peak impacts from the two facilities were well off any plant property, and therefore insufficient to cause a violation within each other's property. For the Terre Haute area, since the Duke Wabash River Power Plant and sgSolutions sources were adjacent, EPA conducted additional modeling that demonstrated that neither plant contributed to a violation within the other plant's property. Finally, in Indianapolis, EPA conducted additional modeling for the Vertellus and Rolls Royce facilities due to their proximity to one another and due to peak concentrations for both facilities occurring at their property boundaries. The analysis showed that collective impacts at on-property receptors from the other source and from other sources in Marion County were below the NAAQS. Further description of EPA's review is provided in the technical support document available in the docket for this rulemaking.4 EPA finds that Indiana's receptor grids, supplemented with the results of EPA's additional analysis, are adequate for assessing whether the adopted limits provide for attainment throughout the respective areas.

    4 June 27, 2018 Technical Support Document—“Evaluation of Concentrations on Facility Property Attributable to Nearby Sources”.

    The appropriate rural or urban land classifications were selected by Indiana, with only the Indianapolis SO2 area being classified as urban. The remaining 1-hour SO2 nonattainment areas addressed in this action, in Southwest Indiana and Terre Haute, were modeled as rural. While Indiana's submittal does not discuss the rationale for these determinations, EPA agrees that these selections appropriately characterize these areas. The Indianapolis area has historically been modeled using “urban dispersion.” This combined statistical area includes 2.3 million people, including Marion County, with just under 1 million people. The population density for Marion County is 917 people per square kilometer, and the modeled area is a relatively urban portion of the county, thus meeting the criterion in appendix W that areas with at least 750 people per square kilometer may be treated as urban. Conversely, Vigo, Pike, and Daviess Counties have population densities of 102, 13, and 42 people per square mile, respectively. Examination of satellite imagery for these areas confirms that a land use analysis of these areas would be expected to yield the same character of Indianapolis as urban and the other areas as rural. For Indianapolis, a population of 1,000,000 (reflecting the approximate population of Marion County) was used in AERMOD to characterize the strength of the urban heat island effect. The use of urban dispersion with a 1,000,000 population is appropriate for this modeling. For these reasons, EPA finds it appropriate to model these areas using the land classifications identified by Indiana.

    B. Meteorological Data

    Indiana used the Indianapolis National Weather Service (NWS) surface data and the Lincoln, Illinois upper air station (WBAN#048233) data for Indianapolis and Terre Haute, and the Evansville NWS for surface data and the Lincoln upper air station data for Southwest Indiana. These are the closest National Weather Service surface stations to each respective area. The State determined these stations to be the most representative for the respective modeling domains. The upper air stations were chosen on the basis of regional representativeness. EPA finds Indiana's choices of surface and upper air meteorological stations appropriate based on: (1) The suitability of meteorological data for the study area; and (2) the actual similarity of surface conditions and surroundings at the emissions source/receptor impact area compared to the locations of the meteorological instrumentation towers.

    C. Emissions Data

    Indiana modeled 14 sources in the three nonattainment areas of Indianapolis (6 sources), Southwest Indiana (2 sources), and Terre Haute (6 sources). The sources were physically located within the nonattainment area; Indiana excluded facilities that emitted less than ten tons per year, and Indiana found no sources outside the nonattainment areas with sufficient likely concentration gradient in the modeled area to warrant modeling explicitly. The emission limits used for the model for 12 of the sources correspond to the revised sulfur dioxide limitations on a 1-hour basis and are found in Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) Part 326, Article 7, and have been included by Indiana in this submission for SIP approval. The applicable emission limits for sgSolutions in Vigo County (Terre Haute) and IPL—Petersburg in Daviess County (Southwest Indiana) are established on a 30-day average basis and are lower than the modeled 1-hour attainment emission rates (the critical emission values) by virtue of application of adjustment factors determined and applied in accordance with the 2014 SO2 Guidance. These limits are established and made enforceable in 326 IAC 7. EPA finds Indiana's choice of included sources appropriate, and finds that the modeled emission levels appropriately correspond to the limits given in 326 IAC 7, in the case of IPL—Petersburg and sgSolutions by modeling the 1-hour emission level that corresponds (before adjustment) to the 30-day average limit established in 326 IAC 7. Further discussion of the 30-day average limits is provided below.

    D. Emission Limits

    An important prerequisite for approval of an attainment plan is that the emission limits that provide for attainment be quantifiable, fully enforceable, replicable, and accountable. See General Preamble at 13567-68. Some of the limits that Indiana's plan relies on are expressed as 30-day average limits. Therefore, part of the review of Indiana's attainment plan must address the use of these limits, both with respect to the general suitability of using such limits for this purpose and with respect to whether the particular limits included in the plan have been suitably demonstrated to provide for attainment. The first subsection that follows addresses the enforceability of the limits in the plan, and the second subsection that follows addresses the 30-day average limits.

    1. Enforceability

    In preparing its plans, Indiana adopted revisions to a previously approved state regulation governing emissions of SO2. These rule revisions were adopted by the Indiana Environmental Rules Board following established, appropriate public review procedures. In addition, the rule revisions provide unambiguous, permanent emission limits, expressed in lbs/hour of allowable SO2 emissions, that, if exceeded by a source, would be clear grounds for an enforcement action.

    The revised limits for significant contributing sources have a compliance date of January 1, 2017 and are codified in 326 IAC 7, titled “Sulfur Dioxide Rules.” Specifically, the list of rules is “Compliance date” (326 IAC 7-1.1-3), “Reporting requirements; methods to determine compliance” (7-2-1), “Marion County sulfur dioxide emission limitations” (7-4-2.1), “Vigo County sulfur dioxide emission limitations” (7-4-3.1), and “Pike County sulfur dioxide emission limitations” (7-4-15). The rules also include associated monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For example, continuous emission monitoring will be conducted for assessing compliance with the 30-day average limits. Specifically, 326 IAC 7-1-9 is being replaced by 7-4-2.1 for Marion County and 326 IAC 7-1-10.1 is being replaced by 326 IAC 7-4-15 for Vigo County. EPA finds these limits to be enforceable. A summary of the limits is shown in Table 1.

    As shown in this table, the emission limits for sgSolutions Tail Gas Incinerator Stack EP1 and IPL-Petersburg Units 1-4 are expressed as 30-day average limits. Other limits in the rule are expressed as 1-hour average limits. The limits are expressed as lbs/hour or pounds per million British Thermal Units (MMBTU). EPA's review of Indiana's nonattainment plan addresses the use of these limits, both with respect to the general suitability of using such limits in attainment demonstrations, and whether Indiana has demonstrated that the particular limits included in the plan provide for attainment. EPA addresses Indiana's use of a 30-day average emission limits below.

    Table 1—Emission Limits in Submitted Indiana Rules Source Emission unit description Emission limit (lbs/hour) or other
  • requirements
  • Emission
  • limit
  • (lbs/MMBTU)
  • Marion County sulfur dioxide emission limitations 326 IAC 7-4-2.1 Citizens Thermal—Perry K Source ID No. 00034 (A) Boiler 11
  • (B) Boiler 13
  • (C) Boiler 14
  • 73.6
  • 80.6
  • 80.6
  • 0.2
  • 0.2
  • 0.2
  • (D) Boilers 12, 15, and 16 Burn natural gas (E) Boiler 17 72.6 0.3 (F) Boiler 18 72.6 0.3 Belmont Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Source ID No. 00032 Incinerator 1, Incinerator 2, Incinerator 3, and Incinerator 4 Comply with SO2 limit in 40 CFR 60, subpart MMMM * or 40 CFR 60, subpart LLLL * Rolls-Royce Source ID No. 00311 (A) Boiler 0070-58
  • (B) Boiler 0070-59
  • (C) Boiler 0070-62
  • (D) Boiler 0070-63
  • 0.07
  • 0.07
  • 0.37
  • 0.37
  • 0.0015
  • 0.0015
  • 0.0015
  • 0.0015
  • (E) Boilers 0070-64 Burn natural gas or landfill gas 0.01 (F) Boiler 0070-65 Burn natural gas or landfill gas 0.01 (G) Generating Turbine 0070-80 Burn natural gas or landfill gas 0.01 (H) 2 Gas Turbine Engines 0070-66 0.1 (I) 12 Gas Turbine Engines 0070-67 0.05 (J) 3 Gas Turbine Engines 0070-68c, 0070-68d, and 0070-68e 0.05 (K) 2 Gas Turbine Engines 0070-68a and 0070-68b Burn natural gas (L) 3 Gas Turbine Engines 0070-69 0.05 (M) Three Shack Heaters 0070-70 Burn natural gas (N) Rental Generators 0.0015 (O) Engine Test Cells Plant 5 0.05 (P) Engine Test Cell Plant 8 0.1 (Q) Engine Test Cell N20 18 foot vertical stack, if operating (R) Engine Test Cell N21 20 foot vertical stack, if operating (S) Engine Test Cell N23 30 foot vertical stack, if operating (T) Engine Test Cell N24 20 foot vertical stack, if operating Vertellus Agriculture and Nutrition Specialties Source ID No. 00315 (A) 70K Boiler 70-2722W
  • (B) 30K Boiler 30-2726S
  • (C) 28K Boiler 28-186N
  • 18.4
  • 9.8
  • 9.9
  • 0.20
  • 0.25
  • 0.27
  • (D) Boiler CB-70K Burn natural gas (E) BM Furnace BM2724W 1.1 0.05 (F) Box Furnace BX2707V 0.8 0.05 (G) DAB Furnace 732714 2.8 0.05 (H) Born Heater 722804 0.34 0.05 (I) Born Heater Furnace BXS2706Q 0.3 0.05 (J) EP Furnace EP2729Q 0.15 0.05 (K) CB20 CB600-300 Boiler 2.3 0.09 (L) 50K CN5-400 Boiler 5.5 0.09 (M) BD Furnace BD2714V 0.75 0.05 (N) Heater BS2740Q 0.3 0.05 (O) Heater BT2728S 0.3 0.05 (P) Furnace HW-925.001 12.25 1.25 (Q) CS Kettle Born Heater Burn natural gas (R) CS Still Born Heater Burn natural gas (S) Born Hot Oil Furnace (Process Heater) Unit 2607T Burn natural gas Quemetco Source ID No. 00079 WESP Stack 52.0 Indianapolis Power & Light Co.—Harding Street Generating Station Source ID No. 00033 (A) Boiler 9
  • (B) Boiler 10
  • (C) Boiler 50
  • Do not operate
  • Do not operate
  • Burn natural gas
  • (D) Boiler 60 Burn natural gas (E) Boiler 70 Burn natural gas (F) Gas Turbine 1 29.9 0.1 (G) Gas Turbine 2 29.9 0.1 (H) Gas Turbine 4 87.5 0.1 (I) Gas Turbine 5 86.7 0.1 (J) Gas Turbine 6 Burn natural gas (K) Emergency Generator 500 hour calendar year operating limit Vigo County sulfur dioxide limitations (326 IAC 7-4-3.1) Wabash River Combined Cycle Source ID No. 00147 Combustion Turbine Unit 1A 333.76 0.195 sgSolutions Source ID No. 00091 (A) Tail Gas Incinerator Stack EP1 230.6 * (B) Process Flare Unit 2 500 hour calendar year operating limit on coal/syngas SONY Digital Audio Disc Source ID No. 00032 (A) #1 Kewanee Boiler
  • (B) #2 Kewanee Boiler
  • (C) Unit 3 Burnham Boiler
  • (D) Unit 4 Burnham Boiler
  • (E) Unit 5 Superior Boiler
  • (F) Unit 6 Superior Boiler
  • (G) Unit 18 Boiler
  • 0.05
  • 0.05
  • 0.05
  • 0.05
  • 0.05
  • 0.05
  • 0.05
  • Taghleef Industries Source ID No. 00045 (A) Clayton Boiler (Standby)
  • (B) Nebraska Boiler
  • 0.03
  • 0.05
  • 0.0015
  • 0.0015
  • (C) Nebraska-D Boiler Burn natural gas Terre Haute Regional Hospital Source ID No. 00046 (A) #1 Boiler
  • (B) New #2 Boiler
  • 0.45
  • 0.45
  • Union Hospital Source ID No. 00047 2 Keeler Boilers 0.36 Duke Energy—Wabash River Generating Station Source ID No. 00021 (A) Boiler 6
  • (B) Diesel Generators 7A, 7B, and 7C
  • 1,499.5
  • 500 hour calendar year operating limit (each)
  • 0.5
  • 0.05
  • Pike County sulfur dioxide limitations (326 IAC 7-4-15) Hoosier Energy—Ratts Source ID No. 00001 (A) Boiler 1
  • (B) Boiler 2
  • 58
  • 58
  • 0.05
  • 0.05
  • (C) No. 2 Auxiliary Boiler 1.0 0.05 Indianapolis Power & Light—Petersburg Generating Station Source ID No. 00002 (A) Unit 1
  • (B) Unit 2
  • (C) Unit 3
  • (D) Unit 4
  • 263.0 *
  • 495.4 *
  • 1,633.7 *
  • 1,548.2 *
  • 0.12 *
  • 0.12 *
  • 0.29 *
  • 0.28 *
  • (E) Diesel Generators PB-2, PB-3, and PB-4 500 hour calendar year operating limit (each) Indianapolis Power & Light—Petersburg Generating Station Source ID No. 00002 (A) Unit 1
  • (B) Unit 2
  • (C) Unit 3
  • (D) Unit 4
  • 330.0
  • 621.6
  • 2,049.8
  • 1,942.5
  • 0.15
  • 0.15
  • 0.37
  • 0.35
  • (E) Diesel Generators PB-2, PB-3, and PB-4 500 hour calendar year operating limit (each) * Indicates emission limit for the unit is expressed as a 30-day average limit.
    2. Longer Term Average Limits

    As noted above, the 2014 SO2 Guidance discusses the option to establish limits with averaging times up to 30 days in length that are comparably stringent to the 1-hour average limit that would otherwise have been set, and recommends a detailed procedure for determining such a comparably stringent limit. The Guidance also notes that it might be appropriate to establish supplemental limits in order to limit the magnitude and/or frequency of elevated emissions, as a means of further reducing the likelihood of elevated emissions occurring on those occasions when the meteorology is conducive to high concentrations of SO2.

    For both IPL-Petersburg and sgSolutions, Indiana closely followed the six-step recommendation of the 2014 SO2 Guidance in determining an appropriate level for the 30-day average limits. As a first step in each case, Indiana conducted modeling which determined the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment. Indiana conducted a series of modeling runs identifying baseline allowable air quality (in absence of emission reductions), evaluating the air quality consequences of feasible emission reductions, and ultimately identifying a set of reduced allowable emission levels that would provide for attainment. For IPL-Petersburg, these quantities were expressed in lbs/MMBTU, and may be termed the critical emissions rates. The critical emission rates were 0.15, 0.15, 0.37, and 0.35 lbs/MMBTU, for IPL-Petersburg Units 1-4 respectively. For sgSolutions, Indiana determined a critical emission level of 527 lbs/hour.

    For the second step of the process, for IPL-Petersburg, Indiana compiled representative emissions data sets from the IPL-Petersburg Unit 2 Flue Gas Desulfurization stack, which is the same control technology IPL-Petersburg will use for Units 1,3, and 4 in order to meet the emission limits associated with attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Indiana used data compiled from 2006-2010 for the stack. For sgSolutions, Indiana used the data from the Tail Gas Incinerator from 2009-2014 scaled to fewer operating hours to create the emissions data set.

    The third step was calculating the 30-day rolling averages. The analysis for IPL-Petersburg assessed the variability of the emission rate. The 30-day average rate was calculated by summing the pounds SO2 per hour values over the previous 720 hours (30 days) and dividing by the sum of the MMBTU per hour over the past 720 hours, yielding a separate 30-day average pounds of SO2 per MMBTU for each successive ending hour. Using this calculation ensured that any hours showing zero emissions did not affect the calculations. This calculation is consistent with the procedures used in determining compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule, as recommended in appendix C of the 2014 EPA SO2 Guidance. The analysis for sgSolutions used statistics on the hourly mass emission rate and the corresponding 720-hour average hourly emission rate.

    The fourth step determined 99th percentile values for the 1-hour values and 30-day average values. The 1-hour values were determined by compiling the values in step 2 over the five-year period. The result for the 99th percentile 30-day average was determined from the calculations in step 3. For IPL-Petersburg, the 99th percentile of 1-hour values was 0.233 lbs/MMBTU, and the 99th percentile of 30-day average values was 0.185 lbs/MMBTU. For sgSolutions, the 99th percentile values were 139 and 60.7 lbs/hour among 1-hour and 30-day average values, respectively. In the fifth step the ratio of the values was calculated by dividing the 99th percentile values for the 30-day rolling data and the 1-hour data identified in the fourth step. For IPL-Petersburg the result was an adjustment factor of 79.7 percent, and for sgSolutions the result was an adjustment factor of 43.6 percent. The final step multiplied the modeled critical emissions values calculated in the first step by the adjustment factors calculated in the fifth step. This resulted in 30-day average limits of 0.12, 0.12, 0.29, and 0.35 lbs/MMBTU for IPL-Petersburg Units 1-4 respectively and 230.6 lbs/hr for sgSolutions.

    Based on a review of the state's submittal, these limits provide a reasonable alternative to establishing a per hour 1-hour average emission limit for this source. The state used an appropriate database and then applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding an emission limit that has comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the state determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the 30-day average limit allows for occasions in which emissions are higher than the level that would be allowed under the 1-hour limit, the state's limit compensates by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit.

    As noted above, the April 2014 Guidance recommends that 30-day average limits be accompanied by supplemental limits that help serve to minimize the frequency and/or magnitude of occasions with elevated emissions. Indiana did not use supplemental limits. Therefore, EPA examined available emissions data at IPL-Petersburg and at sgSolutions to evaluate the likely frequency and magnitude of spikes in emissions above the critical emission value while nevertheless complying with the 30-day average limit. The most pertinent data for IPL-Petersburg are for Unit 2, addressing a five-year time period before the relevant limit became effective. Approximately seven percent of available 30-day average values in this data set exceeded the 30-day average limit of 0.12 lbs/MMBTU. In this data set, approximately six percent of the hourly emissions values exceeded the critical emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBTU; these elevated values on average were approximately 34 percent above 0.15 lbs/MMBTU. Reduction of emissions sufficient to meet the 0.12 lbs/MMBTU limit consistently would reduce the frequency and magnitude of hourly emissions values above the 0.15 lbs/MMBTU critical emissions rate, although the precise levels are difficult to predict. For sgSolutions, over a six-year period, in a data set with no exceedances of the 30-day average limit of 230.6 lbs/hour (in which, in fact, only one day had daily average emissions above 230.6 lbs/hour), only seven hours (approximately 0.02 percent of the hours) exceeded the critical emission value of 527 lbs/hour, and the magnitude of these exceedances on average was only nine percent above the critical emission value. Based on these data, EPA finds that the 30-day average limit without supplemental limits should suffice in these cases to provide adequate assurance of attainment.

    For IPL-Petersburg, Indiana's rule identifies both a set of 30-day average limits and a corresponding set of 1-hour limits (the latter set at the critical emission value) for the four units of this facility. Indiana's rule specifies, “Indianapolis Power & Light shall notify the department prior to [January 1, 2017] to indicate if compliance . . . will be determined using [the specified 1-hour limits or the specified 30-day average limits] and prior to switching [which set of limits applies].” Given this potential under Indiana's rules for IPL to choose to switch back and forth between a set of 30-day average limits and a set of 1-hour limits, EPA conducted additional review of the enforceability of the limits and of whether the potential to switch limits might adversely affect the degree to which these limits assure attainment.

    Regarding enforceability, the primary question is whether at any time the applicable requirements are unequivocally clear, such that the occurrence of emissions above the specified level unquestionably constitutes noncompliance. Since the limits themselves are clearly specified in Indiana's rule, the pertinent question is whether the choice of limits is clear, i.e. whether it is always clear whether the 30-day average limits or the 1-hour limits apply. As noted above, Indiana's rule requires IPL-Petersburg to notify the state of its initial choice of applicable limits and to notify the state of any choice IPL makes to switch applicable limits. Thus, pursuant to the requirements of the rule, the applicable set of limits is always specified, Indiana always knows which set of limits applies, and this information is available to EPA and any other interested party upon request to Indiana.

    EPA also evaluated whether the option to switch applicable limits might yield less air quality protection than permanently imposing 30-day average limits or permanently imposing 1-hour limits. At any given time, IPL is subject to a single set of limits; IPL cannot excuse noncompliance with the applicable limits even if it is meeting the alternative limits. Therefore, IPL does not have the option to choose limits contemporaneously according to a short-term judgment as to which set of limits is less stringent for that time period. Instead, IPL must design its control strategy to meet the limits with the chosen averaging time rather than to aim simply to meet whichever set of limits might be less stringent for any particular period.

    A further question about switching limits is whether applying 1-hour limits for part of a year and longer-term limits for another part of the year provides as much air quality protection as applying a single set of limits for the entire year. Use of long term average limits creates the potential for periods with elevated emissions that may yield additional, unmodeled exceedances (i.e., exceedances beyond those identified in modeling of constant emissions), but also creates a compensating likelihood of avoiding some of the modeled exceedances because the downward adjusted long-term average limit requires emissions to be lower most of the time. At issue here is the risk that in a year when both types of limits apply, the periods subject to 30-day average limits might have additional, unmodeled exceedances while the periods subject to 1-hour limits might not avoid any of the exceedances found in constant emissions modeling.

    For several reasons, EPA believes that this concern does not apply in this case. Indiana's rule requires IPL to notify Indiana before any change in limits and, in the case of a switch from 30-day average limits to one-hour limits, to complete a 30-day period in compliance with the 30-day average limits before the one-hour limits take effect. IPL cannot change the applicable limits retroactively. While IPL may change the prospective applicable set of limits if it anticipates significant changes in operations, the experience to date is that IPL has made no switches in the selection since electing the 30-day average in January 2017, and nothing in the record suggests that IPL is likely to switch which limits apply in the future. For these reasons, EPA believes that Indiana's limits for IPL are an appropriate part of an attainment plan for Southwest Indiana that provide for attainment, most likely by requiring compliance with an appropriately adjusted set of 30-day average limits.

    The issue of switching limits does not apply to sgSolutions; this source is permanently subject to a 30-day average limit. EPA believes that the 30-day average limits for IPL-Petersburg and sgSolutions are appropriate elements of Indiana's attainment plans for the applicable areas.

    E. Background Concentrations

    Indiana determined background concentrations by selecting the 99th percentile of a monitoring data set that excluded values from emission sources where the upwind SO2 concentration exceeded 10 ppb. For Indianapolis, the background concentration was generated using the hourly concentrations from the Harding Street monitor (18-097-0057). At the time Indiana conducted its analysis this was the only suitable background monitor. The monitor is sited about four kilometers northeast of the Indianapolis Power and Light-Harding Station source. For the determination of a background value Harding Station Power Plant was considered a nearby source and was expressly included in the modeling analysis, and so Indiana determined the Indianapolis background concentration from a Harding Street data set that excluded values during hours with winds from the south and southwest. The resulting background concentration was 22.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) (8.6 ppb).

    In the Southwest Indiana area there are two monitors, one located in each of Pike and Daviess counties. The monitor with the highest background concentration is the Arda Lane monitor located in Pike County (18-125-0005) with a value of 25.9 µg/m3 (9.9 ppb). The monitor is sited about 1 kilometer to the south of IPL-Petersburg source and about 1.5 kilometers east of the Hoosier Plant. Indiana considered these two sources nearby, and determined a background concentration from a data set that excluded data when winds were from the northwest. There are two monitors located in the Terre Haute nonattainment area, both in Vigo County.

    For the Vigo County analysis, the controlling monitor (i.e., highest design value over the 2011-2013 period), Harrison Road monitor (18-125-0005) was used. The monitor is sited approximately 2.5 kilometers southeast of the Duke Energy-Wabash River facility, which Indiana considered nearby, so Indiana determined background concentrations from a data set that excluded data when winds were from the northwest. The result was a background concentration of 23.0 µg/m3 (8.8 ppb). EPA has reviewed these background concentrations and finds these values appropriate as model inputs.

    F. Comments Made During State Rulemaking

    During the preparation of its nonattainment plans, Indiana received and responded to a number of comments by, among others, EPA and the Sierra Club that EPA believes warrant further discussion in this action.

    The first comment from EPA to Indiana pertained to the IPL-Petersburg facility having a choice between hourly and 30-day average limits in the Pike county emission limit rules, and requesting that Indiana assure clarity as to which limits apply, by including explicit requirements for reporting and recordkeeping to which limits apply.

    Indiana responded to the comment by adding language at 326 IAC 7-4-15(e) requiring the source to notify IDEM when switching from one set of limits to the other. For any switch from the 1-hour limits to the 30-day average limits, IDEM's final rule requires compliance with the 1-hour limit until the first 30-day average emission rate is calculated so that there is no gap in compliance. EPA agrees that this change in the rulemaking ensures clear compliance requirements and establishes the 30-day average limit (when applicable) in a manner (consistently requiring a reduced level of emissions) that provides the full protection against violations recommended in EPA's guidance.

    Sierra Club expressed concerns about the Duke Energy facility in Gibson County (“Gibson”), commenting that Indiana should have modeled Gibson explicitly. Indiana responded that emissions reductions from the sources located within Pike and Daviess County nonattainment area were the most responsible for bringing the area into attainment. Other SO2 sources in surrounding counties are accounted for within the representative 1-hour SO2 background concentration. EPA notes that the criterion recommended in appendix W of 40 CFR 51 for sources to be modeled explicitly are those nearby sources that are not adequately represented by ambient monitoring data, such as sources that cause a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity of the area of interest. Gibson is about 46 kilometers southwest of the Southwest Indiana nonattainment area. At this distance, concentration gradients may be presumed to be quite small, and the impacts of Gibson may reasonably be considered accounted for in the background concentration for the Southwest Indiana nonattainment area. Thus, EPA agrees with Indiana's conclusion that any impact from Gibson on the Southwest Indiana nonattainment area is appropriately captured in the background concentration for the Southwest Indiana nonattainment area, such that explicit modeling of this facility is unnecessary.

    In a related comment, Sierra Club commented that Indiana needed to impose SO2 limits on the Duke Energy facility in order to ensure that the Southwest Indiana nonattainment area (Daviess and Pike counties) attained the standard. Indiana's attainment demonstration for the Southwest Indiana nonattainment area did not depend on emission limits for Gibson. Appendix W specifies the recommended consideration of emission limits for sources that are required to be explicitly modeled in the attainment demonstration. Sources such as Gibson that are accounted for as part of the monitored background concentration need not be modeled explicitly (as noted above) and in particular need not be considered on the basis of allowable emissions. That is, Appendix W advises consideration of distant sources such as Gibson on the basis of available monitoring data, irrespective of any limits on Gibson emissions that may apply. Indiana's modeling analysis, in accordance with appendix W, demonstrates that the Southwest Indiana nonattainment area can be expected to attain the standard without regard to whether emission limits for Gibson are established. Thus, Indiana's SIP submission is approvable without limits for Gibson.

    Also, several utility groups commented that Indiana should use a compliance date of October 1, 2017, which would allow for twelve months of data to demonstrate attainment of the standard prior to the October 2018 attainment deadline. Indiana chose instead to adopt its proposed compliance date of January 1, 2017. This compliance date was recommended in the 2014 EPA Guidance because monitoring site data are certified annually on a calendar year, not a 12-month time span, so compliance by January 1, 2017 is recommended to provide for a calendar year of data for later informing whether timely attainment has occurred. EPA supports the decision made by Indiana to require compliance with the new limits by January 1, 2017.

    G. Summary of Results

    The final dispersion modeling results submitted by Indiana show design values, as provided in Table 2 below, that are less than 75 ppb. Therefore, Indiana's modeling analysis demonstrates attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute areas. EPA believes that Indiana's modeling appropriately reflects allowable emissions in these areas, including, for sources subject to 30-day average limits, the 1-hour emission rates that upon appropriate adjustment correspond to the 30-day average limits that Indiana has adopted. EPA has reviewed Indiana's attainment demonstrations, agrees with Indiana's submitted results, and proposes to determine that the enforceable measures in Indiana's plans provide for attainment of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in the Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute nonattainment areas.

    Table 2—1-Hour SO2 Dispersion Modeling Results Area name Indianapolis Southwest
  • Indiana
  • Terre Haute
    Modeled Concentration (ppb) 64.4 64.9 63.8 Background Concentration (ppb) 8.6 9.9 8.8 Total Concentration (ppb) 73 74.8 72.6
    V. Review of Other Plan Requirements A. Emissions Inventory

    The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) Estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. As noted above, the state must develop and submit to EPA a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO2 emissions in each nonattainment area, as well as any sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. See CAA section 172(c)(3).

    Indiana provided a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of SO2 emissions for Marion (Indianapolis), Daviess and Pike (Southwest Indiana), and Vigo counties (Terre Haute). The following source categories were included: Electric-generating units (EGUs), non-EGUs (point), non-point (area), non-road, and on-road sources of SO2 and are summarized in Table 3. Indiana uploads point source emissions to the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) annually. For the 2011 base year inventory, emissions from EGU and non-EGUs are actual reported emissions. Data for airport, area, non-road, and on-road emissions were compiled from the EPA Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse (SO2 NAAQS Emissions Modeling platform 2007/2007v5) for the 2008 NEI and the 2018 projected inventory year. Data were interpolated between 2008 and 2014 to determine the airport, area, non-road, and on-road emissions 2011 inventory and between 2014-2020 for 2018. As noted above, these inventories addressed sources within each nonattainment county and can be found in appendix H of the submitted attainment demonstration. Indiana also provided modeling inputs that include a listing of the individual sources with sufficient proximity to and impact on the nonattainment areas to warrant being explicitly included in the modeling analysis.

    Table 3—2011 Actual Emissions Inventory Marion
  • (Indianapolis)
  • (tpy)
  • Daviess
  • (southwest
  • Indiana)
  • (tpy)
  • Pike
  • (southwest
  • Indiana)
  • (tpy)
  • Vigo
  • (Haute Terre)
  • (tpy)
  • EGU 18,998.02 0 34,728.99 55,782.42 Point 4,582.46 8.39 2.74 102.79 Area 193.21 55.63 13.60 32.51 Non-road 125.37 1.23 1.38 9.42 On-road 121.88 3.14 1.85 13.72

    By providing a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of SO2 emissions for Marion, Pike, Daviess, and Vigo counties, Indiana has met the emission inventory requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3) for the Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute areas. This inventory represents emissions in 2011, a time when the areas were violating the standard. While section 172(c)(3) does not have a formal requirement for an attainment year inventory, the state did include allowable attainment year emissions in its modeling analysis.

    B. RACM/RACT

    In its submission, Indiana discusses its rationale for concluding that the nonattainment plans meet the RACM/RACT requirements in accordance with EPA guidance. For most criteria pollutants, RACT is control technology as needed to meet the NAAQS that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. However, Indiana cites EPA guidance that the definition of RACT for SO2 is, simply, “that control technology which is necessary to achieve the NAAQS (40 CFR 51.1 00(o))”. Indiana in fact requires the control technology that modeling shows to be necessary to ensure attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.

    Additionally, the Indiana submission includes limits for the individual units in the nonattainment areas. The limits are established in the attainment demonstration, and made permanent and enforceable in SIP rule 326 IAC 7, Sulfur Dioxide Rules.

    Indiana has determined that these measures suffice to provide for timely attainment. EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the state has satisfied the requirements in sections 172(c)(1) and (6) to adopt and submit all RACT/RACM and emission limitations and control measures as needed to attain the standards as expeditiously as practicable.

    C. New Source Review (NSR)

    EPA approved Indiana's nonattainment new source review rules on October 7, 1994 (94 FR 24838). These rules provide for appropriate new source review for SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute without need for modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA concludes that this requirement has already been met for these areas.

    D. RFP

    Indiana's adopted rules in 326 IAC 7 require that control measures be implemented no later than January 1, 2017. Indiana has concluded that this plan requires that affected sources implement appropriate control measures as expeditiously as practicable in order to ensure attainment of the standard by the applicable attainment date. Indiana concludes that this plan therefore provides for RFP in accordance with the approach to RFP described in EPA's guidance. EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the plan provides for RFP.

    E. Contingency Measures

    In its November 15, 2017 clarification memo, Indiana explained its rationale for concluding that the plans met the requirement for contingency measures in accordance with EPA guidance. Specifically, Indiana relies on EPA's guidance, noting the special circumstances that apply to SO2 (as discussed above), and explaining on that basis why the contingency requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) is met for SO2 by having a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement of applicable emissions limitations. Indiana stated that it has such an enforcement program as codified in Indiana Code Title 13, Articles 14 and 15, identifying violators and taking prompt, appropriate enforcement action. On this basis, EPA concludes that Indiana's nonattainment plans satisfy contingency measure requirements for the Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute nonattainment areas.

    Indiana's rules also provide for additional contingency measures as necessary, following a review of any air quality problems that become identified and following a review of options for mitigating the problems that arise. However, Indiana is not relying on these provisions to satisfy the requirements for contingency measures.

    VI. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's SIP submission, which the state submitted to EPA on October 2, 2015, for attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute areas.

    These SO2 nonattainment plans include Indiana's attainment demonstration for the Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute SO2 nonattainment areas. These nonattainment plans also address requirements for emission inventories, RACT/RACM, RFP, and contingency measures. Indiana has previously addressed requirements regarding nonattainment area NSR. EPA has determined that Indiana's SO2 nonattainment plans for Indianapolis, Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute meet the applicable requirements of CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192. EPA is taking no action at this time on Indiana's submittal with respect to Morgan County.

    EPA is taking public comments for thirty days following the publication of this proposed action in the Federal Register. We will take all comments into consideration in our final action.

    VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this 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 Indiana Administrative Code, Title 326, Article 7, “Compliance date” (326 IAC 7-1.1-3), “Reporting requirements; methods to determine compliance” (7-2-1), “Marion County sulfur dioxide emission limitations” (7-4-2.1), “Vigo County sulfur dioxide emission limitations” (7-4-3.1), and “Pike County sulfur dioxide emission limitations” (7-4-15), effective January 1, 2107. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office. (Please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information.)

    VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 Order 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 2, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17582 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    83 158 Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Senior Executive Service: Membership of Performance Review Board ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists approved candidates who will comprise a standing roster for service on the Agency's 2018 SES Performance Review Board. The Agency will use this roster to select SES Performance Review Board members. The standing roster is as follows:

    Allen, Colleen Bader, Harry Broderick, Deborah Buckley, Ruth Chan, Carol Crumbly, Angelique Detherage, Maria Ehmann, Claire Feinstein, Barbara Foley, Jason Girod, Gayle Jenkins, Robert Johnson, Mark Koek, Irene Kuyumjian, Kent Leavitt, William Lennon, Stephen Lewis, Kimberly Longi, Maria Mahanand, Vedjai Miranda, Roberto Mitchell, Reginald Moore, David Ohlweiler, John Pascocello, Susan Peters, James Shelat, Neilesh Sokolowski, Alexander Staley, Kenneth Steele, Gloria Vera, Mauricio Voorhees, John Walther, Mark Warren, Gordon Whyche-Shaw, Oren FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maryclare Whitehead, 202-216-3489.

    Dated: August 7, 2018. Karen Baquedano, Director, Center for Performance Excellence, Human Capital and Talent Management, U.S. Agency for International Development.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17601 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Request for Nominations of Members for the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, Specialty Crop Committee, and National Genetics Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Solicitation for membership.

    SUMMARY:

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

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2018, FR Doc. No. 83, pages 34536-34537 on page one, under Date, should read as follows:

    All nomination materials should be submitted in a single, complete package and received or postmarked by August 24, 2018.

    Done at Washington, DC, this day of August 6, 2018. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Acting Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics, Acting Chief Scientist.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17537 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Notice of Request for Expression of Interest for Potential Sites for Headquarters Office Locations AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is exploring potential sites for a proposed new headquarters location for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the Economic Research Service (ERS). The need for a proposed NIFA facility would be approximately 90,000 square feet to house approximately 360 employees. The need for a proposed ERS facility would be up to 70,000 square feet to house up to 260 employees. Appropriations will dictate the ultimate size of the selection. USDA is requesting Expressions of Interest from State and Local governments, industry, academia, interested parties and organizations for potential locations that would accommodate the construction and/or lease and operation of a NIFA and/or ERS headquarters facility. USDA is interested in exploring options to house the headquarters of NIFA and ERS jointly or in separate locations.

    DATES:

    Interested parties wishing to make an Expression of Interest should do so in writing by September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit comments regarding this notice. All submissions must refer to “Expression of Interest” to ensure proper delivery.

    Electronic Submission of Expression of Interest. Interested persons may submit information electronically to the following email address [email protected]

    Submission of Comments by Mail, Hand delivery, or Courier. Paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions should be submitted to Donald K. Bice, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, USDA, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 240-W, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Donald K. Bice, Telephone Number: (202) 720-3291.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NIFA's mission is to invest in and advance agricultural research, education, and extension to solve societal challenges. In collaboration with the Land-Grant Universities and other partners, NIFA supports the future of agriculture and the nation's well-being through its forward-thinking investments in critical science, education, and engagement efforts.

    The mission of ERS is to inform and enhance public and private decision making on a broad range of economic and policy issues related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural America. The Agency's mission is to anticipate issues that are on the horizon, and to conduct sound, peer-reviewed economic research. ERS is also a primary source of statistical indicators that, among other things, gauge the health of the farm sector (including farm income estimates and projections), assess the current and expected performance of the agricultural sector (including trade), and provide measures of food security here and abroad. Most of the Agency's research is conducted by a highly trained staff of economists and social scientists through an intramural program of research, market outlook, and analysis.

    The current headquarters facility for NIFA is in General Services Administration leased space in Washington DC That lease is expiring and the USDA and NIFA are interested in potential new sites for a headquarters facility. The current headquarters facility for ERS is in General Services Administration leased space in Washington DC This inquiry is intended to continue the implementation of Secretary Perdue's goal of ensuring USDA programs are delivered efficiently, effectively, and with integrity and a focus on customer service. With the expiration of the current lease for the NIFA headquarters facility and the ability of ERS to vacate its existing lease there is an opportunity for the agencies to be closer to its customers and facilitate economic development in Rural America.

    Request for Expression of Interest: USDA requests Expressions of Interest from State and Local governments, industry, academia, interested parties and organizations to identify potential sites or locations for the NIFA and ERS headquarters facility. A consortium could be an appropriate respondent. All viable options will be evaluated for the location of the facility (i.e., Federal government property, Federal research property, land deeded to the government, long-term lease, commercial site, etc.). USDA is interested in exploring options to house the headquarters of NIFA and ERS jointly or in separate locations.

    This request for expression of interest, published in today's Federal Register, is the first step in the process to consider site options. USDA will evaluate each EOI submission using the four criteria in no particular order (transportation logistics, workforce, community/quality of life, and capital and operating costs) to determine if it should be further evaluated as part of the location selection process.

    Logistics. Personnel travel and logistics needs are critically important. This includes being located within a reasonable distance of a commercial primary airport and the transportation infrastructure to have commuting options for employees.

    Workforce. Locating NIFA and ERS headquarters in a community includes a significant opportunity to improve economic conditions and create employment opportunities. It is important that the potential site be in close proximity to a critical mass of intellectual capacity and potential employees to continue the high value and productive work of NIFA and ERS.

    Community/Quality of Life. One of the most important resources of any USDA organization is its employees. Though the Washington DC area has many positive attributes, it routinely ranks as having some of the longest commute times and one of the highest costs of living in the Nation. USDA wants to locate the NIFA and ERS headquarters in a community where our employees will enjoy living, recreational opportunities, educational opportunities, and an overall high quality of life.

    Capital and Operating Costs. The need to invest upfront capital costs and ongoing operational costs will be a factor in the site selection process. Lower costs and the potential of incentives to offset costs will be considered.

    Information Technology infrastructure. While there is the need consider upfront investments in capital costs and ongoing operational costs in the site selection process; it is also important for the ERS location to offer enhanced IT security to meet the full requirements of handling and properly protecting confidential information at the new location. ERS, being a Federal statistical agency, will be required to maintain functional and physical separation of IT resources in order to meet the data protection requirements described in the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (44 U.S.C. 101) and in OMB's related implementation guidance. Moreover, ERS is an integral agency for the Office of the Chief Economist Office's World Agricultural Outlook Board activities. Therefore, the new location will be required to offer secure and confidential connectivity to the USDA's South Building to facilitate monthly teleconferences with the Interagency Commodity Estimates Committee meetings (https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/prepared.htm). The ability of the new location to offer those capabilities will be viewed as a prerequisite condition for a successful bid.

    Expression of Interest Format: The length of the Expression of Interest should be no more than 5 pages using 12-point font. While the responder may determine how best to use the 5 pages, we recommend: SECTION 1—Summary; and SECTION 2 through SECTION 5 a description of location with specific reference to the 4 items requested by USDA below.

    1. A description of your consortium/organization, and its capabilities to support the location of the NIFA and ERS headquarters at its recommended site (SECTION 2).

    2. A description of how the potential site addressed the four site criteria categories (transportation logistics, workforce, community/quality of life, and capital and operating costs) described above (SECTION 3).

    3. A map showing the location of the potential site, nearby (within 10 miles) political boundaries, demographics and characteristics of surrounding communities (within 10 miles) (SECTION 4).

    4. A site description including ownership, total site acreage and acreage available for development; existing physical infrastructure including number of structures, their size, vintage and current use; current activities; on-site tenants (if applicable); and estimated costs as tenant (SECTION 5).

    Proprietary Information: If the Expression of Interest contains information that the submitter believes is privileged or confidential, the appropriate portions of the submission should be marked “Proprietary Information” and will not be publicly released except as required by law. This restriction does not limit the Government's or its contractors' or agents' right to use data obtained without restriction from any source, including the respondent.

    USDA is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of Expressions of Interest in response to this notice. USDA reserves the right to respond or not respond to any portion, all, or none of the Expressions of Interest submitted in response to this Notice. Responders whose submissions are deemed worthy of further consideration given the criteria expressed herein may be asked to provide additional information. USDA's further consideration of certain Responders' Expressions of Interest does not obligate USDA to provide funds to such Responders or to enter into contractual relationships with such Responders.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Donald K. Bice, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17555 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2018-0009] Retail Exemptions Adjusted Dollar Limitations AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing the dollar limitations on the amount of meat and meat food products, poultry, and poultry products that a retail store can sell to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions without disqualifying itself for exemption from Federal inspection requirements. In accordance with FSIS's regulations, for calendar year 2018, the value for the dollar limitation for meat and meat food products remains unchanged at $75,700. For calendar year 2018, the value for the dollar limitation for poultry and poultry products also remains unchanged at $56,600. FSIS reviews the dollar limitations on a yearly basis and makes adjustments based on price changes for these products evidenced by the Consumer Price Index.

    FSIS is currently considering the retail dollar limitations for Siluriformes fish and fish products. FSIS intends to propose a methodology for setting the dollar limitations for Siluriformes fish and fish products in a separate Federal Register Notice.

    DATES:

    Applicable Date: September 14, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) provide a comprehensive statutory framework to ensure that meat, meat food products, poultry, and poultry products prepared for commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. Statutory provisions requiring inspection of the processing of meat, meat food products, poultry, and poultry products do not apply to operations of types traditionally and usually conducted at retail stores and restaurants in regard to products for sale to consumers in normal retail quantities (21 U.S.C. 661(c)(2) and 454(c)(2)). FSIS's regulations (9 CFR 303.1(d) and 381.10(d)) elaborate on the conditions under which requirements for inspection do not apply to retail operations involving the preparation of meat and meat food, and processing of poultry and poultry products.

    Sales to Hotels, Restaurants, and Similar Institutions

    Under these regulations, sales to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions (other than household consumers) disqualify a retail store for exemption if the product sales exceed either of two maximum limits: 25 percent of the dollar value of total product sales or the calendar year dollar limitation set by the Administrator. The dollar limitation is adjusted automatically during the first quarter of the year if the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows an increase or decrease of more than $500 in the price of the same volume of product for the previous year. FSIS publishes a notice of the adjusted dollar limitations in the Federal Register. (See 9 CFR 303.1(d)(2)(iii)(b) and 381.10(d)(2)(iii)(b).)

    The CPI for 2017 reveals an annual average price decrease for meat and meat food products at 0.583 percent and an annual average price increase for poultry and poultry products at 0.17 percent. When rounded to the nearest dollar, the dollar limitation for meat and meat food products decreased by $441 and the dollar limitation for poultry and poultry products increased by $96. In accordance with 9 CFR 303.1(d)(2)(iii)(b) and 381.10(d)(2)(iii)(b), because the dollar limitation of meat and meat food products and poultry and poultry products did not increase or decrease by more than $500, FSIS is making no adjustment in the dollar limitations on sales to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions. The dollar limitation for meat and meat food products remains unchanged at $75,700 and the dollar limitation for poultry and poultry products remains unchanged at $56,600 for calendar year 2018.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected].

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Paul Kiecker, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17546 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-26-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38—Spartanburg, South Carolina; Authorization of Production Activity; AFL Telecommunications, LLC; (Optical Cable for Data Transfer); Duncan, South Carolina

    On April 11, 2018, AFL Telecommunications, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 38, in Duncan, South Carolina.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (83 FR 17790, April 24, 2018). On August 9, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14, and to a restriction requiring privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) on admissions of aramid yarn, ripcord, binder string and water swellable yarn.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17561 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; “Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery”

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) 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.

    Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    Title: Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0080.

    Form Number(s):

    • None.

    Type of Request: Regular.

    Number of Respondents: 42,500 responses per year. This notice shows that an item (ForeSee Surveys) included in this collection during the 60 day notice has been removed from the collection; it is included in a newly proposed collection (USPTO Websites Customer Satisfaction Surveys).

    Average Hours per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take between 3 minutes (.05 hours) to 120 minutes (2 hours), depending upon the instrument used.

    Burden Hours: 4,808.33 hours per year.

    Cost Burden: $0.

    Needs and Uses: The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services. Based on feedback received, the Agency will identify changes needed to improve programs and services. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. The USPTO is committed to hearing feedback from its customers. Responses will be assessed to identify service areas in need of improvement. If this information is not collected, then the Agency will miss opportunities to obtain vital feedback from their customers and stakeholders on ways to improve their program and services.

    These information collections will not result in any new system of records and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: [email protected]

    Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Further information can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0080 comment” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before September 14, 2018 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.

    Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17510 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0084] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Common Core of Data (CCD) School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) 2018-2020 AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0084. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, PCP, Room 9086, Washington, DC 20202-0023.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of Collection: Common Core of Data (CCD) School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) 2018-2020.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0930.

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

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

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 306.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,938.

    Abstract: The School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) data collection is conducted annually by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department of Education (ED). SLFS complements two existing data collections conducted by NCES in collaboration with the U.S. Census Bureau (Census): The School District Finance Survey (F-33) and the state-level National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS). SLFS expands F-33 to include its finance variables at the school level. Beginning with FY18, the SEAs will report total current expenditures at the school level in the same manner as for the district level on F-33. This request is to conduct in 2019 through 2021 SLFS for fiscal years 2018 through 2020 (corresponding to school years 2017/18 through 2019/20) and to expand the collected data to be analogous to the current ESSA expenditures per pupil provision.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17523 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; (b) 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; (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.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 15, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Andrea Lachenmayr, U.S. Department of Energy, LPO-70, Room 4B-170, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Andrea Lachenmayr, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5134; (2) Information Collection Request Title: DOE Loan Guarantees for Energy Projects; (3) Type of Request: Extension (4) Purpose: This information collection package covers collection of information necessary to evaluate applications for loan guarantees submitted under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended, 16516 (Title XVII), 42 U.S.C. 16511, and under Section 2602(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as amended (TELGP), 25 U.S.C. 3502(c). Because the information collection package pertains to applications for loan guarantees under both Title XVII and TELGP (the latter of which does not require innovative technology), the Information Collection Request Title is being changed from its original title, “10 CFR part 609—Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies” to its new title, “DOE Loan Guarantees for Energy Projects.” This title is more descriptive of the purpose of the Information Collection Request. Applications for loan guarantees submitted to DOE in response to a solicitation under Title XVII or TELGP must contain certain information. This information will be used to analyze whether a project is eligible for a loan guarantee and to evaluate the application under criteria specified in the final regulations implementing Title XVII, located at 10 CFR part 609, and adopted by DOE for purposes of TELGP, with certain immaterial modifications and omissions. The collection of this information is critical to ensure that the government has sufficient information to determine whether applicants meet the eligibility requirements to qualify for a DOE loan guarantee under Title XVII or TELGP, as the case may be, and to provide DOE with sufficient information to evaluate an applicant's project using the criteria specified in 10 CFR part 609 (for Title XVII applications) or the applicable solicitation (for TELGP applications); (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 20 Applications; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: It is estimated that the total number of annual responses will not exceed 20; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 2,650 hours, most of which is likely to be time committed by firms that seek debt and/or equity financing for their projects, regardless of their intent to apply for a DOE loan guarantee; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: It is estimated that the annual estimated reporting and recordkeeping cost burden for applicants will not exceed $26,296 per annum, per applicant.

    Authority: Title XVII and TELGP authorize the collection of information.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 9, 2018. John Sneed, Executive Director, Department of Energy Loan Programs Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17553 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and Request for Comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; (b) 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; (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.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 15, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Andrea Lachenmayr, U.S. Department of Energy, LPO-70, Room 4B-170, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Andrea Lachenmayr, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5130; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Application for Loans under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program; (3) Type of Request: Extension; (4) Purpose: This information collection package covers collection of information necessary to evaluate applications for loans submitted under Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, as amended (EISA) (42 U.S.C. 17013). Applications for loans submitted to DOE under Section 136 of EISA must contain certain information. This information will be used to analyze whether a project is eligible for a loan and to evaluate the application under criteria specified in the interim final regulations implementing Section 136 of EISA, located at 10 CFR part 611. The collection of this information is critical to ensure that the government has sufficient information to determine whether applicants meet the eligibility requirements to qualify for a DOE loan and to provide DOE with sufficient information to evaluate an applicant's project using the criteria specified in 10 CFR part 611; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 7 Applications; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: It is estimated that the total number of annual responses will not exceed 7; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 910 hours, most of which is likely to be time committed by firms that seek debt and/or equity financing for their projects, regardless of their intent to apply for a DOE loan; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: It is estimated that the annual estimated reporting and recordkeeping cost burden for applicants will not exceed $26,296 per annum, per applicant.

    Authority: Section 136 of the EISA authorizes the collection of information.

    Signed in Washington, DC on August 9, 2018. John Sneed, Executive Director, Department of Energy Loan Programs Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17552 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2977-007.

    Applicants: Mesquite Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Mesquite Power, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/7/18.

    Accession Number: 20180807-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2182-000.

    Applicants: Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 10/6/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/7/18.

    Accession Number: 20180807-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2183-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Gila River Ownership Agreement to be effective 5/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180808-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2184-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits three ECSAs, Service Agreement Nos. 5011, 5029 and 5117 to be effective 10/8/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180808-5023.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2185-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Pike Road Farm LGIA Filing to be effective 7/25/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180808-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2186-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Interim ISA, SA No. 5151; Queue No. AB2-134 to be effective 7/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180808-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2187-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: 20180808_Joint Dispatch Agreement Notice of Succession of Black Hills COE to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180808-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    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: August 8, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17505 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2182-000] Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Minco IV & V Interconnection, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 28, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 8, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17508 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2641-010] Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Proceeding: Extension of License Term.

    b. Project No.: P-2641-010.

    c. Date Filed: March 6, 2018.

    d. Licensee: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.

    e. Name and Location of Project: Feeder Dam Transmission Line Project, located in the Town of Moreau, Saratoga County, New York.

    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    g. Licensee Contact Information: Mr. Steven P. Murphy, Director, U.S. Licensing, Brookfield Renewable, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 33 West 1st Street South, Fulton, New York 13069, (315) 598-6130, [email protected].

    h. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai, (202) 502-8370, [email protected].

    i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2641-010.

    j. Description of Proceeding: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., licensee for the Feeder Dam Transmission Line Project No. 2641, filed a request with the Commission to extend the term of the project license, from December 31, 2023 to August 31, 2042, which would align its modified expiration date with that of the licensee's adjacent Feeder Dam Hydropower Project No. 2554, which has an expiration date of August 31, 2042. The sole purpose of the transmission line project is to transmit the net power produced by the 6.0-megawatt hydropower project located on the Hudson River. The licensee's request includes correspondence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New York Department of Environmental Conservation supporting the extension of the license term.

    k. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the Docket number (P-2641-010) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the notice. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to the request to extend the license term. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17544 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-535-000] Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on July 31, 2018, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed in Docket No. CP18-535-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Southern Star's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000, to increase the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) and maximum operating pressure (MOP) on Southern Star's QB Pipeline (Line QB) in Johnson County, Kansas.

    Southern Star states that Line QB is a 26-inch pipeline that runs between the South Glavin Station and the Glavin Station in Johnson County, Kansas, serving the Kansas City Metropolitan area in Kansas and Missouri. Most of Line QB was installed in the late 1940's. Due to the age of the line, the MAOP of Line QB was established under the “Grandfather Clause” of the regulations of the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The MAOP of Line QB established under the Grandfather Clause is 260 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). Southern Star avers that Line QB was unintentionally over-pressured due to the failure of a regulator. In response to the increase in pressure above the grandfathered MAOP, Southern Star conducted a hydrostatic pressure test meeting the requirements of PHMSA's regulations. The results of that pressure test support an MAOP of 280 psig, an increase from the 260 psig grandfathered MAOP. Southern Star requests to increase both the MAOP and the MOP of Line QB to 280 psig to match the new MAOP supported by the recent pressure test under PHMSA's regulations.

    Southern Star asserts that, like Line QB, its 26-inch Line QC also begins at the South Glavin Station. Line QC has an MAOP/MOP of 280 psig, and both lines have a common source of gas, Southern Star's 26-inch Line Q. Therefore, uprating Line QB to match the pressure on Line QC will allow Southern Star to equalize pressure in Line QB and Line QC to share regulation and essentially be operated as one system and more efficiently.

    Southern Star states that no increased capacity is expected to occur, and no additional costs are required to increase the MAOP/MOP of Southern Star's Line QB, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Cindy Thompson, Manager, Regulatory, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, by telephone at (270) 852-4655, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 8, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17506 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-332-000] El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the South Mainline Expansion Project

    On April 26, 2018, El Paso Natural Gas Company L.L.C. (El Paso) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-332-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the South Mainline Expansion Project (Project), and would increase the design capacity on El Paso's South Mainline system by 321,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day to Arizona and California delivery points.

    On May 9, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA—November 14, 2018 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—February 12, 2019

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    EPNG has requested authorization to construct two new natural gas compressor stations on its existing South Mainline pipeline system in Luna County, New Mexico and Cochise County, Arizona; as well as a 17-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter loop line in El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, Texas.

    Background

    On June 7, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South Mainline Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from the El Paso Water Company, White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo Tribal Council. The primary issues raised by the commenters are the avoidance of impacts on public water system facilities and the need for consultation should any human remains or artifacts be unearthed during Project construction. All substantive comments will be addressed in the EA.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-332), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17542 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-343-008; ER16-701-001; ER13-342-012; ER16-700-001.

    Applicants: CPV Maryland, LLC, CPV Valley, LLC, CPV Shore, LLC, CPV Towantic, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to July 23, 2017 Amendment to Market Power Update of CPV Maryland, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/7/18.

    Accession Number: 20180807-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1743-001.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: NYISO response to deficiency letter on Alternate LCR to be effective 10/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1872-002.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1636R21 Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180808-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2188-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Cost Responsibility Agreement, Service Agreement No. 5157, NQ162 to be effective 7/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2189-000.

    Applicants: Sanford Energy Associates, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 8/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2190-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 274—Notice of Succession of Black Hills Colorado Electric to be effective 7/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5053.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2191-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits eight ECSAs, Service Agreement Nos. 4892, 4967, 4979, 4980, et al to be effective 10/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2192-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service Agreement No. 4592, Non-queue No. NQ144 to be effective 7/12/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2193-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 20180809_Joint Dispatch Service Agreement Notice of Succession of Black Hills to be effective 7/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5093.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    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: August 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17540 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2178-000] Holloman Lessee, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Holloman Lessee, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 28, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 8, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17507 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD18-11-000] Reliability Technical Conference; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments

    On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission convened a Commissioner-led technical conference to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.

    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on the topics concerning the reliability of the Bulk-Power System discussed during the technical conference, including the questions listed in the Supplemental Notices issued in this proceeding on June 1, 2018 and July 17, 2018. Attached to this notice are the electric reliability topics and questions related to each Panel. Commenters need not respond to all questions asked. Commenters should organize responses consistent with the numbering of the attached questions and identify to what extent their responses are generally applicable. Commission staff reserves the right to post additional follow-up questions related to those panels if deemed necessary. In addition, commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide specific examples and data in support of their answers. Comments must be submitted on or before 30 days from the date of this notice and should not exceed 30 pages.

    For further information about this Notice, please contact: Lodie White, Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8453, [email protected]; Robert Clark, Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8165, rob[email protected].

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17539 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF18-4-000] Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned MVP Southgate Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Session

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the MVP Southgate Project (Project). The Project involves the construction and operation of facilities by Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Mountain Valley), a joint venture between affiliates of EQT Corporation and NextEra Energy, Inc. in Virginia and North Carolina. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies about issues regarding the Project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 10, 2018.

    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues it needs to evaluate in the EIS. Commission staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.

    If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on May 15, 2018, or if you sent comments on this Project to the MVP mainline docket (CP16-10-000), you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF18-4-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a Mountain Valley representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (PF18-4-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    (4) In lieu of sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public scoping sessions its staff will conduct in the Project area, scheduled as follows:

    FERC Public Scoping Meetings—MVP Southgate Project Date and time Location Monday, August 20, 2018; 5-8 p.m Reidsville Event Center, 223 S. Scales Street, Reidsville, NC 27320. Tuesday, August 21, 2018; 5-8 p.m Olde Dominion Agricultural Complex, 19783 US-29, Chatham, VA 24531. Thursday, August 23, 2018; 5-8 p.m Vailtree Event and Conference Center, 1567 Bakatsias Lane, Haw River, NC 27258.

    The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the EIS. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.

    Each scoping session is scheduled from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. EDT. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 8 p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session at 7:30 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Your scoping comments will be recorded by a court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of three (3) minutes may be implemented for each commentor.

    It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally at a scoping session. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from Mountain Valley will also be present to answer questions you may have about their Project.

    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 2.1

    Summary of the Planned Project

    The Project would involve the construction and operation of about 72 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and Rockingham and Alamance Counties, North Carolina. The Project would interconnect with and receive gas from the Mountain Valley Pipeline near Chatham, Virginia, and the East Tennessee Natural Gas mainline near Eden, North Carolina. The pipeline would extend about 72 miles to its planned terminus at an interconnect near Graham, North Carolina. The pipeline would be designed to deliver at least 300 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. Additional facilities would include new compressor stations in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and Rockingham County, North Carolina; four new meter stations; eight main line valves, and four pig 2 launchers and receivers.

    2 A “pig” is an internal tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning, inspections, or other purposes.

    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix 3. Additional Project location information, including an interactive map, is available on the Mountain Valley's Project website: www.mvpsouthgate.com.

    Project Alternatives

    Mountain Valley is evaluating the following alternatives and route deviations listed below. Illustrations of these alternatives are provided in the figures in appendix 3.

    Sandy Cross Road Alternative

    To address concerns regarding the planned route's proximity to residences in Alamance County, North Carolina, the Sandy Cross Road Alternative would deviate from the planned route near milepost (MP) 65.5 and extend northeast and then south for about 2.0 miles before rejoining the planned route at MP 67.0.

    Alamance Eastern Alternative

    To address concerns regarding the planned route's proximity to residences in Alamance County, North Carolina, the Alamance Eastern Alternative would deviate from the planned route near MP 65.6 and extend east and then southwest for about 9.6 miles before rejoining the planned route at MP 70.4.

    Alamance Southern Alternative

    To address concerns regarding the planned route's proximity to residences in Alamance County, North Carolina, the Alamance Southern Alternative would deviate from the planned route near MP 71.4 and extend southeast, and then southwest for about 2.3 miles before rejoining the planned route at MP 72.5.

    Duke Powerline Alternative

    In order to increase the planned route's collocation with existing rights-of-way in Alamance County, North Carolina, the Duke Powerline Alternative would deviate from the planned route near MP 58.2 and extend south and then east for about 4.4 miles before rejoining the planned route at MP 62.0. This alternative route is collocated with the Duke Energy transmission line and other rights-of-way for about 3.8 miles.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 1,348 acres of land. Following construction, Mountain Valley would maintain about 449 acres for permanent operation of the Project's facilities, not including permanent access roads; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 47 percent of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, and road rights-of-way.

    The EIS Process

    The EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:

    1. Geology and soils;

    2. land use;

    3. water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    4. cultural resources;

    5. vegetation and wildlife;

    6. air quality and noise;

    7. endangered and threatened species;

    8. public safety;

    9. socioeconomics; and

    10. cumulative impacts.

    Commission staff will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, Commission staff have already initiated a NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the Commission receives an application. As part of the pre-filing review, Commission staff will contact federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.

    The EIS will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The Commission will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, staff will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this Project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EIS.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has expressed their intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, part 1501.6.

    Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s) (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.4 Commission staff will define the Project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the Project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). The EIS for this Project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    Commission staff have already identified several issues that deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Mountain Valley. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.

    1. Domestic water sources, wells, springs, and waterbodies;

    2. federally-listed threatened and endangered species, including mussels, fish, and bats;

    3. residential developments and property values;

    4. public safety;

    5. environmental justice;

    6. operational noise from planned compressor stations; and

    7. alternatives and their potential impacts on a range of resources.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that information related to this environmental review is sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned Project.

    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of a CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 4).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Mountain Valley files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, part 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the Project, after which the Commission will issue a public notice that establishes an intervention deadline.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number in the “Docket Number” field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF18-4). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17545 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2189-000] Sanford Energy Associates, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Sanford Energy Associates, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 29, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17543 Filed 8-14-18; 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: PR18-75-000.

    Applicants: Atmos Pipeline-Texas.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): APT TCJA Rate Change to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/7/18.

    Accession Number: 20180807-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-913-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits tariff filing per: Informational Fuel Transparency Report (RP17-303 and RP17-913).

    Filed Date: 8/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20180801-5212.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1049-000.

    Applicants: Florida Southeast Connection, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing—FPL 4002 to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/7/18.

    Accession Number: 20180807-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1050-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2018-08-07 Encana to be effective 8/7/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/7/18.

    Accession Number: 20180807-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1051-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing in Docket No. CP18-83-000—Remove Reference to Enable Lease to be effective 7/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180808-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-940-003.

    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing of Currently Effective Rates and Proposed Storage Rates to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/8/18.

    Accession Number: 20180808-5122.

    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: August 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17541 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1186] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget 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 (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The Commission 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 September 14, 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 listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]. Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection.

    Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1186.

    Title: Rural Call Completion, WC Docket No. 13-39.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 56 respondents; 112 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-48 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure and recordkeeping requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 201, 202, 217, 218, 220(a), 251(a), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 217, 218, 220(a), 251(a), 403.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,744 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $350,000.00.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission has found that rural call completion is a continuing problem imposing needless economic and personal costs on local communities, and that continued Commission focus on the issue is warranted. The information collected through these data collections will be used by the Commission to determine whether long distance providers are complying with their sections 201 and 202 obligations to provide telephone service to both rural and nonrural customers on a just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis. The Commission revised this collection to eliminate the existing reporting requirement and to require covered providers to provide rural call completion contact information, which will be used to facilitate industry collaboration to address call completion issues.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17478 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by mail, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 012472-002.

    Agreement Name: Yang Ming/COSCO Shipping Slot Exchange Agreement.

    Parties: COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd.; Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation; and Yang Ming (UK) Ltd.

    Filing Party: Robert Magovern; Cozen O'Connor.

    Synopsis: The amendment revises the Agreement to clarify that the space provided to Yang Ming by COSCO SHIPPING will be provided on the CEN service and the AAC3 service, instead of the AAC service, effective on or around August 27, 2018.

    Proposed Effective Date: 8/9/2018.

    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/1969.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Rachel Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17609 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-3364-PN] Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the Joint Commission (TJC) for Continued Approval of its Psychiatric Hospital Accreditation Program AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice with request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Joint Commission (TJC) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for psychiatric hospitals that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

    DATES:

    To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3364-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

    Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3364-PN, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, MD 21244-8010.

    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3364-PN, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karena Meushaw (410) 786-6609, Monda Shaver (410) 786-3410 or Marie Vasbinder (410)786-8665.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background

    Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from a psychiatric hospital provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(f) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a psychiatric hospital. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 482 subparts A, B, C and E specify the minimum conditions that a psychiatric hospital must meet to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services and the conditions for Medicare payment for psychiatric hospitals.

    Generally, to enter into a provider agreement with Medicare, a psychiatric hospital must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 482 subpart A, B, C and E of our CMS regulations. Thereafter, the psychiatric hospital is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. There is an alternative, however, to surveys by State agencies.

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

    If an AO is recognized by CMS as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. An AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AO are set forth at § 488.5. Our regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require an accrediting organization to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program(s) every 6 years or sooner, as determined by CMS.

    The Joint Commission's current term of approval for their psychiatric hospital accreditation program expires February 25, 2019.

    II. Provisions of the Proposed Notice A. Approval of Deeming Organizations

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

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

    The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of TJC's request for CMS-approval of its psychiatric hospital accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether TJC's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions of participation (CoPs) for psychiatric hospitals.

    B. Evaluation of Deeming Authority Request

    TJC submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for CMS-approval of its psychiatric hospital accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on July 30, 2018. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 (Application and re-application procedures for national accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of TJC will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

    • The equivalency of TJC's standards for psychiatric hospitals as compared with CMS' psychiatric hospital CoPs.

    • TJC's survey process to determine the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    III. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    IV. Response to Comments

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

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

    V. Regulatory Impact Statement

    This proposed notice does not impose any regulatory impact.

    In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Dated: August 6, 2018. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17519 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Evaluation of Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking Program.

    OMB No.: 0970-0487.

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing data collection as part of the study, “Evaluation of the Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking (DVHT) Program”. This notice addresses the cross-site process evaluation to be conducted with the 13 FY 2016 DVHT grantees who were awarded 3-year cooperative agreements by the Office of Trafficking in Persons (OTIP). The intent of the DVHT Program is to build, expand, and sustain organizational and community capacity to deliver trauma-informed, strength-based, and victim-centered services for domestic victims of severe forms of human trafficking through coordinated case management, a system of referrals and the formation of community partnerships.

    The objective of the evaluation is to describe the ways in which projects achieve the goals of the DVHT Program and examine types of models that serve victims of human trafficking. Evaluation questions are focused on understanding project and service delivery models, process, and implementation; including partnership and collaboration development; services offered to and received by victims, strategies to identify and engage survivors; ways projects define and monitor program successes and outcomes; and program challenges, achievements, and lessons learned. Information from the evaluation will assist federal, state, and community policymakers and funders in making decisions about future program models to serve domestic victims of human trafficking, as well as to refine evaluation strategies for future programs targeting trafficking victims.

    The evaluation of the DVHT Program will document and describe grantees' projects and implementation approaches, including their service models and community partners; services provided to clients (i.e., victims of severe forms of human trafficking); service delivery practices; strategies to meet survivors' immediate and long-term housing needs; and approaches to engaging survivors in program development and service delivery.

    Primary data for the evaluation will be collected via surveys with project directors, case managers, and key community partners; and semi-structured qualitative interviews, including telephone interviews with project directors, in-person interviews with select project staff, survivor leaders, and program partners, and individual interviews with program clients. Interviews from multiple perspectives will enhance the government's understanding of appropriate service models and practice strategies for identifying, engaging, and meeting the needs of diverse populations of victims of severe forms of human trafficking. Data collection will take place after receiving OMB approval through March 2020.

    Data collection for an exploratory evaluation of the DVHT FY15 grantees (“Domestic Human Trafficking Demonstration Projects”) is being conducted under a prior Information Collection Request under 0970-0487. The data have provided insight into approaches grantees used to enhance organizational and community capacity, identify domestic victims, and deliver case management and direct services in collaboration with their community partners. The currently proposed data collection for DVHT FY16 will build on this earlier data collection for the DVHT FY15 study to understand strategies and program models implemented by the grantees in various program contexts. All data collection approved for DVHT FY15 is complete.

    Respondents: Project directors, case managers, survivor leaders, other select project staff, key community partners, and clients.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Total
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Annual burden
  • hours
  • Project Director Survey 13 7 1 .5 4 Partner Survey 260 130 1 .25 33 Case Manager Survey 130 65 1 .33 21 Project Director Interview #1 13 7 1 2 14 Project Director Interview #2 13 7 1 1.5 11 Site Visit Interview Guide 136 68 1 1.5 102 Client Interview Guide 40 20 1 1 20

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 205.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Emily B. Jabbour, ACF/OPRE Certifying Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17563 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-47-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: 2019 National Survey of Early Care and Education

    OMB No.: 0970-0391

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing a data collection activity as part of the National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE) which will be conducted October 2018 through August 2019. The objective of the NSECE is to document the nation's current supply of early care and education services (that is, home-based providers, center-based providers, and the center-based provider workforce). The 2019 NSECE will collect information on child care and early education providers that serve families with children from birth to 13 years in the country, as well as the early care and education (ECE) workforce providing these services. The proposed collection will consist of three coordinated nationally representative surveys:

    1. A survey of individuals providing care for children under the age of 13 in a residential setting (Home-based Provider Interview),

    2. a survey of providers of care to children ages 0 through 5 years of age (not yet in kindergarten) in a non-residential setting (Center-based Provider Interview), and

    3. a survey conducted with individuals employed in center-based child care programs working directly with children in classrooms (Workforce Interview).

    Both the home-based and center-based provider surveys will require a screener to determine eligibility for the main survey.

    The 2019 NSECE data collection efforts will provide urgently needed information about the supply of child care and early education available to families across all income levels, including providers serving low-income families of various racial, ethnic, language, and cultural backgrounds, in diverse geographic areas. The provider data will include programs that do or do not participate in the child care subsidy program, are regulated, registered, or otherwise appear in state or national lists and are home-based providers or center-based programs (e.g., private, community-based child care, Head Start, and state or local Pre-K). Accurate data on the availability and characteristics of early care and education programs are essential to assess the current and changing landscape of child care and early education programs since the 2012 NSECE data collection, and to provide insights to advance policy and initiatives in the ECE field.

    Respondents: Home-based providers serving children under 13 years, center-based child care providers (including public schools) serving children ages 0 through 5 years of age (not yet in kindergarten), and selected instructional staff members from these center-based child care providers.

    Annual Burden Hours Instrument Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Estimated
  • annual burden
  • hours
  • Home-Based Provider Interview, including Screener 4,000 1 .67 2,680 Home-based Provider Screener, no interview 2,015 1 .03 60 Center-Based Provider Interview, including Screener 7,800 1 . 8 6,240 Center-based Provider Screener, no interview 7,640 1 .1 764 Workforce Provider Interview 5,600 1 .33 1,848 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours 11,592

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Switzer Building, 330 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Emily Jabbour, ACF/OPRE Certifying Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17560 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority AGENCY:

    Administration for Children and Families, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Statement of Organizations, Functions, and Delegations of Authority

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has realigned the Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR). OHSEPR will be a direct report to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs. ACF will transfer the U.S. Repatriation Program from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to OHSEPR. The OHSEPR mission statement has been revised to include the Repatriation Program and responsibility for business continuity planning. It renames the Division of Disaster Case Management to the Division of Response and Recovery Operations and the Division of Emergency Planning, Policy and Operations to the Division of Emergency Policy and Planning. Lastly, it changes the reporting relationship of the Office of Communications from a direct report to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs to a direct report to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Meier, Acting Director for OHSEPR, (202) 401-9306, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201.

    This notice amends Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), as follows: Chapter KA, Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary as last amended in 80 FR 63555-63558, October 20, 2015; Chapter KW, Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response as last amended in 80 FR 63555-63558, October 20, 2015; Chapter KN, Office of Communications as last amended in 80 FR 63555-63558, October 20, 2015, and most recently in 81 FR 49223-49224, July 27, 2016; and Chapter KR, Office of Refugee Resettlement as last amended in 82 FR 6588-6590, January 19, 2017.

    I. Under Chapter KW, Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response, delete KW in its entirety and replace with:

    KW.00 MISSION. The Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR) promotes resilience of vulnerable individuals, children, families, and communities impacted by disasters and public health emergencies. OHSEPR provides human services expertise to ACF grantees, partners, and stakeholders during preparedness, response, and recovery operations for emergency and disaster events. Working closely with ACF Program Offices and the Office of Regional Operations (ORO), OHSEPR coordinates ACF's planning, policy, and operations for emergency and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. OHSEPR supports fulfillment of disaster human services within the integrated response and recovery operations of the HHS. OHSEPR administers the Human Services Immediate Disaster Case Management Program and the U.S. Repatriation Program. OHSEPR manages the ACF Continuity of Operation Plan (COOP), which directs how ACF's mission essential functions are performed during a wide range of disruptions or emergencies.

    KW.10 ORGANIZATION. OHSEPR is headed by a Director, who reports to the Assistant Secretary through the Deputy Assistant Secretary of External Affairs (DASEA), and consists of:

    Office of the Director (KW1) Division of Response and Recovery Operations (KW2) Division of Emergency Policy and Planning (KW3)

    KW.20 FUNCTIONS. A. The Office of the Director is responsible for the administrative oversight and strategic direction of all OHSEPR programs, projects, and activities. The Director implements the strategic vision of the DASEA, manages budgetary and legal matters affecting OHSEPR, administers human resources and program evaluation functions, and ensures alignment of activities by all OHSEPR divisions with the Director's strategy and applicable laws, policies, doctrines, and frameworks related to the provision of HHS ACF disaster human services and business continuity operations. The Deputy Director assists the Director in an alter-ego capacity to carry out the responsibilities and oversight of the OHSEPR. The Director works in close coordination with the DASEA and the Assistant Secretary due to the highly visible nature of emergency preparedness and response.

    The Administrative Team provides administrative, financial management, budget, and contract officer representative support to OHSEPR. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to: (1) Serving as the Executive Secretariat for OHSEPR, including managing correspondence, correspondence systems, and public requests; (2) coordinating human resources activities; and (3) as appropriate, development of internal policies and procedures relating to these activities.

    B. Division of Response and Recovery Operations is responsible for administration of ACF human services response and recovery operations for disasters and public health emergencies and the repatriation of U.S. citizens. This division works closely with the Division of Emergency Policy and Planning to maintain capabilities and ensure readiness for response and recovery operations to future events. Deployable capabilities include the Human Services Immediate Disaster Case Management (IDCM) Program, the Emergency Repatriation Program, and the deployment of ACF human services subject matter experts and staffing assets during response and recovery events.

    The Human Services IDCM Program assists states, tribes, and territories in establishing the capacity to coordinate and provide case management services in the event of a presidentially declared disaster for which Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Individual Assistance is approved. This Division maintains the capacity to deploy IDCM teams upon activation by the FEMA. The Division administers the electronic case record management system to provide IDCM services in accordance with data management laws and regulations. This Division works closely with FEMA and the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR).

    The Repatriation Program receives and assists citizens and their dependents returning to the United States through the repatriation process. During an emergency repatriation, initiated by the Department of State, this Division activates state government capability through pre-established agreements to provide temporary services necessary for the health and welfare of eligible repatriated individuals in the form of a service loan. Temporary services include, but are not limited to transportation, shelter, medical care, and other goods and services. (HHS Repatriation Program is authorized under Section 1113 of the Social Security Act and Public Law 86-571, 24 U.S.C. 321-329, and other applicable regulations and executive orders.) This Division maintains the capacity to deploy repatriation teams to support state government operations at points of entry. This Division works closely with the Department of State and HHS ASPR to carry out program operations and to respond during events when state capability has been exceeded.

    This Division manages capabilities for other operations, including ACF's Watch Desk and threat analysis, situational awareness reporting, and deployment and management of requested human services subject matter experts and response and recovery staffing assets. It also coordinates ACF support for federal emergency missions and liaises with federal interagency and other partners in response and recovery.

    C. Division of Emergency Policy and Planning is responsible for administering OHSEPR's policy and planning activities to support readiness of operations, and to promote preparedness and resilience for children, families, and communities prior to disasters, public health emergencies, and emergency repatriations. This Division carries out “steady state” activities to ensure readiness of deployable and non-deployable assets and programs, including the development of plans, guides, procedures, training, exercises, mutual agreements, and staffing assets. This Division actively promotes ACF's deployable capabilities, including IDCM and the Repatriation Program, and emergency preparedness and community resilience to ACF grantees and human services providers, and ensures human service impacts from disasters are addressed in HHS-wide and government-wide emergency planning and policymaking. This Division works closely with ACF programs, Office of Regional Operations, grantees and stakeholders, HHS operating divisions, federal human service programs, and state and local human service programs.

    This Division analyzes, forecasts, and maintains volunteer employee staffing assets; administers training and exercises for the deployment of volunteer staff in various types of situations; and ensures necessary follow-up contact with volunteer staff after deployment to ensure their well-being and adjustment. This Division works closely with ACF Program Offices, the Office of Regional Operations, and the HHS Employee Assistance Program.

    The Division is responsible for coordinating the development and currency of ACF COOPs as required by the Presidential Policy Directive 40 (PPD-40), National Continuity Policy, and as directed by the Administrator of FEMA. This Division ensures the COOP meets established continuity program and planning requirements for executive departments and agencies, and contains defined elements outlined in established frameworks, requirements, and processes. These required elements include delineation of essential functions; succession to office and delegations of authority; safekeeping of and access to essential records; continuity locations; continuity communications; human resources planning; devolution of essential functions; reconstitution; and program validation through testing, training, and exercises.

    II. Under Chapter KA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, delete KA.20 Functions, Paragraph A in its entirety and replace with the following:

    KA.20 FUNCTIONS. A. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families is responsible to the Secretary for carrying out ACF's mission and provides executive supervision of the major components of ACF. These responsibilities include providing executive leadership and direction to plan and coordinate ACF program activities to ensure their effectiveness; approving instructions, policies, publications, and grant awards issued by ACF; and representing ACF in relationships with governmental and non-governmental organizations. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary serves as an alter-ego to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families on program matters and acts in the absence of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. The Chief of Staff advises the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families and provides executive leadership and direction to the operations of ACF. The DASEA provides executive leadership and direction to the Office of Regional Operations and the OHSEPR. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Early Childhood Development serves as a key liaison and representative to the Department for early childhood development on behalf of the Assistant Secretary, ACF, and to other agencies across the government on behalf of the Department. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy has responsibility for cross-program coordination of ACF initiatives, including efforts to promote interoperability and program integration.

    III. Under Chapter KN, Office of Communications, delete KN.10 Organization and replace with the following:

    KN.10 ORGANIZATION. The Office of Communications is headed by a Director who reports to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. The Office is organized as follows:

    Office of the Director (KNA) Division of News and Media (KNB) Division of Digital Information (KNC) Division of Freedom of information Act (KND)

    IV. Under Chapter KN, Office of Communications, delete KN.20 functions, paragraph A and replace with the following:

    KN.20 FUNCTIONS. A. The Office of Director provides leadership and direction to the Office of Communications in administering its responsibilities. The Office provides direction and leadership in the areas of public relations policy and internal and external communications services. It serves as an advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the areas of public affairs, provides advice on strategies and approaches to be used to improve public understanding of and access to ACF programs and policies, and coordinates and serves as ACF liaison with the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. The Office serves as Regional Liaison on public affairs issues.

    V. Continuation of Policy. Except as inconsistent with this reorganization, all statements of policy and interpretations with respect to organizational components affected by this notice within ACF heretofore issued and in effect on this date of this reorganization are continued in full force and effect.

    VI. Delegation of Authority. All delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.

    VII. Funds, Personnel, and Equipment. Transfer of organizations and functions affected by this reorganization shall be accompanied in each instance by direct and support funds, positions, personnel, records, equipment, supplies, and other resources.

    This reorganization will be effective upon date of signature.

    Dated: August 8, 2018. Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17575 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Number: 93.676] Announcement of Intent To Issue One OPDIV-Initiated Supplement to BCFS Health and Human Services Under the Standing Announcement for Residential (Shelter) Services for Unaccompanied Children, HHS-2017-ACF-ORR-ZU-1132 AGENCY:

    Unaccompanied Alien Children's (UAC) Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to issue one OPDIV-Initiated Supplement to BCFS Health and Human Services, San Antonio, TX under the UAC Program.

    SUMMARY:

    ACF, ORR, announces the intent to issue one OPDIV-Initiated Supplement to BCFS Health and Human Services, San Antonio, TX in the amount of up to $19,011,218.

    ORR has been identifying additional capacity to provide shelter for potential increases in apprehensions of Unaccompanied Children at the U.S. Southern Border. Planning for increased shelter capacity is a prudent step to ensure that ORR is able to meet its responsibility, by law, to provide shelter for Unaccompanied Alien Children referred to its care by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    To ensure sufficient capacity to provide shelter to unaccompanied children referred to HHS, BCFS proposed to provide ORR with 700 beds in an expedited manner.

    DATES:

    Supplemental award funds will support activities through August 13, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jallyn Sualog, Director, Division of Children's Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20447. Phone: 202-401-4997. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ORR is continuously monitoring its capacity to shelter the unaccompanied children referred to HHS, as well as the information received from interagency partners, to inform any future decisions or actions. ORR has specific requirements for the provision of services. Award recipients must have the infrastructure, licensing, experience, and appropriate level of trained staff to meet those requirements. The expansion of the existing program and its services through this supplemental award is a key strategy for ORR to be prepared to meet its responsibility to provide shelter for Unaccompanied Children referred to its care by DHS and so that the U.S. Border Patrol can continue its vital national security mission to prevent illegal migration, trafficking, and protect the borders of the United States.

    Statutory Authority: This program is authorized by—

    (A) Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which in March 2003, transferred responsibility for the care and custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children from the Commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Director of ORR of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    (B) The Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), as well as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-457), which authorizes post release services under certain conditions to eligible children. All programs must comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), pertinent regulations and ORR policies and procedures.

    Elizabeth Leo, Grants Policy Specialist, Division of Grants Policy, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17558 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-45-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living [OMB# 0985-0059] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Data Collection Materials for the Annual Performance Reporting of the Administration for Community Living's American Indian, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiian Programs AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed collection of information listed above. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice.

    This notice solicits comments on the Revision of a Currently Approved Collection (ICR Rev) and solicits comments on the information collection requirements related to the annual Program Performance Report (PPR) for the American Indian, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiian Programs under Title VI of the Older Americans Act.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to: Kristen Hudgins at [email protected] Submit written comments on the collection of information to Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201, Attention: Kristen Hudgins.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Hudgins, Social Science Analyst, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201, 202-795-7732 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, ACL is publishing a notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, ACL invites comments on our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of ACL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of ACL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine burden estimates;

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

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    The data collection materials for the annual performance data for the Administration for Community Living's American Indian, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiian Programs (OAA Title VI) is a revision of a currently approved annual program performance data collection (OMB# 0985-0059). These data collection materials have been updated to better align with comparable data collected for ACL's other nutritional, supportive, and caregiving grants. Proposed changes include adding data components and updating others for more accurate reporting of persons served and activities provided through the Title VI-funded programs. The revised data collection will provide data necessary to determine the effectiveness of the program. Some examples of these changes are updating definitions in Title VI to be more in line with Title III, asking for unduplicated numbers of people served for different services and the number of hours spent providing said services. Additionally, the caregiver portion of the PPR has been updated to collect more information around types of caregivers served and unduplicated numbers of caregivers. Another element added has to do with information on expenditures. This data collection will also support ACL in tracking performance outcomes and efficiency measures with respect to the annual and long-term performance targets established in compliance with the Government Performance Results Modernization Act (GPRAMA).

    The proposed data collection tools may be found on the ACL website for review at https://www.acl.gov/about-acl/public-input.

    Estimated Program Burden: Title VI funding is broken into three categories. Parts A and B are for nutritional and supportive programming, and ask for the same information. Part A is for American Indian and Alaska Native grantees, and Part B is for Native Hawaiian grantees. Part C is for caregiver programming. All Part C grantees must have Part A/B funding; but not all Part A/B grantees will have Part C programs. Therefore, there are 270 unique respondents, but only 237 will have to complete all portions of the PPR. ACL believes that the increase in burden hours is justified by the improved quality of the data and will ultimately improve the services provided to Native Elders.

    Respondent/data collection activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden hours
  • PPR Part A/B 270 1 1.83 494.1 PPR Part C 237 1 1.66 393.4 Total: 887.5
    Dated: August 8, 2018. Mary Lazare, Principal Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17576 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0915] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the collection of information entitled “Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application.”

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of October 15, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0915 for “Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Guidance for Industry on Postmarketing Adverse Event Reporting for Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application; OMB Control Number 0910-0636—Extension

    This information collection supports Agency guidance directed to manufacturers, packers, and/or distributors whose names appear on the label of a nonprescription drug marketed in the United States under section 502(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 352(b)(1)). FDA is requesting public comment on estimates of annual submissions from these respondents, as required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 109-462) and described in the guidance. The guidance document discusses what should be included in a serious adverse drug event report submitted under section 760(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379aa(b)(1)), including followup reports under 760(c)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379aa(c)(2)), and how to submit these reports. The estimates for the annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens are based on FDA data on the number of adverse drug experience reports submitted for nonprescription drug products marketed without an approved application and on prior input from comments received from prior Federal Register publications.

    Based on FDA records, we received 194,449 total annual responses from approximately 283 respondents for nonprescription drugs marketed without an approved application. We estimate that each submission will take approximately 6 hours to prepare and submit.

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Reports of serious adverse drug events (21 U.S.C. 379aa((b) and (c)) 283 687.099 194,449 6 1,166,694 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Section 760(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379aa(e)) also requires that responsible persons maintain records of nonprescription adverse event reports, whether or not the event is serious, for a period of 6 years. The guidance recommends that respondents maintain records of efforts to obtain the minimum data elements for a report of a serious adverse drug event and any followup reports. We estimate that there are approximately 265,700 records per year maintained by approximately 300 respondents, and that it takes approximately 8 hours to maintain each record.

    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total
  • annual
  • records
  • Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    Recordkeeping (21 U.S.C. 379aa(e)(1)) 300 885.6667 265,700 8 2,125,600 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of submissions we received in the last few years.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17526 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2944] Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 20, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-2944. The docket will close on September 19, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by September 19, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 19, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of September 19, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Comments received on or before September 5, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2944 for “Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify the information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jay R. Fajiculay, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The meeting will focus on two topics related to the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality's priority of promoting the availability of better medicine. During the morning session, the committee will discuss the modernization of assessing drug applications through a Knowledge-Aided Assessment and Structured Application (KASA) initiative. FDA will seek input on the potential enhancement of a submission format consistent with KASA to improve the efficiency and consistency of regulatory quality assessment. During the afternoon session, the committee will discuss in-vitro/in-vivo relationship standards, and will seek input on establishing patient-focused dissolution standards for oral solid modified-release dosage forms.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the docket (see ADDRESSES) on or before September 5, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 10:40 a.m. to 11:10 a.m. and 3:20 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before August 28, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by August 29, 2018.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at [email protected] or 301-796-4540.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jay Fajiculay (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17524 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0809] Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease Product AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that CRYSVITA (burosamab-twza), manufactured by Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Althea Cuff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4061, Fax: 301-796-9856, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that CRYSVITA (burosamab-twza), manufactured by Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. CRYSVITA (burosamab-twza) is indicated for the treatment of X-linked hypophosphatemia in adult and pediatric patients 1 year of age and older.

    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further information about CRYSVITA (burosumab-twza), go to the “[email protected]” website at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: August 8, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17527 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0943] Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products—Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Reopening of the Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; reopening of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is reopening the comment period for the notice of availability that published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2018. In that document, FDA requested comments on the draft guidance for industry (GFI) #255 entitled “Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products—Questions and Answers.” The Agency is taking this action in response to requests for an extension to allow interested parties additional time to develop and submit comments.

    DATES:

    FDA is reopening the comment period on the notice of availability published March 27, 2018 (83 FR 13134). Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 15, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0943 for “Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products—Questions and Answers.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)). Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Brent, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-140), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0647, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of March 27, 2018, FDA published a notice of availability with a 60-day comment period to request comments on draft GFI #255 entitled “Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products—Questions and Answers.”

    This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Elemental Impurities in Animal Drug Products—Questions and Answers”, providing recommendations to sponsors regarding the control of elemental impurities in animal drug products, including all dosage forms and routes of administration. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    The Agency received two requests for an extension of the comment period for the draft guidance. The requestors indicated they needed more time to complete development of comments to submit in response to the draft guidance.

    FDA has considered the requests and is reopening the comment period for the draft guidance for 60 days, until October 15, 2018. The Agency believes that a 60-day reopening of the comment period allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments to ensure that the Agency can consider the comments on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17525 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian Communities Announcement Type: Competing Supplement Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2018-IHS-EPI-0002 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.231 Key Dates Application Deadline Date: September 12, 2018 Review Date: September 14-18, 2018 Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 30, 2018 I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Public Health Support, Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention (DEDP), is accepting applications for a cooperative agreement for competitive supplemental funds to enhance activities in the Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Tribes and Urban Indian communities.

    This program is authorized under: Section 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247(b)(k)(2), as amended]. Funding for this award will be provided by: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID). The authorities will be exercised by CDC and through an Intra-Departmental Delegation of Authority (IDDA) with IHS to create a supplemental funding opportunity for Tribal Epidemiology Centers. The administration will be carried out through an Intra-agency Agreement (IAA) between CDC and IHS. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.231.

    Background

    The Tribal Epidemiology Center (TEC) program was authorized by Congress in 1998 as a way to provide public health support to multiple Tribes and Urban Indian communities in each of the IHS Areas. Only current TEC grantees serving Arizona Indian Tribes or Urban Indian communities with confirmed cases of Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) between 2003-2017 are eligible to apply for the competing supplemental funding under this announcement and must demonstrate that they have complied with previous terms and conditions of the TEC program.

    Positioned uniquely within Tribes and Tribal or Urban Organizations, TECs are able to conduct disease surveillance, research, prevention and control of disease, injury, or disability. This allows them to assess the effectiveness of AI/AN public health programs. In addition, they can fill gaps in data needed for the relevant Government Performance and Results Act and Healthy People 2020 measures. Some of the existing TECs have already developed innovative strategies to monitor the health status of Tribes and Urban Indian communities, including development of Tribal health registries and use of sophisticated record linkage computer software to correct existing state data sets for racial misclassification. Tribal Epidemiology Centers work in partnership with IHS DEDP to provide a more accurate national picture of Indian health status. To further the goals of the partnership, a new CDC funding opportunity will be made available to TECs to implement cancer projects in Indian Country, designed to help decrease these disparities and lessen the burden of cancer in this population. For administrative purposes, this new funding opportunity will be packaged with the existing IHS cooperative agreements.

    RMSF is a life-threatening tickborne disease. RMSF has been an emerging threat to Tribal communities in Arizona since 2003, with more than 388 cases and 23 deaths—a case fatality rate 15 times higher than the national rate.

    Epidemics in Arizona Tribal communities are driven by large populations of brown dog ticks and free-roaming dog populations, and thus require control of the animal and vector population. Effective control strategies have been identified through evidence-based research with Tribal, Federal, state, and private partners in an innovative project called the RMSF Rodeo. This project demonstrated that integrated pest management techniques including use of tick preventives on dogs, environmental pesticide and community education could effectively reduce the number of ticks on dogs, in the environment, and more importantly, reduced the incidence of RMSF in Tribal communities. Cases in the project area were reduced by 43%. While these effective techniques have been identified and successfully implemented, they require fundamental infrastructure in vector control and animal control, which are often lacking in Tribal communities.

    Many of the impacted Tribal communities are small (fewer than 15,000 residents), rural communities where resources for vector and animal control may not be available. Consolidation of resources by region can ensure prudent use of funds where individual positions cannot be supported. Tribal Epidemiology Centers have a unique appreciation and understanding of these factors and ensure that health priorities and program interventions are culturally competent, appropriate, and locally minded. Tribal Epidemiology Centers provide technical assistance by way of program management, epidemiologic support and project design. These resources are often provided to one or more Tribal nations in the region and can serve as a regional support for area Tribes.

    For the purpose of this Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), technical assistance to support prevention of RMSF should be locally tailored and evidence-based. Recommended prevention practices could focus on material resources for vector control, environmental cleanup or animal control, training and staff development relating to RMSF prevention, or developing educational materials to educate the public and providers about issues relating to RMSF. All assistance with educational materials needs to ensure those that are used are culturally appropriate and locally-minded. Awardees are expected to provide support for applicant-identified outcomes from the following: Improve RMSF prevention practices to support the health of targeted Tribal communities at risk for RMSF, disseminate lessons learned on proven interventions of RMSF, and create sustainable RMSF prevention programs.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS cooperative agreement is to build capacity for RMSF prevention in Arizona's Tribes. RMSF prevention is a multidisciplinary problem, requiring technical resources across public health, veterinary, clinical medicine, vector control, environmental health and sanitation. This NOFO will support Tribes, through the technical assistance and trainings of regional TECs, in providing training for staff, purchasing equipment, building facilities, developing communications materials, and establishing partnerships that will sustain RMSF prevention in the long term.

    Limited Competition Justification

    The IHS enters into cooperative agreements with TECs under the authority of Section 214(a)(1) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437, as amended by Public Law 102-573. Tribal Epidemiology Centers carry out a list of functions specified in statute. These functions include data collection and analysis; evaluation of existing delivery systems, data systems, and other systems that impact the improvement of Indian health; making recommendations for the targeting of services; and provision of requested technical assistance to Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Urban Indian organizations [25 U.S.C. 1621m(b)]. Other organizations do not have the capacity to provide this support. With respect to access to information, TECs are treated as public health authorities for the purpose of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-191). Unlike their counterparts, they have no (or little) funding from their jurisdictional governments to perform these public functions.

    The limited-eligibility NOFO will allow direct support of RMSF prevention to TECs serving Arizona Indian Tribes and Urban Indian Organizations with confirmed cases of RMSF between 2003-2017. Utilization of TECs allows for the consolidation of regional resources across Tribal boundaries. TECs already possess technical expertise in program management, community-based interventions and educational tool development. Tribal Epidemiology Centers must have demonstrated their ability to methodically and effectively reach Tribal members and efficiently work with AI/AN populations on their public health capacity building. Selected organizations that have previous experience working effectively with Tribal governments will help ensure that interventions and infrastructure are culturally appropriate and locally minded.

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Cooperative Agreement.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2018 is approximately $300,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $100,000 and $300,000. The amount of funding available for competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement are subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately two awards will be issued under this program announcement.

    Period of Performance

    The period of performance is for three years and will run consecutively from September 30, 2018 to September 29, 2021.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. However, the funding agency (CDC) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both the CDC and the grantee. The CDC per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the IHS and the CDC, will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. IHS and CDC Programmatic Involvement

    (1) IHS will compete funds for TEC's using a NOFO. The IHS will be responsible for convening an Objective Review Committee (ORC) and selecting eligible applicants as detailed above.

    (2) The IHS and the CDC will be involved with ongoing consultation and technical assistance to plan, implement, and evaluate each component as described under Recipient Activities. Consultation and technical assistance may include, but not be limited to, the following areas:

    (i) Interpretation of current scientific literature related to epidemiology, statistics, surveillance, and other public health issues relating to RMSF;

    (ii) Technical assistance on the design and implementation of each program component such as surveillance, epidemiologic analysis, outbreak investigation, development of epidemiologic studies, development of disease control programs, coordination of activities, and training of study staff;

    (iii) Participating in the presentation of results in publications, if applicable; and

    (iv) Technical assistance on overall operational planning and program management.

    (3) Conduct site visits to TECs and/or coordinate TEC visits to IHS and/or CDC headquarters to assess work plans and ensure data security, confirm compliance with applicable laws and regulations, assess program activities, and to mutually resolve problems, as needed.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    (1) Build Tribal capacity to provide animal control, vector control or environmental cleanup, by providing technical assistance to the Tribe and/or Urban Indian Organization (UIO) in the purchase or rental of equipment, hiring of staff and training of staff in safe and effective vector control, animal control, and environmental cleanup practices.

    (2) Assist Tribes with conducting evidence-based RMSF prevention activities in communities at risk. Rocky Mountain spotted fever prevention activities can include (but are not limited to) cleanup of solid waste in and around homes, spay and neuter activities, and tick prevention campaigns.

    (3) Provide assistance to Tribes to conduct community education about RMSF, including the signs and symptoms, prevention, importance of early treatment and confirmatory testing.

    III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligibility

    Only current Arizona TEC grantees serving Tribes with previously reported cases of RMSF are eligible to apply for the competing supplemental funding under this announcement. They must demonstrate that they have complied with previous terms and conditions of the TEC program.

    Rocky Mountain spotted fever is a life-threatening tickborne disease. An ongoing epidemic of RMSF affects Tribal lands in Arizona with more than 388 cases and 23 deaths since 2003—a case fatality rate 15 times higher than that national rate. All deaths from locally acquired RMSF in Arizona have occurred among Native peoples. Six Tribes in the Arizona area have experienced epidemic rates of RMSF transmitted by this tick vector. Only Arizona TECs serving Tribes with previously reported cases of RMSF will be eligible to apply for this cooperative agreement. To avoid redundancy for funded activities, applicants must disclose any other federal funds from the current FY that have been received or applied specifically for RMSF prevention.

    No Supplanting of Funds

    The applicant must certify that: (1) The TEC RMSF Competing Supplemental Funds, if awarded, will not supplant expenditures from other Federal, State, or local sources or funds independently generated by the grantee; and (2) the TEC RMSF Competing Supplemental Funds, if awarded, will not supplant any leverage related to this grant, if any (that is, the grantee must have pursued and secured leverage to the fullest extent possible in order to ensure that expenditures from other Federal, State, or local sources or funds independently generated by the grantee are not supplanted).

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status and documents required.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the Estimated Funds Available section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, the IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/funding/.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 5 pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 10 pages).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Letters of Support from organization's Board of Directors.

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel.

    • Contractor or Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required in order to receive IDC).

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

    Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC website: https://harvester.census.gov/facdissem/Main.aspx.

    Public Policy Requirements: All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 10 pages and must: Be single-spaced, type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 points, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ x 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they will not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the ORC in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed. The 10-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    The page limitations below are for each narrative and budget submitted.

    Part A: Program Information 3 Page Limit

    Section 1: Needs.

    Describe applicant's current health program activities relating to RMSF prevention, including elements of vector control, animal control and solid waste cleanup, how long each element has been operating, what programs or services are currently being provided and identify any current partnerships supporting current Tribal programs. Describe the TEC's administrative infrastructure to support the assumption of program goals and accomplishments.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation 5 Page Limit

    Section 1: Program Plans.

    Fully and clearly describe the TEC's plans to demonstrate improved health and services to the community it serves. Include proposed timelines for negotiations and deliverables. Please note any partnerships you plan to utilize as part of program implementation. Please discuss any prioritization of RMSF prevention elements or justification for not addressing any of the key RMSF prevention tenets (animal control, vector control, education, or environmental cleanup).

    Section 2: Program Evaluation.

    Describe fully and clearly the improvements that will be made by the TEC to RMSF and identify the anticipated or expected benefits for Tribal communities they serve. Describe the outcomes that you plan to achieve within the funding period and how you plan to collect outcome and performance measures.

    Part C: Program Report 2 Page Limit

    Describe your organization's significant program activities and accomplishments over the past five years associated with the goals of this announcement.

    Please identify and describe significant program activities and achievements associated with RMSF. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.

    B. Budget Narrative 5 Page Limit

    This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable allowable, allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email at [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Paul Gettys ([email protected]), Grant Systems Coordinator, DGM, by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204. Please contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant or cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov website to submit an application electronically and select the “Search Grants” link on the homepage. Follow the instructions for submitting an application under the Package tab. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    Waiver Request

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process.

    Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to 15 working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, you may access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy website: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 10 page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 65 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (10 Points)

    • Background and problem statement. Provide concise summary of RMSF in Tribal communities served by the TEC. Include information about:

    ○ Impacted Tribal communities. (1 point)

    ○ Number of RMSF cases in Tribal communities. (1 point)

    ○ Tribal Epidemiology Center jurisdiction (which of the impacted Tribal communities are served by the TEC). (1 point)

    ○ Evidence of previous work with Tribal populations. (2 points)

    ○ Evidence of gaps in current Tribal RMSF response. (5 points)

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (25 Points)

    • Clearly identify the objectives of the program to be fulfilled by the TEC. At least two objectives should be able to be completed within the program period (indicate these two objectives in bold). (10 points)

    • Outline approach for achieving above listed objectives in work plan or logic model. Outline overarching activities, short-term and long term-outcomes. Make note of proposed timelines and partners who will be involved in each activity. (15 points)

    C. Program Evaluation (30 Points)

    • Clearly identify plans for program evaluation to ensure that objectives of the program are met at the conclusion of the funding period. (10 points)

    • Include SMART (Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound) evaluation criteria. (10 points)

    • Evaluation should minimally include summaries of activities in each of the key RMSF prevention tenants (animal control, vector control, education, or environmental cleanup). (10 points)

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (30 Points)

    • Include an organizational capacity statement which demonstrates the ability to execute program strategies within the program period. (10 points)

    • Project management and staffing plan. Detail that the organization has the current staffing and expertise to address each of the program activities. If current capacity does not exist please describe the actions that the TEC will take to fulfill this gap within a specified timeline. (10 points)

    • Demonstrate Tribal willingness to work with TEC on RMSF prevention efforts. (5 points)

    • Demonstrate that the TEC has previous successful experience providing technical or programmatic support to Tribal communities. (5 points)

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (5 Points)

    • Provide a detailed budget and accompanying narrative to explain the activities being considered and how they are related to proposed program objectives. (5 points)

    Multi-Year Project Requirements

    Projects requiring a second, or third year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.

    Additional Documents Can Be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e. data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, regarding minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget or project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 65, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative that is identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved But Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications retained by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2018 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS Grants Management Official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-Cost-Services/indian-tribes. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in Section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, a summary of progress to date or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of the expiration of the period of performance.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report (FFR or SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at https://pms.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Sub-Award Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the period of performance is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The period of performance start date was October 1, 2010 or after, and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.

    For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy website at http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    D. Compliance With Executive Order 13166 Implementation of Services Accessibility Provisions for All Grant Application Packages and Funding Opportunity Announcements

    Recipients of Federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with Federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/guidance-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-title-VI/.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS OCR for more information about obligations and prohibitions under Federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call (800) 368-1019 or TDD (800) 537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

    Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his or her exclusion from benefits limited by Federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS.

    Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following website: http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/forms/hhs-690.pdf, and send it directly to the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20201.

    E. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

    The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.

    As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive Federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.

    Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

    As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-Federal entity or an applicant for a Federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award.

    Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.

    Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857.

    (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line)

    Office: (301) 443-5204.

    Fax: (301) 594-0899.

    Email: [email protected]

    AND

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW, Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/index.asp.

    (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line)

    Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or

    Email: [email protected]

    Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371. Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 and 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Lisa C. Neel, Public Health Advisor, Office of Public Health Support, Division of Epidemiology & Disease Prevention, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 09E17B, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-4305, EMail: [email protected]

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: John Hoffman, Senior Grants Management Specialist, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2116, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, EMail: [email protected]

    VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Michael D. Weahkee, Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17515 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention; Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native Tribes and Urban Indian Communities Announcement Type: Competing Supplement Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2018-IHS-EPI-0001 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.231 Key Dates Application Deadline Date: September 12, 2018 Review Date: September 14-18, 2018 Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 30, 2018 I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Public Health Support, Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention (DEDP), is accepting applications for cooperative agreement for competitive supplemental funds to enhance activities in the Epidemiology Program for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Tribes and Urban Indian communities. This program is authorized under: Section 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 247b(k)), as amended. Funding for this award will be provided by: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The authorities will be exercised by CDC and through an Intra-Departmental Delegation of Authority (IDDA) with IHS to create a supplemental funding opportunity for Tribal Epidemiology Centers. The administration will be carried out through an Intra-agency Agreement (IAA) between CDC and IHS. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.231.

    Background

    The Tribal Epidemiology Center (TEC) program was authorized by Congress in 1998 as a way to provide public health support to multiple Tribes and Urban Indian communities in each of the IHS Areas. Only current TEC grantees are eligible to apply for the competing supplemental funding under this announcement and must demonstrate that they have complied with previous terms and conditions of the TEC program.

    TECs are uniquely positioned within Tribes, Tribal and Urban Indian organizations to conduct disease surveillance, research, prevention and control of disease, injury, or disability, and to assess the effectiveness of AI/AN public health programs. Positioned uniquely within Tribes and Tribal or Urban Organizations, TECs are able to conduct disease surveillance, research, prevention and control of disease, injury, or disability. This allows them to assess the effectiveness of AI/AN public health programs. In addition, they can fill gaps in data needed for the relevant Government Performance and Results Act and Healthy People 2020 measures. Some of the existing TECs have already developed innovative strategies to monitor the health status of Tribes and Urban Indian communities, including the development of Tribal health registries and use of sophisticated record linkage computer software to correct existing state data sets for racial misclassification. Tribal Epidemiology Centers work in partnership with IHS DEDP to provide a more accurate national picture of Indian health status. To further the goals of the partnership, a new CDC funding opportunity will be made available to TECs to implement cancer projects in Indian Country, designed to help decrease these disparities and lessen the burden of cancer in this population. For administrative purposes, this new funding opportunity will be packaged with the existing IHS cooperative agreements.

    The mission of the CDC National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion is to help people and communities prevent chronic diseases and promote health and wellness for all. Within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC) works with national organizations, state and Tribal health agencies, and other key groups to develop, implement, and promote effective strategies for preventing and controlling cancer.

    Purpose

    The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion will be supporting two activities with funding from DCPC. The first, Colorectal Cancer Screening Among AI/AN with Diabetes, seeks to reduce a diabetes-linked cancer health disparity experienced by the AI/AN population. This population experiences the highest rates of diabetes in the United States. Despite the recent identification of diabetes as a significant risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates remain poor in the diabetic population. Consequently, there is a critical need for effective intervention that promotes both CRC risk awareness and screening among AI/ANs with diabetes.

    The second National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion activity, Annual Cancer Survivorship Group Leadership Training, seeks to increase cancer survivor support group leadership in AI/AN communities.

    This cooperative agreement is to support the following National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion activities:

    (a) Colorectal Cancer Screening Among AI/AN with Diabetes.

    i. Develop a culturally grounded, multilevel intervention to communicate CRC risk and prevention information to AI/AN men and women over age 50 who have diabetes.

    ii. Determine effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening through direct mailing fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits to AI/AN patients with diabetes.

    iii. Develop a plan to embed CRC control initiatives within established diabetes management systems at Indian Health Service/Tribal health facilities.

    (b) Annual Cancer Survivorship Leadership Training.

    i. Organize and implement at least two, three-day cancer support leadership trainings for 15-25 AI/AN participants, nationally. The training will be designed to give participants a unique opportunity to work together in a safe, supportive environment to learn and practice skills to help people affected by cancer in their communities. The training will be based on the model, A Gathering of Cancer Support, using the Gathering of Native Americans (GONA) teaching methods.

    Limited Competition Justification

    The IHS enters into cooperative agreements with TECs under the authority of Section 214(a)(1) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437, as amended by Public Law 102-573. Tribal Epidemiology Centers carry out a list of functions specified in statute. These functions include data collection and analysis; evaluation of existing delivery systems, data systems, and other systems that impact the improvement of Indian health; making recommendations for the targeting of services; and provision of requested technical assistance to Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Urban Indian organizations [25 U.S.C. 1621m(b)]. Other organizations do not have the capacity to provide this support. With respect to access to information, TECs are treated as public health authorities for the purposes of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub L. 104-191). Unlike their counterparts, they have no (or little) funding from their jurisdictional governments to perform these public functions.

    The IHS and the CDC have determined that the TECs provide the most effective approach to strengthen public health capacity to support Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Urban Indian organizations, in identifying relevant health status indicators and priorities using sound epidemiologic principles.

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Cooperative Agreement.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2018 is approximately $220,000. An estimated $135,000 will be awarded for the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Colorectal Cancer Screening Among American Indians with Diabetes activities, and, a total of $85,000 will be awarded for the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Annual Cancer Survivorship Group Leadership Trainings. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $85,000 and $220,000. The amount of funding available for competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement are subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the CDC. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately two awards will be issued under this program announcement.

    Period of Performance

    The period of performance is for three years and will run consecutively from September 30, 2018 to September 29, 2021.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. However, the funding agency (CDC) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both the CDC and the grantee. The CDC, per the MOU between the IHS and the CDC, will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. CDC Programmatic Involvement

    (1) Provide funded TECs with ongoing consultation and technical assistance to plan, implement, and evaluate each component as described under Recipient Activities. Consultation and technical assistance may include, but not be limited to, the following areas:

    (i) Interpretation of current scientific literature related to epidemiology, statistics, surveillance, and other public health issues;

    (ii) Technical Assistance on the design and implementation of each program component such as surveillance, epidemiologic analysis, outbreak investigation, development of epidemiologic studies, development of disease control programs, and coordination of activities; and

    (iii) Technical Assistance on overall operational planning and program management.

    (2) Conduct routine site visits to TECs and/or coordinate TEC visits to IHS headquarters in order to assess work plans and ensure data security, confirm compliance with applicable laws and regulations, assess program activities, and to mutually resolve problems, as needed.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    (1) Provide a work plan to accomplish tasks described under National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Activities in the Purpose section.

    (2) Succinctly and independently address and report on the requirements for each funding stream awarded under Recipient Activities. Specifically:

    (i) Colorectal Cancer Screening Among American Indians with Diabetes.

    (a) Submit documentation of approval for the study/project from all necessary Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) including IHS, CDC, and Tribal (if applicable) prior to initiation of any study involving human subjects.

    (b) Coordinate testing of an innovative, multilevel intervention to promote fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) among American Indian men and women of or over age 50 who have diabetes.

    (c) Coordinate testing of the intervention model for feasibility and effectiveness to be carried out by four Tribal health programs, should such programs agree to participate.

    (ii) Annual Cancer Survivorship Group Leadership Training.

    (a) Work plan must include the training objectives, trainers, and the utilization of GONA training methods. The work plan must include an outline of outreach efforts to Tribal communities across the United States, not just with the TEC's catchment area. The following should also be considered when planning the training:

    • Based on a grassroots approach, an order of preference for Tribal community members attending the training would be cancer survivors, family members of cancer survivors, Tribal health care workers, and others. The selection will be further based on the intention of the attendee and their plans for use of the training in their community.

    • To establish cancer support services in the Tribal community, it is suggested that two people from the same community attend the training together to assist each other in the future.

    • To reach as many Tribal communities and members as possible, each training should be limited to new participants.

    • Submit report describing the number of trainings that were conducted and how many participants attended each training.

    • Submit registration forms of attendees and their contact information for use in updating list of previous attendees.

    III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligibility

    Only current TEC grantees are eligible to apply for the competing supplemental funding under this announcement and must demonstrate that they have complied with previous terms and conditions of the TEC program.

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required, such as proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the Estimated Funds Available section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/funding/.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 5 pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 10 pages).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Letters of Support from organization's Board of Directors.

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel.

    • Contractor or Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required in order to receive IDC).

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC website: https://harvester.census.gov/facdissem/Main.aspx.

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 10 pages and must: Be single-spaced, type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 points, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ × 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they will not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed. The 10-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    The page limitations below are for each narrative and budget submitted.

    Part A: Program Information (3 Pages) Section 1: Introduction and Need for Assistance

    Must include the applicant's background information, a description of epidemiological service, epidemiological capacity and history of support for such activities. Applicants need to include current public health activities, what program services are currently being provided, and interactions with other public health authorities in the region (state, local, or Tribal).

    Section 2: Organizational Capabilities

    The applicant must describe staff capabilities or hiring plans for the key personnel with appropriate expertise in epidemiology, health sciences, and program management. The applicant must also demonstrate access to specialized expertise such as a doctoral level epidemiologist and/or a biostatistician. Applicants must include an organizational chart, and provide position descriptions and biographical sketches of key personnel including consultants or contractors. The position description should clearly describe each position and its duties. Resume should indicate that proposed staff is qualified to carry out the project activities.

    Section 3: User Population

    The number of AI/ANs served must be substantiated by documentation describing IHS user populations, United States Census Bureau data, clinical catchment data, or any method that is scientifically and epidemiologically valid.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (5 Pages) Section 1: Program Plans

    Applicant must include a workplan that describes program goals, objectives, activities, timeline, and responsible person for carrying out the objectives/activities. The applicant must specify which activities listed under the Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities are proposed.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Applicant must define the criteria to be used to evaluate activities listed in the workplan under the Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities. They must explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified for the objectives are being met and if the outcomes identified are being achieved and describe how evaluation findings will be disseminated to stakeholders.

    Part C: Program Report (2 Pages)

    Section 1: Describe your organization's significant program activities and accomplishments over the past five years associated with the goals of this announcement.

    Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months related to conducting applied research projects, training community health representatives, implementing quality improvement initiatives in IHS or Tribal healthcare facilities, and/or organizing cancer survivor group leadership trainings.

    B. Budget Narrative (5 Pages)

    This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable allowable, allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Gettys ([email protected]), DGM Grant Systems Coordinator, by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204. Please contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov website to submit an application electronically and select the “Search Grants” link on the homepage. Follow the instructions for submitting an application under the Package tab. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    Waiver Request

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process.

    Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the Division of Epidemiology and Disease Prevention will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, you may access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy website: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 10 page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 65 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (25 Points)

    (1) Describe the applicant's current public health activities, including programs or services currently provided, interactions with other public health authorities in the regions (state, local, or Tribal) and how long the organization has been operating. Specifically describe the organization's current capacity to conduct applied research projects, train community health representatives, implement quality improvement initiatives, and/or organize cancer survivor group leadership trainings and provide examples of implementing these activities.

    (2) Provide a physical location of the TEC and area to be served by the proposed program including a map (include the map in the attachments), and specifically describe the office space and how it is going to be paid for.

    (3) Describe the applicant's user population. The applicant must demonstrate AI/ANs will be served and must be substantiated by documentation describing IHS user populations, United States Census Bureau data, clinical catchment data, or any method that is scientifically and epidemiologically valid.

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (45 Points)

    (1) State in measurable and realistic terms the objectives and appropriate activities to achieve each objective for the projects under the Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement, Section B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities located on page 8.

    (2) Identify the expected results, benefits, and outcomes or products to be derived from each objective of the project.

    (3) Include a work-plan for each objective that indicates when the objectives and major activities will be accomplished and who will conduct the activities.

    C. Program Evaluation (10 Points)

    (1) Define the criteria to be used to evaluate activities listed in the work-plan under the Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement, Section B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities located on page 8.

    (2) Explain the methodology that will be used to determine if the needs identified for the objectives are being met and if the outcomes identified are being achieved.

    (3) Describe how evaluation findings will be disseminated to stakeholders, including the Indian Health Service.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (15 Points)

    (1) Explain both the management and administrative structure of the organization including documentation of current certified financial management systems from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, IHS, or a Certified Public Accountant and an updated organizational chart (include in appendix).

    (2) Describe the ability of the organization to manage a program of the proposed scope.

    (3) Provide position descriptions and biographical sketches of key personnel, including those of consultants or contractors in the Appendix. Position descriptions should very clearly describe each position and its duties, indicating desired qualification and experience requirements related to the project. Resumes should indicate that the proposed staff is qualified to carry out the project activities. Applicants with expertise in epidemiology will receive priority.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (5 Points)

    (1) The five points for Categorical Budget only applies to Year 1. Provide a line item budget and budget narrative for Year 1.

    (2) Provide a justification by line item in the budget including sufficient cost and other details to facilitate the determination of cost allowance and relevance of these costs to the proposed project. The funds requested should be appropriate and necessary for the scope of the project.

    (3) If use of consultants or contractors are proposed or anticipated, provide a detailed budget and scope of work that clearly defines the deliverables or outcomes anticipated.

    (4) Applicant is encouraged to submit a line item budget and budget narrative by category for years 2-3 as an appendix to show the three-year plan of the proposal.

    Multi-Year Project Requirements

    Projects requiring a second, or third year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.

    Additional Documents Can be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e., data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, regarding minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget and project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 65, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative that is identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved But Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications retained by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2018 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-Cost-Services/indian-tribes. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in Section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, a summary of progress to date or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of the expiration of the period of performance.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report (FFR or SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at https://pms.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Sub-Award Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the period of performance is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The period of performance start date was October 1, 2010 or after, and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.

    For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy website at http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    D. Compliance With Executive Order 13166 Implementation of Services Accessibility Provisions for All Grant Application Packages and Funding Opportunity Announcements

    Recipients of Federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with Federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/guidance-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-title-VI/.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS OCR for more information about obligations and prohibitions under Federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call (800) 368-1019 or TDD (800) 537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

    Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his or her exclusion from benefits limited by Federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS. Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following website: http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/forms/hhs-690.pdf, and send it directly to the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20201.

    E. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

    The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.

    As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive Federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.

    Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

    As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-Federal entity or an applicant for a Federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award.

    Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.

    Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, Attn: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line). Office: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected] AND U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Attn: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW, Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/index.asp (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line). Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or Email: [email protected].

    Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371. Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 and 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Lisa C. Neel, Public Health Advisor, Office of Public Health Support, Division of Epidemiology & Disease Prevention, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 09E17B, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-4305, Email: [email protected].

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: John Hoffman, Senior Grants Management Specialist, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2116, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected].

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected].

    VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Michael D. Weahkee, RADM, Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17564 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Initial Review Group; Mental Health Services Research Committee.

    Date: October 15, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6136, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-443-1225, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 9, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17474 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID; Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34).

    Date: September 5, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ellen S. Buczko, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room # 3F30A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5028, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID; Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34).

    Date: September 5, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ellen S. Buczko, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room # 3F30A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5028, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 9, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17477 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Topic in Nephrology.

    Date: August 22, 2018.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Atul Sahai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2188, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1198, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 9, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17472 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on September 17, 2018, 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. (EDT) in a closed teleconference meeting.

    The meeting will include discussions and evaluations of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d).

    Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee website at http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/csat-national-advisory-council or by contacting the CSAT National Advisory Council Designated Federal Officer; Tracy Goss (see contact information below).

    Council Name: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: September 17, 2018, 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. EDT, Closed.

    Place: SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    Contact: Tracy Goss, Designated Federal Officer, CSAT National Advisory Council, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (mail), Telephone: (240) 276-0759, Fax: (240) 276-2252, Email: [email protected].

    Summer King, Statistician, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17528 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Sulphur, LA), as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Sulphur, LA), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. (Sulphur, LA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 10, 2017.

    DATES:

    Intertek USA, Inc. (Sulphur, LA) was accredited and approved, as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of May 10, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2020.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 2717 Maplewood Dr., Sulphur, LA 70663 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank Gauging. 5 Metering. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 11 Physical Properties Data. 12 Calculations. 14 Natural Gas Fluids Measurement. 17 Marine Measurement.

    Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-01 D 287 Standard Test Method for API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method). 27-02 D 1298 Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method. 27-03 D 4006 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation. 27-04 D 95 Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation. 27-05 D 4928 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration. 27-06 D 473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method. 27-07 D 4807 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oil by Membrane Filtration. 27-08 D 86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure. 27-11 D 445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity). 27-13 D 4294 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-46 D 5002 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Crude Oils by Digital Density Analyzer. 27-48 D 4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-50 D 93 Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester. 27-54 D 1796 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Fuel Oils by the Centrifuge Method. 27-58 D 5191 Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method).

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: August 6, 2018. Dave Fluty, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17520 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration [Docket No. TSA-2006-26514] Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Rail Transportation Security AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0051, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of a revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the submission of contact information of rail security coordinators (RSCs) and alternate RSCs from certain freight rail and passenger rail entities; reporting of significant security concerns, to include a new electronic reporting pilot option, in addition to existing telephonic reporting; documenting the transfer of custody and control of certain hazardous materials rail cars; and providing location and shipping information for certain hazardous materials rail cars.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by September 14, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology (IT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on March 9, 2018, 83 FR 10511.

    Comments Invited

    In accordance with 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 valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation will be available at http://www.reginfo.gov upon its submission to OMB. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: Rail Transportation Security.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-0051.

    Forms(s): NA.

    Affected Public: Rail and shippers/receivers of certain hazardous materials.

    Abstract: TSA requires freight railroad carriers and certain facilities handling specified categories and quantities of hazardous materials be able to report location and shipping information to TSA upon request. These regulated carriers and facilities must also implement chain of custody and control requirements to ensure a positive and secure exchange of the specified categories and quantities of hazardous materials listed in 49 CFR 1580.100(b), and make the reports available to TSA upon request. TSA further collects information from regulated parties on Rail Security Coordinators and significant security concerns telephonically. TSA is revising the collection to introduce an electronic reporting pilot option for significant security concerns.

    Number of Respondents: 1760.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 112,764 hours annually.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17551 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0026] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 14, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number [1615-0026] in the subject line.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2018, at 83 FR 19798, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive three comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0021 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-526; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses Form I-526 to determine if an alien can enter the U.S. to engage in commercial enterprise.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-526 is 11,460 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.83 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 20,972 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $745,338.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Samantha L. Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17536 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0133] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for Reduced Fee AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 14, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number [1615-0133] in the subject line.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2018, at 83 FR 18583, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive one comment in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2018-0002 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Reduced Fee.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-942; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses the data collected on this form to verify that the applicant is eligible for a reduced fee for the immigration benefit being requested.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-942 is 4,491 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.75 hour.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 3,368 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $19,087.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Samantha L Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17534 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0087] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322 AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0087 in the subject line.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2018, at 83 FR 19797, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0019 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N-600K; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N-600K is used by children who regularly reside in a foreign country to claim U.S. citizenship based on eligibility criteria met by their U.S. citizen parent(s) or grandparent(s). The form may be used by both biological and adopted children under age 18. USCIS uses information collected on this form to determine that the child has met all of the eligibility requirements for naturalization under section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). If determined eligible, USCIS will naturalize and issue the child a Certificate of Citizenship before the child reaches age 18.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection N-600 is 3,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.08 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 6,240 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $367,500.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Samantha L. Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17532 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0053] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected]. All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0053 in the subject line.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2018, at 83 FR 24486, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did not receive any comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0016 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N-426; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The Form N-426 is used by naturalization applicants to document honorable service in the U.S. Armed Forces. The form is filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) when the respondent applies for naturalization with USCIS Form N-400, Application for Naturalization (OMB Control Number 1615-0052). The Department of Defense (DOD) record centers or personnel offices verify and certify the applicant's military or naval service information provided on Form N-426. USCIS reviews the form as part of the process to determine the applicant's eligibility for naturalization. USCIS also collects biometric information from respondents to verify their identity and check or update their background information.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection N-426 is 10,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is .75 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 7,500 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $245,000.

    Dated: August 9, 2018 Samantha L. Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17530 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0101] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Document Verification Request and Supplement AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0101 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0008. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2008-0008;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0008 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Document Verification Request and Supplement.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form G-845; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State, local or Tribal Government.

    In the verification process, a participating agency validates an applicant's immigration status by inputting identifying information into the Verification Information System (VIS), which executes immigration status queries against a range of data sources. If VIS returns an immigration status and the benefit-issuing agency does not find a material discrepancy with the response and the documents provided by the applicant, the verification process is complete. Then, the agency may use that immigration status information to determine whether to issue the benefit.

    If VIS does not locate a record pertaining to the applicant during an electronic initial verification, a second step additional verification must be requested by the agency, so that a Status Verifier can manually check the records. If the Status Verifier cannot determine status during the second step additional verification, they will request the agency to submit a copy of the applicant's immigration document. The immigration document can be submitted using scan and upload or by attaching it to a Form G-845 and mailing it to the Status Verifier.

    Applicants may check on the processing of additional verification through the SAVE Case Check web portal, found at http://www.uscis.gov/save/save-case-check. SAVE Case Check permits applicants to use the SAVE verification numbers associated with their benefit applications or the immigration identification numbers and dates of birth provided to those benefit granting agencies to access this information.

    In limited cases, agencies may query USCIS by filing Form G-845 by mail. Although the Form G-845 does not require it, if needed, certain agencies may also file the Form G-845 Supplement with the Form G-845, along with copies of immigration documents to receive additional information necessary to make their benefit determinations. These forms were developed to facilitate communication between all benefit-granting agencies and USCIS to ensure that basic information required to assess status verification requests is provided.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection G-845 Verification Request is 162,106 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.083 hours; for the information collection VIS Query the estimated total number of respondents is 23,293,981 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.17 hours; for the information collection G-845, Verification Request Supplement, the estimated total number of respondents is 7,122 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.083 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 3,974,023 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $141,236,767.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Samantha L. Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17535 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0057] Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Certificate of Citizenship AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0057 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0023. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2006-0023;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2018, at 83 FR 19796, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS is publishing a second Notice allowing for a 60-day comment period to allow for comments on additional changes to the form and instructions.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2006-0023 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Certificate of Citizenship.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N-600; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form N-600 collects information from respondents who are requesting a Certificate of Citizenship because they acquired United States citizenship either by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s), adoption by a U.S. citizen parent(s) or after meeting eligibility requirements after the naturalization of a foreign born parent. This form is also used by applicants requesting a Certificate of Citizenship because they automatically became a citizen of the United States after meeting eligibility requirements for acquisition of citizenship by foreign born children. Form N-600 can also be filed by a parent or legal guardian on behalf of a minor child. The form standardizes requests for the benefit, and ensures that basic information required to assess eligibility is provided by applicants.

    USCIS uses the information collected on Form N-600 to determine if a Certificate of Citizenship can be issued to the applicant. Citizenship acquisition laws have changed throughout the history of the INA and different laws apply to determine whether the applicant automatically became a U.S. citizen. However, step children cannot acquire U.S. citizenship under any provision of the INA.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection N-600 is 67,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.58 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Biometrics is 67,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 184,250 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $8,207,500.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Samantha L. Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17533 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2018-N097; FXES11140400000-178-FF04EF2000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Incidental Take Permit Application, Habitat Conservation Plan for the Alabama Beach Mouse, and Environmental Assessment for Gulf Place East Parking Lot in Gulf Shores, AL AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments and information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The city of Gulf Shores, Alabama, is requesting a 30-year ITP for take of the federally listed Alabama beach mouse incidental to construction. We request public comments on the permit application, which includes a proposed habitat conservation plan, and an environmental assessment prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments and request copies of the application, including the HCP, and the EA by any one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail: Alabama Ecological Services Office, Attn: Permit number TE84363C; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 1208 Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; or Atlanta Regional Office, Attn: Permit number TE84363C; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345.

    In-person: You may deliver comments during regular business hours at either of the office addresses listed above under U.S. mail. You may inspect the application, HCP, and EA by appointment during normal business hours at the same locations.

    Email: You may email comments to [email protected] Please include your name and email address in your email message. Use “Attn: Permit number TE84363C” in the subject line of your email message. If you do not receive an email from us confirming that we received your email message, contact us directly at either telephone number in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Dell, Regional HCP Coordinator, at the Atlanta Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone at 404-679-7313, or Mr. William Lynn, Project Manager, at the Alabama Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone at 251-441-5868. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The city of Gulf Shores, Alabama (applicant), is requesting a 30-year ITP for take of the federally listed Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) (covered species) incidental to the construction of the Gulf Place East parking lot and amenities on a 4.14-acre property in Gulf Shores, Baldwin County, Alabama. We request public comments on the permit application, which includes a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), and an environmental assessment (EA) prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    The applicant's HCP describes the activities that will be undertaken to construct the parking lot, as well as the mitigation and minimization measures proposed to address the impacts to the covered species. Pursuant to NEPA, the EA analyzes the impacts that ITP issuance would have on the covered species and the environment.

    Environmental Assessment

    The EA assesses the likely environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the activities described in the HCP (proposed action), including the consequences of the no-action alternative, the construction of the parking lot with no conservation measures alternative, and the proposed action. The proposed action also includes issuance of the ITP and implementation of the HCP as submitted by the applicant. The applicant anticipates that the proposed action would result in the loss of approximately 0.89 acres of occupied Alabama beach mouse habitat within the 1.40-acre footprint of the project.

    Habitat Conservation Plan

    The HCP covered area consists of 4.14 acres of land owned by the applicant. The HCP includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the Alabama beach mouse from construction of the parking lot. To minimize impacts to the covered species and its habitat, the applicant reduced the footprint of the parking lot. Other avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, trapping and relocating the species, dune enhancement and restoration, installation of sand fencing, and creation of a dune enhancement fund. The dune enhancement fund would be used to enhance habitat elsewhere within the city limits of Gulf Shores where Alabama beach mice may be found.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, or EA, you may submit comments by any one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the HCP, EA, and your comments to determine whether the ITP application meets the permit issuance requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. If the requirements for permit issuance are met, we will issue ITP number TE84363C-0 to the applicant for incidental take of the Alabama beach mouse.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the ESA's regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Mike Oetker, Acting Regional Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17606 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G] Indian Gaming; Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Taking Effect in the State of California AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The notice announces that the Tribal-State Compact between the State of California and the Elk Valley Rancheria is taking effect.

    DATES:

    This compact takes effect on August 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by IGRA and 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The Secretary took no action on the compact between the Elk Valley Rancheria and the State of California within 45 days of its submission. Therefore, the Compact is considered to have been approved, but only to the extent the Compact is consistent with IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C).

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Tara Sweeney, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17548 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [189 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact (Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the extension of the Class III gaming compact between the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota.

    DATES:

    The extension takes effect on August 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    An extension to an existing tribal-state Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 293.5. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the expiration date of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to January 23, 2019. This publishes notice of the new expiration date of the compact.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Tara Sweeney, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17550 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLUT030000.L17110000.DJ0000.LXSS037J0000] Notice of Termination of the Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Utah AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Termination.

    SUMMARY:

    The preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) associated with the Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment for the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument (GSENM) is superseded by a Monument Plan Revision and therefore is no longer required. The process is hereby terminated.

    DATES:

    Termination of the EIS process for a Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment takes effect immediately.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Betenson, Associate Monument Manager, telephone (435) 644-1200; address: 669 S Hwy 89A, Kanab, UT 84741; email: [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced its intent to prepare an EIS. The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2013. The Plan Amendment would have considered modifying land use decisions associated with livestock grazing within the GSENM and portions of the Kanab Field Office, Arizona Strip Field Office, as well as lands managed by the National Park Service in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area where GSENM administers grazing.

    In 2013, the BLM determined that planning level decisions associated with livestock grazing may need to be modified and initiated a Plan Amendment effort. On December 4, 2017, Presidential Proclamation 9682 modified the boundaries of the GSENM. As a result of the boundary modification, the BLM has initiated a full Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision for the BLM-administered lands that were previously part of this analysis. The RMP revision will include consideration of livestock grazing in its planning-level decisions. The NOI for the RMP Revision was published on January 16, 2018.

    The amendment for livestock grazing is no longer necessary and the BLM hereby terminates preparation of the Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment and associated EIS.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.

    Edwin L. Roberson, State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17611 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNV952000 L14400000.BJ0000.LXSSF2210000.241A; 13-08807; MO #4500124382; TAS: 14X1109] Filing of Plats of Survey; NV AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.

    DATES:

    Unless otherwise stated filing is applicable at 10:00 a.m. on the dates indicated below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael O. Harmening, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502-7147, phone: 775-861-6490. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. The Supplemental Plat of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on April 04, 2018:

    The supplemental plat, in one sheet, showing a subdivision of lots 2, 3, and 4, section 34, Township 20 South, Range 54 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 981, was accepted April 3, 2018. This supplemental plat was prepared to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.

    2. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on April 12, 2018:

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 33 and a metes-and-bounds survey of the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Nevada Northern Railway Hiline through a portion of section 33, Township 18 North, Range 64 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 854, was accepted on April 09, 2018. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.

    3. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on May 04, 2018:

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the entire records of the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, Township 43 North, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 970, was accepted on May 03, 2018. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.

    4. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on May 04, 2018:

    The plat in two sheets, representing the entire records of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and Mineral Survey No. 4864, Township 42 North, Range 62 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 969, was accepted on May 02, 2018. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.

    5. The Plat of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on May 11, 2018:

    The plat in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 7 South, Range 56 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 980, was accepted on May 09, 2018. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.

    6. The Supplemental Plat of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on June 18, 2018:

    The supplemental plat in one sheet, showing the subdivision of lots 15 and 16, section 20, Township 19 South, Range 62 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 985, was accepted June 14, 2018. This supplemental plat was prepared to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.

    The survey and supplemental plats listed above, are now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. These records have been placed in the open files in the BLM Nevada State Office and are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the surveys and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Michael O. Harmening, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Nevada.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17608 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission Request for New Information Collection Under the Paperwork Reduction Act: Stakeholders Surveys AGENCY:

    National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice of request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a new proposed generic information collection, i.e., voluntary stakeholders surveys to be conducted by the NIGC. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act, the NIGC is soliciting comments for this proposed collection.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments can be mailed, faxed, or emailed to the attention of: Tim Osumi, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may be faxed to (202) 632-7066 and may be sent electronically to [email protected], subject: PRA renewals.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tim Osumi at (202) 632-7054; fax (202) 632-7066 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or the Act), 25 U.S.C. 2701, et seq., laid out a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. Amongst other actions necessary to carry out the Commission's statutory duties, the Act directs the Commission to provide trainings and technical assistance to tribal gaming operations regulated by IGRA. 25 U.S.C. 2706(d)(2).

    The Commission is requesting a new clearance to conduct voluntary stakeholder surveys in order to: (i) Determine the stakeholders' satisfaction with the level(s) of service, trainings, and/or technical assistance provided by the Commission; (ii) identify any perceived weaknesses in those services, trainings, and/or technical assistance; (iii) seek any other information on the service, training, and/or technical assistance received; (iv) seek suggestions on improving the product or its format; and (v) seek suggestions for other services, trainings, and/or technical assistance. This new collection will be voluntary and the information gleaned from these surveys will be used to help direct service, training, and/or technical assistance improvement efforts, and to assist the Commission in better identifying the needs of its stakeholders. The Commission will take precautions to ensure that the respondents are aware that they are not under any risk for not responding or for the content of their responses.

    The NIGC is particularly interested in comments that:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB control number. It is the Commission's policy to make all comments available to the public for review at its headquarters, located at 90 K Street NE, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask in your comment that the Commission withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the Commission cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.

    Analysis

    Title: Voluntary Stakeholders Surveys.

    Affected Public: Tribal governing bodies.

    Frequency: Twice annually.

    Number of Respondents: 257.

    Annual Responses: 514.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 129.

    Dated: August 3, 2018.

    Christinia Thomas, Chief of Staff (A).
    [FR Doc. 2018-17129 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-609 and 731-TA-1421 (Preliminary)] Steel Trailer Wheels From China; Institution of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-609 and 731-TA-1421 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of steel trailer wheels from China, provided for in subheading 8716.90.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by September 24, 2018. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by October 1, 2018.

    DATES:

    August 8, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jordan Harriman (202) 205-2610, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—These investigations are being instituted, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), in response to a petition filed on August 8, 2018, by Dexstar Wheel, Elkhart, Indiana.

    For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Conference.—The Commission's Director of Investigations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, August 29, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to [email protected] (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before August 27, 2018. Parties in support of the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

    Written submissions.—As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before September 4, 2018, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's website at https://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Certification.—Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these investigations must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that any information that it submits to the Commission during these investigations may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of these or related investigations or reviews, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 9, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17471 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-608 and 731-TA-1420 (Preliminary)] Steel Racks From China Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of steel racks from China that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and to be subsidized by the government of China.2 3

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    2Steel Racks From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation 83 FR 33195 (July 17, 2018) and Certain Steel Racks From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation 83 FR 33201 (July 17, 2018).

    3 Commissioner Meredith M. Broadbent not participating.

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigations

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Background

    On June 20, 2018, the Coalition for Fair Rack Imports 4 filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of steel racks from China and LTFV imports of steel racks from China. Accordingly, effective June 20, 2018, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-608 and antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1420 (Preliminary).

    4 Members of the Coalition are Bulldog Rack Company, Weirton, West Virginia; Hannibal Industries, Inc., Los Angeles, California; Husky Rack and Wire, Denver, North Carolina; Ridg-U-Rak, Inc., North East, Pennsylvania; SpaceRAK, A Division of Heartland Steel Products, Inc., Marysville, Michigan; Speedrack Products Group, Ltd., Sparta, Michigan; Steel King Industries, Inc., Stevens Point, Wisconsin; Tri-Boro Shelving & Partition Corp., Farmville, Virginia; and UNARCO Material Handling, Inc., Springfield, Tennessee.

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of June 26, 2018 (83 FR 29822). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on July 11, 2018, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on August 6, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4811 (August 2018), entitled Steel Racks from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-608 and 731-TA-1420 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 9, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17476 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States of America v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-05800. On June 27, 2018, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that The Walt Disney Company's proposed acquisition of certain assets from Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires The Walt Disney Company to divest Fox's interests in the following regional sports networks: (i) Fox Sports Arizona; (ii) Fox Sports Carolinas; (iii) Fox Sports Detroit; (iv) Fox Sports Florida; (v) Fox Sports Indiana; (vi) Fox Sports Kansas City; (vii) Fox Sports Midwest; (viii) Fox Sports New Orleans; (ix) Fox Sports North; (x) Fox Sports Ohio; (xi) SportsTime Ohio; (xii) Fox Sports Oklahoma; (xiii) Fox Sports San Diego; (xiv) Fox Sports South; (xv) Fox Sports Southeast; (xvi) Fox Sports Southwest; (xvii) Fox Sports Sun; (xviii) Fox Sports Tennessee; (xix) Fox Sports West; (xx) Prime Ticket; (xxi) Fox Sports Wisconsin; and (xxii) the YES Network.

    Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's website at http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations.

    Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's website, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to Owen M. Kendler, Chief, Media, Entertainment, and Professional Services Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, (telephone: 202-305-8376).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The Walt Disney Company, and Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., Defendants.

    Civil Action No.: 1:18-cv-05800 (CM)(KNF)
    COMPLAINT

    The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action to enjoin the acquisition by The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) of certain assets and businesses of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. (“Fox”) and to obtain other equitable relief.

    I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

    1. Cable sports programming is one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the United States. Disney's proposed acquisition of Fox's assets would combine two of the country's most valuable cable sports properties—Disney's ESPN franchise of networks and Fox's portfolio of Regional Sports Networks (“RSNs”)—and thereby likely substantially lessen competition in the multiple Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”) throughout the United States in which these two firms compete.

    2. Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 13, 2017, as amended on June 20, 2018, Disney agreed to acquire certain assets and businesses, including Fox's ownership of or interests in its RSNs, FX cable networks, National Geographic cable networks, television studio, Hulu, film studio, and international television businesses, (the “Sale Assets”) from Fox for approximately $71.3 billion (the “Transaction”). Fox operates and proposes to sell to Disney its interests in the following RSNs: (i) Fox Sports Arizona, (ii) Fox Sports Carolinas, (iii) Fox Sports Detroit, (iv) Fox Sports Florida, (v) Fox Sports Indiana, (vi) Fox Sports Kansas City, (vii) Fox Sports Midwest, (viii) Fox Sports New Orleans, (ix) Fox Sports North, (x) Fox Sports Ohio, (xi) SportsTime Ohio, (xii) Fox Sports Oklahoma, (xiii) Fox Sports San Diego, (xiv) Fox Sports South, (xv) Fox Sports Southeast, (xvi) Fox Sports Southwest, (xvii) Fox Sports Sun, (xviii) Fox Sports Tennessee, (xix) Fox Sports West, (xx) Prime Ticket, (xxi) Fox Sports Wisconsin, and (xxii) the YES Network.

    EN15AU18.000

    3. An RSN is a cable network that telecasts live games of one or more local professional sports team—i.e., a “home” team or teams within that particular region. An RSN's contract with a local sports team typically provides the RSN with the exclusive rights, within a team's local region, to telecast live nearly all that team's games. Collectively, the Fox RSNs are the largest group of commonly controlled RSNs. In the aggregate, the Fox RSNs have approximately 61 million subscribers across the country and have rights to telecast live games of 44 of 91 (48%) U.S. professional sports teams in three of the four major sports leagues: Major League Baseball (“MLB”), the National Basketball Association (“NBA”) and the National Hockey League (“NHL”). More specifically, the Fox RSNs have the local rights to 15 of 30 (50%) MLB teams, 17 of 30 (57%) NBA teams, and 12 of 31 (39%) NHL teams.

    4. Cable sports television networks—including RSNs—compete to be carried in the programming packages that multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”), such as Comcast, Charter, DISH, and FiOS, offer to their subscribers. For RSNs, the carriage license typically is limited to the DMAs comprising the “home” territory of the team or teams carried on the RSN; whereas, licenses for national television networks typically comprise all DMAs in a MVPD's footprint. Disney's and Fox's cable sports television programming compete head-to-head to be carried on MVPDs in all the DMAs where Fox's RSNs are located: Phoenix, Arizona; Detroit, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Cleveland, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Miami, Florida; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Tampa Bay, Florida; Dallas, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; Atlanta, Georgia; Indianapolis, Indiana; Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Nashville, Tennessee; Memphis, Tennessee; San Diego, California; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; New Orleans, Louisiana; Kansas City, Kansas; Charlotte, North Carolina; Los Angeles, California; and New York, New York (collectively, the “DMA Markets”).

    5. If consummated, the proposed acquisition would eliminate the substantial head-to-head competition that currently exists between Disney and Fox and would likely result in higher prices for cable sports programming in each of the DMA Markets. Consequently, Defendants' proposed Transaction likely would substantially lessen competition in those markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.

    II. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND COMMERCE

    6. The United States brings this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, to prevent and restrain Disney and Fox from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.

    7. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.

    8. Disney and Fox are engaged in interstate commerce and in activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. They each license programming to MVPDs located across the country in exchange for license, or “affiliate,” fees. They each own and operate television networks that are distributed to viewers throughout the United States. Their television programming licenses have had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

    9. Defendants have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in this District. Venue is also proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22, and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).

    III. THE DEFENDANTS

    10. Disney is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Burbank, California. It reported revenue of $55 billion for fiscal year 2017. Disney owns various television programming assets, including 80% of ESPN—a sports entertainment company that operates several domestic sports television networks. Disney's other television programming assets include: (i) the ABC television network; (ii) eight owned-and-operated ABC broadcast stations; (iii) Disney-branded television networks; and (iv) Freeform, a television network geared toward teenagers and young adults.

    11. Fox is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, New York. It reported revenue of $28.5 billion for fiscal year 2017. The Fox Sale Assets, which include several television programing assets and all of the Fox RSNs, generated $19 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2017.

    IV. RELEVANT MARKETS

    12. The licensing of cable sports programming to MVPDs constitutes a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. This includes licensing to both MVPDs and virtual MVPDs. Cable sports programming includes cable networks that devote a substantial portion of programming time to airing live sports events, such as MLB games.

    13. The DMA Markets constitute geographic markets under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. A DMA is a geographical unit for which A.C. Nielsen Company—a firm that surveys television viewers—furnishes MVPDs, among others, with data to aid in evaluating audience size and composition in a particular area. DMAs are widely accepted by MVPDs as the standard geographic area to use in evaluating television audience size and demographic composition. The Federal Communications Commission also uses DMAs as geographic units with respect to its MVPD regulations.

    14. Disney and Fox license cable sports programming to MVPDs in each of the DMA Markets in which MVPDs provide programming to subscribers as part of bundled channel packages. Disney's and Fox's cable sports programming in each of the DMA Markets generates a significant amount of revenue through licensing fees to MVPDs in those markets.

    15. Sports programming is important to MVPDs because sports viewers comprise an important customer group for MVPDs, and MVPDs could not attract many of these sports viewers without including sports television programming in the MVPDs' packages of available networks.

    16. For MVPDs, sports programming on broadcast television is unlikely a sufficient substitute for cable sports programming. MVPDs do not typically consider broadcast networks as providing the same type of content as cable networks like ESPN and the RSNs. Broadcast networks and their affiliates aim to have broad appeal by offering a variety of highly-rated programming content including primetime entertainment shows, syndicated shows, and local and national news and weather in addition to sports, with marquee sports events making up a small percentage of a broadcast network's airtime. For that reason, MVPDs do not typically consider broadcast network programming as a replacement for cable sports programming.

    17. Accordingly, a hypothetical monopolist of all cable sports programming in a DMA Market likely would profitably increase licensing fees to MVPDs in that DMA Market by at least a small but significant amount.

    V. LIKELY ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS

    18. The cable sports programming market in nearly all of the DMA Markets is already highly concentrated. As a result of the Transaction, Disney's networks would account for at least 60 percent of cable sports programming revenue in 19 of the DMA Markets and over 45 percent in the remaining six DMA Markets. Consequently, bringing Disney's ESPN networks and Fox's RSNs under common ownership would significantly concentrate the cable sports programming market in each of the DMA Markets.

    19. Market concentration is often a useful indicator of the likely competitive effects of a merger. The more concentrated a market, and the more a transaction would increase concentration in a market, the more likely it is that the transaction would result in a meaningful reduction in competition that harms consumers.

    20. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”) is a standard measure of market concentration. Under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, mergers resulting in highly concentrated markets (with an HHI in excess of 2,500) that involve an increase in the HHI of more than 200 points are presumed to be likely to enhance market power.

    21. Using 2017 gross cable sports programming revenue, in each of the DMA Markets, the combination of Disney and the Fox Sale Assets would result in HHIs in excess of 2,500 and involve an increase in the HHI of more than 200. Therefore, in each DMA Market, the HHI levels are above the thresholds at which a merger is presumed likely to enhance market power.

    22. For example, in the Detroit DMA Market, where Fox operates Fox Sports Detroit, the Transaction would result in a post-merger HHI of over 4,000 with an increase of over 1,400. Therefore, in this market, the Transaction results in a presumptively anticompetitive level of concentration. Similarly, the Transaction would result in presumptively anticompetitive levels of concentration in each of the other DMA Markets.

    23. In addition to substantially increasing concentration levels in each of the DMA Markets, the proposed Transaction would combine cable sports networks that are at least partial substitutes. Accordingly, the proposed Transaction would likely diminish competition in the negotiation of licenses for cable sports programming with MVPDs that have subscribers in the DMA Markets. Post-acquisition, Disney would gain the ability to threaten MVPDs in each of the DMA Markets with the simultaneous blackout of two of the most significant cable networks carrying sports programming: ESPN and a local RSN. ESPN and the local Fox RSN generate the highest and second-highest affiliate fees per subscriber in most of the 25 DMAs, and they are among the networks that generate the highest affiliate fees per subscriber in every one of the 25 DMAs.

    24. The threat of double blackouts in the DMA Markets—and the resulting disproportionate loss of an MVPD's subscribers and profits—likely would significantly strengthen Disney's bargaining position with MVPDs. Before the merger, an MVPD's failure to reach an agreement with Disney could result in a blackout of Disney's networks in the MVPD's footprint and threaten it with some subscriber loss. But the MVPD would still be able to offer the sports programming on Fox's RSNs during a Disney blackout, thereby minimizing subscription cancellations. After the merger, an MVPD negotiating with Disney would face the prospect of a dual blackout of ESPN and the local RSN in one or more DMA Markets, likely resulting in disproportionately more subscriber loss. Because the leverage that a television programmer has in negotiations with the MVPD is derived at least in part from its leverage within each DMA Market in the MVPD's footprint, the threat of a dual blackout would likely cause an MVPD to accede to a demand by Disney for higher license fees. For these reasons, the loss of competition between Disney and the Fox Sale Assets in each DMA Market would likely lead to an increase in total licensing fees in each DMA Market and, because increased licensing fees typically are passed on to consumers, would result in higher subscription fees for customers of MVPDs.

    VI. ABSENCE OF COUNTERVAILING FACTORS

    25. Entry would not be timely, likely or sufficient to prevent the Transaction's likely anticompetitive effects. Professional sport teams auction the exclusive rights to telecast their games under long-term contracts. Because these contracts typically last many years, there are infrequent opportunities for entrants to bid for these highly valuable licensing rights.

    26. Defendants cannot demonstrate acquisition-specific and cognizable efficiencies that would be sufficient to offset the proposed acquisition's likely anticompetitive effects.

    VII. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

    27. Disney's proposed acquisition of the Fox Sale Assets likely would substantially lessen competition in interstate trade and commerce, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. The proposed acquisition likely would:

    a. substantially lessen competition in the licensing of cable sports programming in each of the DMA Markets; b. eliminate actual and potential competition among Disney and Fox in the licensing of cable sports programming in each of the DMA Markets; and c. cause prices for cable sports programming in each of the DMA Markets to increase. VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

    28. The United States requests that the Court:

    a. adjudge the proposed acquisition to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18; b. permanently enjoin and restrain Defendants from carrying out the Transaction, or entering into any other agreement, understanding, or plan by which Disney would acquire the Fox Sale Assets; c. award the United States the costs of this action; and d. award such other relief to the United States as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: June 27, 2018 Respectfully submitted, FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MAKAN DELRAHIM Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust ANDREW C. FINCH Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General PATRICIA A. BRINK Director of Civil Enforcement OWEN M. KENDLER Chief, Media, Entertainment & Professional Services Section YVETTE TARLOV Assistant Chief, Media, Entertainment & Professional Services Section CRAIG D. MINERVA LEE F. BERGER JEREMY EVANS RACHEL FLIPSE BRIAN HANNA MARK MERVA KATE RIGGS LAUREN RIKER MONSURA SIRAJEE ADAM C. SPEEGLE LOWELL STERN United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Media, Entertainment & Professional, Services Section, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 353-2384, Facsimile: (202) 514-730 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The Walt Disney Company, and Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., Defendants.

    PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    WHEREAS, Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed its Complaint on June 27, 2018, and defendant The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) and defendant Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. (“Fox”), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;

    AND WHEREAS, defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;

    AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of certain rights or assets by Disney to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;

    AND WHEREAS, the United States requires Disney to make certain divestitures for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;

    AND WHEREAS, Disney has represented to the United States that the divestitures required below can and will be made and that defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained below;

    NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

    I. JURISDICTION

    This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and each of the parties to, this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18.

    II. DEFINITIONS

    As used in this Final Judgment:

    A. “Disney” means defendant The Walt Disney Company, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Burbank, California, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    B. “Fox” means defendant Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, New York, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    C. “Acquirer” means an entity to which defendants divest any of the Divestiture Assets.

    D. “Fox RSNs” means all of Fox's interests in the following video networks or programming assets:

    (1) Fox Sports Arizona;

    (2) Fox Sports Carolinas;

    (3) Fox Sports Detroit;

    (4) Fox Sports Florida;

    (5) Fox Sports Indiana;

    (6) Fox Sports Kansas City;

    (7) Fox Sports Midwest;

    (8) Fox Sports New Orleans;

    (9) Fox Sports North;

    (10) Fox Sports Ohio;

    (11) SportsTime Ohio;

    (12) Fox Sports Oklahoma;

    (13) Fox Sports San Diego;

    (14) Fox Sports South;

    (15) Fox Sports Southeast;

    (16) Fox Sports Southwest;

    (17) Fox Sports Sun;

    (18) Fox Sports Tennessee;

    (19) Fox Sports West;

    (20) Prime Ticket;

    (21) Fox Sports Wisconsin; and

    (22) the YES Network.

    E. “Divestiture Assets” means all of Fox's interests in the Fox RSNs, including all of the assets, tangible or intangible, necessary for the operations of the Fox RSNs as viable, ongoing video networks or programming assets, including, but not limited to, all real property (owned or leased), all broadcast equipment, office furniture, fixtures, materials, supplies, and other tangible property; all licenses, permits and authorizations issued by any governmental organization relating to the operation of the asset; all contracts (including content, programming and distribution contracts and rights), agreements (including transition services agreements), leases, and commitments and understanding of defendants; all trademarks, service marks, trade names, copyrights, patents, slogans, programming materials, and promotional materials relating to each video network; all customer lists, contracts, accounts, credit records, and all logs and other records maintained by Fox in connection with each video network. Except as set forth in Paragraph IV(H) of this Final Judgment, Divestiture Assets do not include trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names containing the name “Fox.”

    F. The term “Transaction” means the transaction that is the subject of the Agreement and Plan of Merger among Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, TWDC Holdco 613 corp., WDC Merger Enterprises II Corp., and WDC Merger Enterprises I, LLC, dated June 20, 2018.

    III. APPLICABILITY

    A. This Final Judgment applies to Disney and Fox, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.

    B. If, after the closing and prior to complying with Section IV and Section V of this Final Judgment, Disney sells or otherwise disposes of all or substantially all of the assets or lesser business units that include the Divestiture Assets, it shall require the purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Disney need not obtain such an agreement from the Acquirer(s) of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment.

    IV. DIVESTITURES

    A. Disney is ordered and directed, within ninety (90) calendar days after the closing of the Transaction, or five (5) calendar days after notice of entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest the Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to one or more Acquirers acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed ninety (90) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. With respect to divestiture of the Divestiture Assets by Disney or a trustee appointed pursuant to Section V of this Final Judgment, Disney agrees to use its best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible after the closing of the Transaction. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Final Judgment shall require Fox to divest any of the Divestiture Assets prior to the closing of the Transaction.

    B. In accomplishing the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment, Disney promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Divestiture Assets. Disney shall inform any person making an inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process, except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Defendants shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.

    C. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer(s) and the United States information relating to the personnel involved in the production and operation of the Divestiture Assets to enable the Acquirer(s) to make offers of employment. Defendants will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer(s) to employ upon closing of the sale of each of the Divestiture Assets any defendant employee whose primary responsibility is the production and operation of the Divestiture Assets.

    D. Defendants shall permit the prospective Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the Divestiture Assets; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.

    E. Disney shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) that each Divestiture Asset will be operational on the date of sale.

    F. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.

    G. Disney shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) (1) that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning, or other permits pertaining to the operation of each Divestiture Asset, and (2) that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, Disney will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.

    H. Notwithstanding Paragraph II(E), that the Divestiture Assets do not include trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names containing the name “Fox,” the defendants shall offer any Acquirer(s) of a Fox RSN a non-exclusive royalty-free license for use of the “Fox” trademark consistent with that RSN's current usage of that trademark for a time period of at least eighteen (18) months.

    I. At the option of Acquirer(s), on or before the closing date of any divestiture, Disney shall enter into one or more transition services agreements, approved in advance by the United States in its sole discretion, to provide any transition services reasonably necessary to operate any Divestiture Assets as viable, ongoing video networks or programming assets.

    J. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestitures pursuant to Section IV, or by trustee appointed pursuant to Section V of this Final Judgment, shall include the entire Divestiture Assets and be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer(s) as part of a viable, ongoing business of selling, supplying, or licensing video programming. Divestiture of the Divestiture Assets may be made to one or more Acquirers, provided that in each instance it is demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the United States that the Divestiture Assets will remain viable, and the divestiture of such assets will achieve the purposes of this Final Judgment and remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The divestitures, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment:

    (1) shall be made to an Acquirer(s) that, in the United States' sole judgment, has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability) of competing effectively in the business of selling, supplying, and licensing video programming; and (2) shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between the Acquirer(s) and defendants gives defendants the ability unreasonably to raise the costs of the Acquirer(s), to lower the efficiency of the Acquirer(s), or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer(s) to compete effectively. V. APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEE

    A. If Disney has not divested the Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Section IV(A), Disney shall notify the United States of that fact in writing, specifically identifying the Divestiture Assets that have not been divested (the “relevant Divestiture Assets”). Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the relevant Divestiture Assets.

    B. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell the relevant Divestiture Assets. The trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V(D) of this Final Judgment, the trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Disney any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture. Any such investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents shall serve on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications.

    C. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.

    D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Disney pursuant to a written agreement, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications. The trustee shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the relevant Divestiture Assets and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services yet unpaid and those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to Disney and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the relevant Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished, but timeliness is paramount. If the trustee and Disney are unable to reach agreement on the trustee's or any agents' or consultants' compensation or other terms and conditions of engagement within 14 calendar days of appointment of the trustee, the United States may, in its sole discretion, take appropriate action, including making a recommendation to the Court. The trustee shall, within three (3) business days of hiring any other professionals or agents, provide written notice of such hiring and the rate of compensation to defendants and the United States.

    E. Disney shall use its best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the required divestiture. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other agents retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and Disney shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or any applicable privileges. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture.

    F. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and, as appropriate, the Court setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee's reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the relevant Divestiture Assets.

    G. If the trustee has not accomplished the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment within six (6) months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture, (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestiture has not been accomplished, and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To the extent such report contains information that the trustee deems confidential, such report shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States which shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.

    H. If the United States determines that the trustee has ceased to act or failed to act diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective manner, it may recommend the Court appoint a substitute trustee.

    VI. NOTICE OF PROPOSED DIVESTITURE

    A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, Disney or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestitures required herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full details of the same.

    B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States may request from defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any other third party, or the trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and any other potential Acquirers. Defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.

    C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any third party, and the trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to defendants and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Paragraph V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer(s) or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by defendants under Paragraph V(C), a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.

    VII. FINANCING

    Disney shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment.

    VIII. HOLD SEPARATE

    Until the divestitures required by this Final Judgment have been accomplished, defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. After the Transaction has been consummated or closed, defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestiture ordered by this Court.

    IX. AFFIDAVITS

    A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit, signed by each defendant's Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, which shall describe the fact and manner of defendant's compliance with Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30) calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts defendants have taken to solicit buyers for and complete the sale of the Divestiture Assets, including efforts to secure regulatory approvals, and to provide required information to prospective Acquirers, including the limitations, if any, on such information.

    Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States to information provided by defendants, including limitations on information, shall be made within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of such affidavit.

    B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions defendants have taken and all steps defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in defendant's earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.

    C. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestiture has been completed.

    X. COMPLIANCE INSPECTION

    A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of any related orders such as any Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice, including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to defendants, be permitted:

    (1) access during defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require defendants to provide hard copies or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of defendants, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and (2) to interview, either informally or on the record, defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by defendants.

    B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, defendants shall submit written reports or responses to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.

    C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.

    D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by defendants to the United States, defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give defendants ten (10) calendar days' notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).

    XI. NO REACQUISITION

    Disney may not reacquire any of the Divestiture Assets during the term of this Final Judgment without prior written approval of the United States.

    XII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

    This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.

    XIII. ENFORCEMENT OF FINAL JUDGMENT

    A. The United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, including its right to seek an order of contempt from this Court. Defendants agree that in any civil contempt action, any motion to show cause, or any similar action brought by the United States regarding an alleged violation of this Final Judgment, the United States may establish a violation of the decree and the appropriateness of any remedy therefor by a preponderance of the evidence, and they waive any argument that a different standard of proof should apply.

    B. The Final Judgment should be interpreted to give full effect to the procompetitive purposes of the antitrust laws and to restore all competition harmed by the challenged conduct. Defendants agree that they may be held in contempt of, and that the Court may enforce, any provision of this Final Judgment that, as interpreted by the Court in light of these procompetitive principles and applying ordinary tools of interpretation, is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, whether or not it is clear and unambiguous on its face. In any such interpretation, the terms of this Final Judgment should not be construed against either party as the drafter.

    C. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court finds that the defendants have violated this Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for a one-time extension of this Final Judgment, together with such other relief as may be appropriate. In connection with any successful effort by the United States to enforce this Final Judgement against a Defendant, whether litigated or resolved prior to litigation, that Defendant agrees to reimburse the United States for any attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and costs incurred in connection with that enforcement effort, including the investigation of the potential violation.

    XIV. EXPIRATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT

    Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire seven (7) years from the date of its entry, except that this Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and the defendants that the divestitures have been completed and that the continuation of the Final Judgment no longer is necessary.

    XV. PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION

    Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon, and the United States' responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and responses to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.

    Date: Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16 United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

    United States of America, Plantiff, v. The Walt Disney Company, and Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., Defendants.

    Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-05800 (CM) (KNF)
    HOLD SEPARATE STIPULATION AND ORDER

    It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties, subject to approval and entry by the Court, that:

    I. Definitions

    As used in this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order:

    A. “Acquirer” or “Acquirers” means the entity or entities to which defendants divest any of the Divestiture Assets.

    B. “Disney” means defendant The Walt Disney Company, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Burbank, California, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    C. “Fox” means defendant Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, New York, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    D. “Fox RSNs” means all of Fox's interests in the following video networks or programming assets:

    (1) Fox Sports Arizona;

    (2) Fox Sports Carolinas;

    (3) Fox Sports Detroit;

    (4) Fox Sports Florida;

    (5) Fox Sports Indiana;

    (6) Fox Sports Kansas City;

    (7) Fox Sports Midwest;

    (8) Fox Sports New Orleans;

    (9) Fox Sports North;

    (10) Fox Sports Ohio;

    (11) SportsTime Ohio;

    (12) Fox Sports Oklahoma;

    (13) Fox Sports San Diego;

    (14) Fox Sports South;

    (15) Fox Sports Southeast;

    (16) Fox Sports Southwest;

    (17) Fox Sports Sun;

    (18) Fox Sports Tennessee;

    (19) Fox Sports West;

    (20) Prime Ticket;

    (21) Fox Sports Wisconsin; and

    (22) the YES Network.

    E. “Divestiture Assets” means all of Fox's interests in the Fox RSNs, including, all of the assets, tangible or intangible, necessary for the operations of the Fox RSNs as viable, ongoing video networks or programming assets, including, but not limited to, all real property (owned or leased), all broadcast equipment, office furniture, fixtures, materials, supplies, and other tangible property; all licenses, permits and authorizations issued by any governmental organization relating to the operation of the asset; all contracts (including content, programming and distribution contracts and rights), agreements (including transition services agreements), leases, and commitments and understanding of defendants; all trademarks, service marks, trade names, copyrights, patents, slogans, programming materials, and promotional materials relating to each video network; all customer lists, contracts, accounts, credit records, and all logs and other records maintained by Fox in connection with each video network. Except as provided in the Final Judgment, Divestiture Assets does not include trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names containing the name “Fox.”

    F. The term “Transaction” means the transaction that is the subject of the Agreement and Plan of Merger among Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, TWDC Holdco 613 corp., WDC Merger Enterprises II Corp., and WDC Merger Enterprises I, LLC, dated June 20, 2018.

    II. Objectives

    The Final Judgment filed in this case is meant to ensure defendants' prompt divestiture of the Divestiture Assets for the purpose of establishing one or more viable competitors in the sale, supply, or licensing of video programming in the United States in order to remedy the effects that the United States alleges would otherwise result from the Transaction. This Hold Separate Stipulation and Order ensures, prior to such divestitures, that the Divestiture Assets will remain economically viable, and ongoing business concerns that will remain independent and uninfluenced by Disney or, after the Transaction has been consummated, by Fox, and that competition is maintained during the pendency of the ordered divestitures.

    III. Jurisdiction and Venue

    The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over each of the parties hereto, and venue of this action is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

    IV. Compliance with and Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment

    A. The parties stipulate that a Final Judgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A may be filed with and entered by the Court, upon the motion of any party or upon the Court's own motion, at any time after compliance with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 16, and without further notice to any party or other proceedings, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent, which it may do at any time before the entry of the proposed Final Judgment by serving notice thereof on the defendants and by filing that notice with the Court. Disney agrees to arrange, at its expense, publication as quickly as possible of the newspaper notice required by the APPA, which shall be drafted by the United States, in its sole discretion. The publication shall be arranged no later than three business days after defendants' receipt from the United States of the text of the notice and the identity of the newspaper within which the publication shall be made. Disney shall promptly send to the United States (1) confirmation that publication of the newspaper notice has been arranged, and (2) the certification of the publication prepared by the newspaper within which the notice was published.

    B. Defendants shall abide by and comply with the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment pending the Final Judgment's entry by the Court, or until expiration of time for all appeals of any Court ruling declining entry of the proposed Final Judgment and shall, from the date of the signing of this Stipulation by the parties, comply with all the terms and provisions of the proposed Final Judgment. The United States shall have the full rights and enforcement powers in the proposed Final Judgment as though the same were in full force and effect as the Final Order of the Court.

    C. Defendants shall not consummate the Transaction sought to be enjoined by the Complaint herein before the Court has signed this Hold Separate Stipulation.

    D. This Hold Separate Stipulation and Order shall apply with equal force and effect to any amended proposed Final Judgment agreed upon in writing by the parties and submitted to the Court.

    E. In the event (1) the United States has withdrawn its consent, as provided in Paragraph IV(A) above, or (2) the proposed Final Judgment is not entered pursuant to this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, the time has expired for all appeals of any court ruling declining entry of the proposed Final Judgment, and the Court has not otherwise ordered continued compliance with the terms and provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, then the parties are released from all further obligations under this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and the making of this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order shall be without prejudice to any party in this or any other proceeding.

    F. Disney represents that the divestitures ordered in the proposed Final Judgment can and will be made, and that defendants will later raise no claim of mistake, hardship or difficulty of compliance as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions contained therein.

    V. Notice of Compliance

    . Within twenty (20) days after the entry of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter (1) Fox shall deliver to the United States an affidavit, signed by Fox's Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, which shall describe the fact and manner of Fox's compliance with Section VI until defendants consummate the Transaction; and

    (2) Disney shall deliver to the United States an affidavit, signed by Disney's Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, which shall describe the fact and manner of Disney's compliance with Section VII until the divestitures required by the Final Judgment have been accomplished.

    VI. Pre-Closing Asset Preservation Provisions

    Until defendants consummate the Transaction:

    A. Fox shall preserve, maintain, and continue to operate each Divestiture Asset as an ongoing, economically viable, competitive video network or programming asset.

    B. Fox shall take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that the Divestiture Assets will be maintained and operated as ongoing, economically viable and active competitors in the video network or programming business.

    C. Fox shall use all reasonable efforts, consistent with past practices, to maintain and increase the sales and revenues associated with each of the Divestiture Assets.

    D. Fox, consistent with past practices, shall provide sufficient working capital and lines and sources of credit to continue to maintain each Divestiture Asset as an ongoing, economically viable, and competitive video network or programming asset.

    E. Fox shall maintain, in accordance with sound accounting principles, separate, accurate and complete financial ledgers, books, and records that report on a periodic basis, such as the last business day of every month, consistent with past practices, the assets, liabilities, expenses, revenues and income of each of the Divestiture Assets.

    F. Fox shall preserve the existing relationships between the Divestiture Assets and with each customer that advertises on or licenses content to a Divestiture Asset, each distributor that licenses content from a Divestiture Asset, and with others having business relations with any of the Divestiture Assets, in accordance with the ordinary course of business.

    VII. Post-Closing Hold Separate and Asset Preservation Provisions

    Once the Transaction has been consummated and until the divestitures required by the Final Judgment have been accomplished:

    A. Disney shall preserve, maintain, and continue to operate each Divestiture Asset as an independent, ongoing, economically viable, competitive video network or programming asset, management, programming, distribution, sales and operations of such assets held entirely separate, distinct and apart from those of Disney's other operations. Disney shall not coordinate its programming, production, distribution, marketing, content purchases, or terms of sale of any products with those of any of the Divestiture Assets.

    B. Disney shall take all steps necessary to ensure that (1) the Divestiture Assets will be maintained and operated as independent, ongoing, economically viable and active competitors in the video network or programming business; (2) management of the Divestiture Assets will not be influenced by Disney; and (3) the books, records, competitively sensitive production, programming, distribution, sales, content purchases, marketing and pricing information, and decision making concerning production, programming, distribution, sales, content purchases, pricing and marketing by or under any of the Divestiture Assets will be kept separate and apart from Disney's other operations.

    C. Disney shall use all reasonable efforts to maintain and increase the sales and revenues associated with each of the Divestiture Assets, and shall maintain at 2018 or previously approved levels for 2017, whichever is higher, all promotional, advertising, sales, technical assistance, marketing and other support for each of the Divestiture Assets.

    D. Disney shall provide sufficient working capital and lines and sources of credit to continue to maintain each Divestiture Asset as an ongoing, economically viable, and competitive video network or programming asset.

    E. Disney shall not, except as part of a divestiture approved by the United States in accordance with the proposed Final Judgment, remove, sell, lease, assign, transfer, destroy, pledge, or otherwise dispose of any of the Divestiture Assets.

    F. Disney shall maintain, in accordance with sound accounting principles, separate, accurate and complete financial ledgers, books, and records that report on a periodic basis, such as the last business day of every month, consistent with past practices, the assets, liabilities, expenses, revenues and income of each of the Divestiture Assets.

    G. Disney shall preserve the existing relationships between the Divestiture Assets and with each customer that advertises on or licenses content to a Divestiture Asset, each distributor that licenses content from a Divestiture Asset, and with others having business relations with any of the Divestiture Assets, in accordance with the ordinary course of business.

    H. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize, delay, or impede the sale of the Divestiture Assets.

    I. Defendants shall take no action that would interfere with the ability of any trustee appointed pursuant to the proposed Final Judgment to fulfill its obligations.

    J. Disney shall appoint a person or persons to oversee the Divestiture Assets, who also will be responsible for defendants' compliance with this section. Such person or persons shall have complete managerial responsibility for the Divestiture Assets, subject to the provisions of this Final Judgment. In the event such person is unable to perform such duties, Disney shall appoint, subject to the approval of the United States, a replacement within ten (10) working days. Should Disney fail to appoint a replacement acceptable to the United States within this time period, the United States shall appoint a replacement.

    VIII. Duration of Hold Separate Obligations

    Defendants' obligations under Section VI and VII of this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order shall remain in effect until (1) consummation of the divestitures required by the proposed Final Judgment or (2) until further order of the Court. If the United States voluntarily dismisses the Complaint in this matter, defendants are released from all further obligations under this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order.

    Dated: June 27, 2018

    Respectfully submitted,

    FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Craig Minerva United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Media, Entertainment & Professional Services Section, 450 Fifth Street N.W., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 353-2384, Facsimile: (202) 514-730 FOR DEFENDANT THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Andrew A. Ruffino ([email protected]) The New York Times Building, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10018, (212) 841-1097 Thomas 0. Barnett ([email protected]) (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Anne Y. Lee ([email protected]) James Dean ([email protected]) Megan Gerking ([email protected]) One CityCenter, 850 10th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 662-6000 Kenneth Newman ([email protected]) Associate General Counsel and Assistant Secretary, The Walt Disney Company, 77 West 66th Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10023, (212) 456-6080 FOR DEFENDANT TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP George S. Cary (pro hac vice application forthcoming) Kenneth S. Reinker Tara Lynn Tavernia (pro hac vice application forthcoming) 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 974-1743, Fax: (202) 974-1999, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
    ORDER

    IT IS SO ORDERED by the Court, this __ day of __, 2018.

    United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The Walt Disney Company, and Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., Defendants.

    Civil Action No. 18-CV-5800 (CM) (KNF)
    COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT

    Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

    I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING

    Defendants The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) and Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. (“Fox”) (collectively, “Defendants”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 13, 2017, amended on June 20, 2018, pursuant to which Disney agreed to acquire certain assets, including Fox's ownership of, or interests in, twenty-two regional sports networks (“RSNs”), the FX cable networks, the National Geographic cable networks, television and film studios, Hulu, and international television businesses (the “Fox Sale Assets”) from Fox for approximately $71.3 billion (the “Transaction”).

    Specifically, Fox proposes to sell to Disney its interests in the following RSNs: (i) Fox Sports Arizona; (ii) Fox Sports Carolinas; (iii) Fox Sports Detroit; (iv) Fox Sports Florida; (v) Fox Sports Indiana; (vi) Fox Sports Kansas City; (vii) Fox Sports Midwest; (viii) Fox Sports New Orleans; (ix) Fox Sports North; (x) Fox Sports Ohio; (xi) SportsTime Ohio; (xii) Fox Sports Oklahoma; (xiii) Fox Sports San Diego; (xiv) Fox Sports South; (xv) Fox Sports Southeast; (xvi) Fox Sports Southwest; (xvii) Fox Sports Sun; (xviii) Fox Sports Tennessee; (xix) Fox Sports West; (xx) Prime Ticket; (xxi) Fox Sports Wisconsin; and (xxii) the YES Network.

    The proposed acquisition would combine two of the country's most valuable cable sports properties—Disney's ESPN franchise of networks and Fox's portfolio of twenty-two RSNs. Cable sports television networks compete to be carried in the programming packages that distributors, such as cable companies (e.g., Charter Communications and Comcast), direct broadcast satellite services (e.g., DISH Network and DirecTV), fiber optic networks services (e.g., Verizon's Fios and CenturyLink's Prism TV), and online distributors of linear cable programming (e.g., Hulu Live and DISH's Sling TV) (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “MVPDs”) offer to their subscribers. Consequently, Disney's proposed acquisition of Fox's portfolio of RSNs would end the head-to-head competition between them and likely would result in higher prices for cable sports programming in each of the Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”) in which Disney and Fox compete.

    The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on June 27, 2018, seeking to enjoin the proposed Transaction. The Complaint alleges that the likely effect of this acquisition would be to lessen competition substantially for the licensing of cable sports programming to MVPDs in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, in each of the following twenty-five DMAs: Phoenix, Arizona; Detroit, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Cleveland, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Miami, Florida; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Tampa Bay, Florida; Dallas, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; Atlanta, Georgia; Indianapolis, Indiana; Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Nashville, Tennessee; Memphis, Tennessee; San Diego, California; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; New Orleans, Louisiana; Kansas City, Kansas; Charlotte, North Carolina; Los Angeles, California; and New York, New York (collectively, the “DMA Markets”). This loss of competition likely would result in increased MVPD licensing fees in each DMA Market and because licensing fees typically are passed onto consumers, higher subscription fees for MVPD customers.

    At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (“Hold Separate”) and proposed Final Judgment, which are designed to eliminate the likely anticompetitive effects of the Transaction. Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, Disney is required to divest all of Fox's interests in the Fox RSNs, including all assets necessary for the operation of each Fox RSN as a viable, ongoing cable sports programming network, to one or more buyers acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion. Under the terms of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, Disney and Fox will take certain steps to ensure that each Fox RSN continues to operate as an ongoing, economically viable, competitive cable sports programming network that will remain independent and uninfluenced by the consummation of the Transaction, and that competition is maintained during the pendency of the ordered divestiture.

    The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.

    II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION A. The Defendants and the Proposed Transaction

    Disney is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Burbank, California. It reported revenue of $55 billion for fiscal year 2017. Disney owns various television programming assets, including 80% of ESPN—a sports entertainment company that operates several national cable sports programming networks. Disney's other programming assets include: (i) the ABC television network; (ii) eight owned-and-operated ABC broadcast stations; (iii) Disney-branded cable television networks; and (iv) Freeform, a cable television network geared toward teenagers and young adults. Disney licenses its cable programming networks to MVPDs throughout the United States.

    Fox is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, New York. It reported revenue of $28.5 billion for fiscal year 2017. The Fox Sale Assets, which include several cable television programing networks and all of the Fox RSNs, generated $19 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2017. Fox licenses its cable programming networks to MVPDs throughout the United States. The Fox Sale Assets do not include Fox Business Network, Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Sports, Fox Television Stations Group, FS1, FS2, Fox Deportes, or the Big Ten Network.

    Collectively, the twenty-two Fox RSNs serve approximately 61 million subscribers in twenty-five separate DMA Markets and license local and regional rights to telecast live games of 44 of 91 (48%) U.S. professional sports teams in three of the four major sports leagues: Major League Baseball (“MLB”), the National Basketball Association (“NBA”), and the National Hockey League (“NHL”). More specifically, the Fox RSNs have the local or regional broadcast rights to 15 of 30 (50%) MLB teams, 17 of 30 (57%) NBA teams, and 12 of 31 (39%) NHL teams.

    The proposed Transaction would likely lessen competition substantially in each of the DMA Markets as a result of Disney's acquisition of Fox's RSNs. This Transaction is the subject of the Complaint and proposed Final Judgment filed by the United States on June 27, 2018.

    B. The Transaction's Likely Anticompetitive Effects 1. Relevant Markets

    The Complaint alleges that licensing of cable sports programming to MVPDs in each DMA Market constitutes a relevant market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

    Cable sports programming includes cable television networks that devote a substantial portion of their programming time to airing live sporting events, including MLB, NBA, and NHL games. Consumers that view live sporting events are an important customer group for MVPDs. MVPDs could not attract or retain those consumers as subscribers without including cable sports programming in the packages of cable programming networks they offer their subscribers. ESPN and the local Fox RSN generate the highest and second-highest affiliate fees per subscriber of all networks carried by an MVPD in most of the 25 DMAs and they are among the networks that generate the highest affiliate fees per subscriber in every one of the 25 DMAs. The high per-subscriber fees that MVPDs pay to license these networks reflects the importance of these networks to MVPDs and their subscribers.

    For MVPDs, sports programming on broadcast television is unlikely a sufficient substitute for cable sports programming. MVPDs do not typically consider broadcast networks as providing the same type of content as cable sports networks like ESPN and the RSNs. Broadcast networks and their affiliates aim to have broad appeal by offering a variety of highly-rated programming content including primetime entertainment shows, syndicated shows, and local and national news and weather, with live sports events making up a small percentage of a broadcast network's airtime. Many MVPD customers demand programming focused on, if not dedicated to, live sporting events, and a broadcast network's occasional programming of live sporting events does not suffice for many customers. For that reason, MVPDs do not typically consider broadcast network programming as a replacement for cable sports programming.

    With respect to the licensing of cable sports programming to MVPDs, each DMA Market constitutes a separate relevant geographic market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. A DMA is a geographic unit for which A.C. Nielsen Company—a firm that surveys television viewers—furnishes MVPDs, among others, with data to aid in evaluating audience size and composition in a particular area. DMAs are widely accepted by MVPDs as the standard geographic area to use in evaluating television audience size and demographic composition. The Federal Communications Commission also uses DMAs as geographic units with respect to its MVPD regulations.

    2. Harm to Competition in Each of the DMA Markets

    The Complaint alleges that the proposed Transaction likely would substantially lessen competition in interstate trade and commerce, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and have the following effects, among others:

    a. substantially lessen competition in the licensing of cable sports programming to MVPDs in each of the DMA Markets;

    b. eliminate actual and potential competition among Disney and Fox in the licensing of cable sports programming to MVPDs in each of the DMA Markets; and

    c. cause prices for cable sports programming to MVPDs in each of the DMA Markets to increase.

    The Transaction, by eliminating the Fox RSNs as separate competitors and combining their operations under common ownership and control with ESPN, would allow Disney to increase its market share of cable sports programming in each DMA Market and likely increase licensing fees to MVPDs for ESPN and/or the Fox RSNs. As a result of the Transaction, Disney's networks would account for at least 60 percent of cable sports programming in 19 of the DMA Markets and over 45 percent in the remaining six DMA Markets.

    As alleged in the Complaint, Disney's acquisition of the Fox RSNs would further concentrate already highly concentrated cable sports programming markets in each of the DMA Markets. Using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”), a standard measure of market concentration, the post-acquisition HHI in each of the DMA Markets would exceed 2,500 and the Transaction would increase each DMA Market's HHI by over 200 points. As a result, the proposed Transaction is presumed to likely enhance market power under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

    Moreover, the Transaction combines networks that are at least partial substitutes and therefore competitors in a product market with limited alternatives. The Transaction would provide Disney with the ability to threaten MVPDs in each of the DMA Markets with the simultaneous blackout of at least two major cable sports programming networks: the ESPN networks and the local Fox RSN, thereby diminishing competition in the negotiation of licensing agreements with MVPDs in each of the DMA markets.

    The threatened loss of cable sports programming, and the resulting diminution of an MVPD's subscribers and profits, would significantly strengthen Disney's bargaining position. Prior to the Transaction, an MVPD's failure to reach a licensing agreement with Disney would result in the blackout of Disney's networks, including ESPN, and threaten some subscriber loss for the MVPD, including those subscribers that value ESPN's content. But because the MVPD still would be able to offer its subscribers the local Fox RSN, many MVPD subscribers simply would watch the local RSN instead of cancelling their MVPD subscriptions. In the event of a Fox RSN blackout, many subscribers likely would switch to watching ESPN. After the Transaction, an MVPD negotiating with Disney would be faced with the prospect of a dual blackout of significant cable sports programming, a result more likely to cause the MVPD to lose incremental subscribers (that it would not have lost in a pre-transaction blackout of only ESPN or the Fox RSN) and therefore accede to Disney's demand for higher licensing fees. For these reasons, the loss of competition between ESPN and the Fox RSN in each DMA Market would likely lead to an increase in MVPD licensing fees in those markets. Some of these increased programming costs likely would be passed onto consumers, resulting in higher MVPD subscription fees for millions of U.S. households.

    3. Entry

    The Complaint alleges that entry or expansion into cable sports programming would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to prevent the Transaction's anticompetitive effects. With respect to RSN sports programming, there are a limited number of professional sports teams in a given DMA, and these teams auction the exclusive local rights to telecast their games under long-term contracts. Because these contracts typically last many years, there are infrequent opportunities to bid for these licensing rights to expand an existing RSN or create a new RSN. Moreover, non-local RSNs cannot enter because their licenses typically are limited to the DMAs that comprise the “home” territory of the team or teams that the RSN carries; and local MVPD subscribers would not generally have demand for extensive coverage of another DMA's home team. Thus, an MVPD cannot substitute an RSN from another DMA for the local RSN in response to an anticompetitive price increase.

    Entry or expansion into national cable sports programming also is difficult. For a national sports network to compete effectively, it needs to obtain the national broadcast rights from professional sports leagues (i.e., MLB, NBA, and NHL), which are expensive and infrequently available. Although both Fox and NBCUniversal have national cable sports programming networks (FS1 and NBC Sports, respectively), neither company has been able to replicate ESPN's competitive position (as evidenced by their lower MVPD licensing fees and viewership ratings).

    III. EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The divestiture requirement of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the likely anticompetitive effects of the Transaction in each DMA Market by establishing an independent and economically viable competitor. The proposed Final Judgment requires Disney, within 90 days after the closing of the Transaction, or five days after notice of the entry of the Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest all of Fox's interests in the Fox RSNs, including all assets necessary for the operation of the Fox RSNs as viable, ongoing video networks or programming assets. The assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the United States in its sole discretion that the operations can and will be operated by the purchaser as viable, ongoing businesses that can compete effectively in the relevant markets. Disney must use its best efforts to divest the Fox RSNs as expeditiously as possible and shall cooperate with prospective purchasers.

    In the event that Disney does not accomplish the divestiture within the period prescribed in the proposed Final Judgment, the Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a trustee selected by the United States to effect the divestiture. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that Disney will pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The trustee's commission will be structured so as to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After his or her appointment becomes effective, the trustee will file monthly reports with the Court and the United States setting forth his or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. At the end of six months, if the divestiture has not been accomplished, the trustee and the United States will make recommendations to the Court, which shall enter such orders as appropriate, in order to carry out the purpose of the trust, including extending the trust or the term of the trustee's appointment.

    The proposed Final Judgment also contains provisions designed to promote compliance and make the enforcement of Division consent decrees as effective as possible. Paragraph XIII(A) provides that the United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, including its rights to seek an order of contempt from the Court. Under the terms of this paragraph, Defendants have agreed that in any civil contempt action, any motion to show cause, or any similar action brought by the United States regarding an alleged violation of the Final Judgment, the United States may establish the violation and the appropriateness of any remedy by a preponderance of the evidence, and Defendants have waived any argument that a different standard of proof should apply. This provision aligns the standard for compliance obligations with the standard of proof that applies to the underlying offense that the compliance commitments address.

    Paragraph XIII(B) provides additional clarification regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment was drafted to restore all competition that would otherwise be harmed by the merger. Defendants agree that they will abide by the proposed Final Judgment, and that they may be held in contempt of this Court for failing to comply with any provision of the proposed Final Judgment that is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, as interpreted in light of this procompetitive purpose.

    Paragraph XIII(C) of the proposed Final Judgment further provides that, should the Court find in an enforcement proceeding that Defendants have violated the Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for a one-time extension of the Final Judgment, together with such other relief as may be appropriate. In addition, in order to compensate American taxpayers for any costs associated with the investigation and enforcement of violations of the proposed Final Judgment, Paragraph XIII(C) provides that in any successful effort by the United States to enforce the Final Judgment against a Defendant, whether litigated or resolved prior to litigation, that Defendant agrees to reimburse the United States for attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and costs incurred in connection with any enforcement effort, including the investigation of the potential violation.

    Finally, Section XIV of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final Judgment shall expire seven years from the date of its entry, except that the Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and Defendants that the divestitures have been completed and that the continuation of the Final Judgment is no longer necessary.

    The divestiture provisions of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the likely anticompetitive effects of the acquisition in the provision of cable sports programming in the DMA Markets.

    IV. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVATE LITIGANTS

    Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendants.

    V. PROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.

    The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register, or the last date of publication in a newspaper of the summary of this Competitive Impact Statement, whichever is later. All comments received during this period will be considered by the United States Department of Justice, which remains free to withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior to the Court's entry of judgment. The comments and the response of the United States will be filed with the Court. In addition, comments will be posted on the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's internet website and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register.

    Written comments should be submitted to:

    Owen M. Kendler, Chief, Media, Entertainment & Professional Services Section Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530 The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment. VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against Defendants. The United States could have continued the litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against Disney's acquisition of the Fox RSNs. The United States is satisfied, however, that the divestiture of assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition for the provision of cable sports programming in the DMA Markets identified by the United States. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would achieve all or substantially all of the relief the United States would have obtained through litigation, but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits of the Complaint.

    VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE APPA FOR THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1); see also United States v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 163 F.3d 737, 740 (2d Cir. 1998). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:

    (A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial. 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1)(A) & (B); see generally United States v. Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d 633, 637-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discussing Tunney Act standards); United States v. Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d 563, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (similar). In considering these statutory factors, the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the government is entitled to “broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); accord United States v. Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 235, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (quoting Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460, aff'd sub nom. United States v. Bleznak, 153 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1998)); Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 637 (same).

    Under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, “[t]he Court's function is not to determine whether the proposed [d]ecree results in the balance of rights and liabilities that is the one that will best serve society, but only to ensure that the resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.” Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 567 (quoting Alex. Brown & Sons, 963 F. Supp. at 238) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). In making this determination, “[t]he [c]ourt is not permitted to reject the proposed remedies merely because the court believes other remedies are preferable. [Rather], the relevant inquiry is whether there is a factual foundation for the government's decision such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlement are reasonable.” Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 563 (quoting United States v. Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 162, 165 (D.D.C. 2008)); see also United States v. Apple, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 623, 631 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Alex. Brown & Sons, 963 F. Supp. at 238.1 The government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies are entitled to deference. Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (citation omitted).2

    1See also United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General.”); see generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether “the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the `reaches of the public interest'”).

    2See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be “deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies”); United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United States' prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case).

    Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the reaches of public interest.' ” United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also United States v. US Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 74 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting that room must be made for the government to grant concessions in the negotiation process for settlements) (citing Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 568 (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States “need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.” United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1, 17 (D.D.C. 2007).

    Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; see also Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 567 (“A court must limit its review to the issues in the complaint and `give due respect to the [Government's] perception of . . . its case.'”) (quoting Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 08-1965 (JR), 2009-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 76,736, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20, (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2009) (“the `public interest' is not to be measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint against those the court believes could have, or even should have, been alleged.”). Because the “court's authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,” it follows that “the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,” and not to “effectively redraft the complaint” to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459-60. Courts cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination “unless the complaint underlying the decree is drafted so narrowly such that its entry would appear `to make a mockery of judicial power.'” Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15).

    In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2); see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (indicating that a court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or to permit intervenors as part of its review under the Tunney Act). The language wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney explained: “[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.” 119 Cong. Rec. 24, 598 (1973) (statement of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court's “scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11; see also Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 632 (“[P]rosecutorial functions vested solely in the executive branch could be undermined by the improper use of the APPA as an antitrust oversight provision.”) (citation omitted). A court can make its public interest determination based on the competitive impact statement and response to public comments alone. U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75.3

    3See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the “Tunney Act expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone”); United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., No. 73-CV-681-W-1, 1977-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (“Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should . . . carefully consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances.”); S. Rep. No. 93-298, at 6 (1973) (“Where the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.”).

    VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS

    There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.

    Dated: August 7, 2018 Respectfully submitted, Lowell R. Stern United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Media, Entertainment & Professional Services Section, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 514-3676, Facsimile: (202) 514-7308, E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff United States
    [FR Doc. 2018-17521 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Rhodes Technologies ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been delegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on June 28th, 2018, Rhodes Technologies, 498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

    Controlled substance Drug code Schedule Marihuana 7360 I Tetrahydrocannabinols 7370 I Dihydromorphine 9145 I Methylphenidate 1724 II Codeine 9050 II Dihydrocodeine 9120 II Oxycodone 9143 II Hydromorphone 9150 II Hydrocodone 9193 II Levorphanol 9220 II Morphine 9300 II Oripavine 9330 II Thebaine 9333 II Oxymorphone 9652 II Noroxymorpohone 9668 II Tapentadol 9780 II

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for conversion and sale to finished dosage form manufacturers. In reference to drug code 7360 and 7370, the company plans to bulk manufacture a synthetic CBD and tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for drug code 7360 and 7370 are authorized for this registration.

    Dated: August 3, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17605 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1110-0067] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of an Existing Collection in Use Rap Back Services Form (1-796) AGENCY:

    Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road; Clarksburg, WV 26306; phone: 304-625-4320 or email [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —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; —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; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —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. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of an approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Rap Back Services Form (1-796).

    (3) Agency form number: The form number is 1-796. Sponsoring component: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: This form is utilized by authorized agencies to enroll individuals in the Rap Back Service to ensure the submitting agency is notified when individuals in positions of trust engage in criminal conduct or individuals under the supervision of a criminal justice agency commit subsequent criminal acts.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 12 respondents will complete each form within approximately 5 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 60 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17529 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1750] Body Armor Manufacturer Workshop AGENCY:

    National Institute of Justice, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is hosting a workshop for body armor manufacturers to provide an overview of draft NIJ Standard 0101.07, Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor, and draft NIJ Specification Threat Levels and Associated Ammunition to Test Equipment Intended to Protect U.S. Law Enforcement Against Handguns and Rifles. A preliminary outline of how the NIJ Compliance Testing Program (CTP), which manages conformity assessment of body armor, will begin to phase out use of NIJ Standard 0101.06 and phase in the use of NIJ Standard 0101.07 in the administration of the program over approximately the next year will be presented. The impact of the transition on the Compliant Products List (CPL) and Follow-up Inspection Testing (FIT) of listed body armor models compliant with NIJ Standard 0101.06 over a longer period of time will also be discussed.

    This will be an open forum and there will opportunities for attendees to ask questions. Space is limited at this workshop, and as a result, only 100 participants will be allowed to register. NIJ requests that each manufacturer limit their representatives to no more than two per organization. Exceptions to this limit may occur, should space allow. Participants planning to attend are responsible for their own travel arrangements. To register for the workshop, please send an email to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 7, 2018, and provide the name of your company and the names of the representatives who will attend. A preliminary agenda will be sent to registered attendees approximately one week prior to the workshop.

    DATES:

    The workshop will be held on Wednesday, September 19, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The workshop will be held at the Loews Annapolis Hotel, 126 West St., Annapolis, MD 21401.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Greene, Policy and Standards Division Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Institute of Justice, 810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531; telephone number: (202) 307-3384; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NIJ Standard 0101.07—the proposed revision of NIJ Standard 0101.06, Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor—specifies minimum performance requirements and test methods for the ballistic resistance of body armor used by U.S. law enforcement that is intended to protect the torso against handgun and rifle ammunition. A request for public comment was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018 (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-03674). The proposed specification Threat Levels and Associated Ammunition to Test Equipment Intended to Protect U.S. Law Enforcement Against Handguns and Rifles defines ballistic threats identified by U.S. law enforcement as representative of prevalent threats in the United States. A request for public comment was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018 (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-03672).

    David B. Muhlhausen, Director, National Institute of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17466 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1749] Recognizing Private Sector Certification Programs for Criminal Justice Restraints AGENCY:

    National Institute of Justice, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has been transitioning certification of restraints and handcuffs from an NIJ-operated program to recognition of private sector programs, as previously reported in the Federal Register (https://federalregister.gov/a/2017-14638). NIJ recognizes the following certification program for restraints as in compliance with Minimum Scheme Requirements to Certify Criminal Justice Restraints Described in NIJ Standard 1001.00: Safety Equipment Institute, Inc., 1307 Dolley Madison Boulevard, Suite 3A, McLean, VA 22101, Telephone: (703) 442-5732, Fax: (703) 442-5756, Email: [email protected], http://www.seinet.org/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Greene, Policy and Standards Division Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Institute of Justice, 810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20531; telephone number: (202) 307-3384; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Criminal justice agencies may still obtain NIJ's Compliant Products List (CPL) for metallic handcuffs that are compliant with NIJ Standard 0307.01 via the contact information below until December 31, 2018 by sending a request from an agency email address. While the CPL has remained published during the transition period, agencies should be aware that NIJ discontinued the metallic handcuffs Compliance Test Program on September 14, 2016 (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-22057) and the CPL has not been updated since then. For criminal justice agencies wishing to purchase or procure restraints certified to meet NIJ Standard 1001.00, NIJ suggests the following procurement language: “Restraints tested in accordance with NIJ Standard 1001.00 and certified by a certification body recognized by the National Institute of Justice.” Please note that restraints are certified by the NIJ-recognized private sector organization. They are not certified by NIJ, and the products should not be referred to as “NIJ certified.” More information on NIJ Standard 1001.00, Criminal Justice Restraints Standard, and certification of restraints may be found at https://nij.gov/topics/technology/standards-testing/Pages/restraints.aspx, or by using the shortened link https://go.usa.gov/xU2Ay.

    David B. Muhlhausen, Director, National Institute of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17467 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2012-0004] The Cadmium in Construction Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Cadmium in General Industry Standard.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2012-0004, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the OSHA Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2012-0004) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Christie Garner at (202) 693-2222 to obtain a copy of the ICR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Mockler or Christie Garner, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance process to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, the reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (see 29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires OSHA to obtain such information with a minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining said information (see 29 U.S.C. 657).

    The collection of information requirements specified in the Cadmium in Construction Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their exposure to cadmium. The major collection of information requirements of the Standard include: Conducting worker exposure monitoring, notifying workers of their cadmium exposures, implementing a written compliance program, implementing medical surveillance of workers, providing examining physicians with specific information, ensuring that workers receive a copy of their medical surveillance results, maintaining workers' exposure monitoring and medical surveillance records for specific periods, and providing access to these records by the worker who is the subject of the records, the worker's representative, and other designated parties.

    II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

    • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

    • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information