Federal Register Vol. 83, No.181,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 181 (September 18, 2018)

Page Range47027-47282
FR Document

83_FR_181
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 47281 - National Farm Safety and Health Week, 2018PDF
83 FR 47279 - National Hispanic Heritage Month, 2018PDF
83 FR 47067 - Energy Labeling RulePDF
83 FR 47215 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 47176 - Announcement of Intent To Issue an OPDIV-Initiated Supplement Under the Standing Announcement for Residential (Shelter) Services for Unaccompanied Children, HHS-2017-ACF-ORR-ZU-1132PDF
83 FR 47171 - Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 47069 - Listing of Color Additives Subject to Certification; D&C Black No. 4; Confirmation of Effective DatePDF
83 FR 47119 - Market TestsPDF
83 FR 47147 - Access to Confidential Business Information by General Dynamics Information TechnologyPDF
83 FR 47074 - Beauveria bassiana Strain PPRI 5339; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
83 FR 47234 - Delegation of Authority Payment of RewardsPDF
83 FR 47192 - Xcel Energy, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant; Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
83 FR 47242 - Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee, Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 47124 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 47229 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 47218 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 47207 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 47218 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 47144 - National Coal CouncilPDF
83 FR 47159 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification RulesPDF
83 FR 47166 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification RulesPDF
83 FR 47161 - Patriot Puck; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
83 FR 47154 - Sandpiper of California and PiperGear USA; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
83 FR 47153 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 47180 - Meeting of the CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and TreatmentPDF
83 FR 47180 - National Advisory Council on Migrant HealthPDF
83 FR 47181 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 47183 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 47183 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 47183 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 47182 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 47184 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 47181 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 47182 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 47186 - Iowa; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 47077 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
83 FR 47131 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 149-Freeport, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; DSM Nutritional Products, LLC; (Vinylol) Freeport, TexasPDF
83 FR 47130 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 230-Piedmont Triad Area, North Carolina; Authorization of Production Activity; Deere-Hitachi Construction Machinery Corp.; (Forestry Machinery, and Forestry Machinery and Hydraulic Excavator Frames/Booms/Arms); Kernersville, North CarolinaPDF
83 FR 47130 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7-Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Authorization of Production Activity; Lilly del Caribe; (Pharmaceutical Products); Carolina, Puerto RicoPDF
83 FR 47154 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 47150 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
83 FR 47149 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
83 FR 47151 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 47099 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; “Other Flatfish” in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
83 FR 47171 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 47170 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 47236 - Procedures To Consider Requests for Exclusion of Particular Products From the Additional Action Pursuant to Section 301: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and InnovationPDF
83 FR 47173 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 47168 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 47139 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board MembershipPDF
83 FR 47145 - Proposed Agency Information Collection: SecurityPDF
83 FR 47148 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 47210 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Muni Bond ETF of iShares Trust Under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(4) (Index Fund Shares)PDF
83 FR 47187 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 47145 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak RidgePDF
83 FR 47178 - Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 47128 - National Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 47239 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Guidance on Stress Testing for Banking Organizations With More than $10 Billion in Total Consolidated AssetsPDF
83 FR 47127 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Minnesota Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 47127 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 47069 - Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of Information Act ProgramPDF
83 FR 47138 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; U.S. Territorial Catch and Fishing Effort LimitsPDF
83 FR 47065 - Operating Limitations at New York Laguardia AirportPDF
83 FR 47176 - Proposed Information Collection ActivityPDF
83 FR 47241 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request on Information Collection for Form 8569PDF
83 FR 47070 - Impact Aid Program; CorrectionsPDF
83 FR 47241 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
83 FR 47153 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
83 FR 47144 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Federal Perkins/NDSL Loan Assignment FormPDF
83 FR 47118 - Oakshire Naturals LP; Filing of Food Additive PetitionPDF
83 FR 47143 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; High School and Beyond 2020 (HS&B:20) Base-Year Field Test Sampling and RecruitmentPDF
83 FR 47126 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization Demonstration Program Under Section 514, Section 515, and Section 516; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 47177 - Post-Marketing Pediatric-Focused Product Safety Reviews; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 47136 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 47203 - Vistra Operations Company LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1PDF
83 FR 47235 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Victorian Radicals: From the Pre-Raphaelites to the Arts & Crafts Movement” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 47235 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request To Change End User, End Use and/or Destination of HardwarePDF
83 FR 47136 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Planning, Protection or RestorationPDF
83 FR 47137 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 47069 - Special Local Regulations, Marine Events Within the Fifth Coast Guard District; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 47129 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Automated Export System ProgramPDF
83 FR 47238 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
83 FR 47146 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 47190 - Temporary Labor Camps; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
83 FR 47243 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Accelerated Aging Among Vietnam-Era Veterans SurveyPDF
83 FR 47242 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Certification of Change or Correction of Name Government Life InsurancePDF
83 FR 47168 - SES Performance Review BoardPDF
83 FR 47146 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 47216 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges To Introduce a New Pricing Tier, Step Up Tier 3PDF
83 FR 47230 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price List To Amend the Threshold Levels and Rebate Amounts Payable Under the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program, and To Amend the Rebate Amount Payable Under the Agency Order Incentive ProgramPDF
83 FR 47232 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 47221 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Options Rules To Make Certain Non-Substantive Changes and To Harmonize Certain Rules With Those of Its Affiliate, NYSE American LLCPDF
83 FR 47207 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 404A, Select Provisions of Options Listing Procedures Plan, Rule 406, Long-Term Option Contracts, and Rule 1809, Terms of Index Options ContractsPDF
83 FR 47188 - Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof Such as Spare Parts; Commission Determination To Review a Final Initial Determination in Part; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding; Extension of the Target DatePDF
83 FR 47239 - Hazardous Materials: Emergency Waiver No. 6PDF
83 FR 47187 - Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Amendments in the State of OklahomaPDF
83 FR 47135 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries ResearchPDF
83 FR 47131 - Draft 2018 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment ReportsPDF
83 FR 47027 - Summaries of Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Regulation V)PDF
83 FR 47097 - VA Acquisition Regulation: Subcontracting Policies and Procedures; Government PropertyPDF
83 FR 47138 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; AmeriCorps Child Care Benefit Forms; Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 47059 - Amendment of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Pyongyang Flight Information Region (FIR) (ZKKP)PDF
83 FR 47073 - Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
83 FR 47192 - Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 47174 - Revised Draft NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Silver NanomaterialsPDF
83 FR 47124 - Notice of Availability of the Alabama Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan II and Environmental Assessment: Restoration of Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats; Habitat Projects on Federally Managed Lands; Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source); Sea Turtles; Marine Mammals; Birds; and Oysters and Finding of No Significant ImpactPDF
83 FR 47123 - Petition of the World Shipping Council for an Exemption From Certain Provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984, as Amended, and for a Rulemaking Proceeding; Notice of Filing and Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 47076 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Beloit Corporation Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 47154 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 47185 - National Boating Safety Advisory CouncilPDF
83 FR 47113 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
83 FR 47071 - Transporting Bows and Crossbows Across National Park System UnitsPDF
83 FR 47116 - Airworthiness Directives; Weatherly Aircraft CompanyPDF
83 FR 47101 - Covered Savings AssociationsPDF
83 FR 47246 - Net Worth, Asset Transfers, and Income Exclusions for Needs-Based BenefitsPDF
83 FR 47056 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 47042 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 47054 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 47047 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 47044 - Airworthiness Directives; Learjet, Inc. AirplanesPDF
83 FR 47079 - Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2018PDF

Issue

83 181 Tuesday, September 18, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Natural Resources Conservation Service

See

Rural Housing Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47124 2018-20281
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Summaries of Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 47027-47042 2018-20184 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Automated Export System Program, 47129-47130 2018-20205 Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations, 47128 2018-20232 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47168-47174 2018-20244 2018-20245 2018-20247 2018-20248 Draft Current Intelligence Bulletin: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Silver Nanomaterials, 47174-47175 2018-20169 Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 47171 2018-20289 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47176-47177 2018-20223 OPDIV-Initiated Supplement to BCFS Health and Human Services under the Standing Announcement for Residential (Shelter) Services for Unaccompanied Children, 47176 2018-20295 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Illinois Advisory Committee, 47127 2018-20229 Minnesota Advisory Committee, 47127-47128 2018-20230 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Special Local Regulations: Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District; Correction, 47069-47070 2018-20206 NOTICES Meetings: National Boating Safety Advisory Council, 47185-47186 2018-20127 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Covered Savings Associations, 47101-47113 2018-19955 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance on Stress Testing for Banking Organizations With More than 10 Billion in Total Consolidated Assets, 47239-47240 2018-20231 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: AmeriCorps Child Care Benefit Forms, 47138-47139 2018-20175 Council Inspectors Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Membership, 47139-47143 2018-20243 Defense Department Defense Department RULES Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of Information Act Program, 47069 2018-20228 Education Department Education Department RULES Impact Aid Program: Corrections, 47070-47071 2018-20221 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Perkins/NDSL Loan Assignment Form, 47144 2018-20218 High School and Beyond 2020 Base-Year Field Test Sampling and Recruitment, 47143 2018-20216 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47145-47146 2018-20242 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge, 47145 2018-20234 National Coal Council, 47144-47145 2018-20276
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 47073-47074 2018-20172 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Beloit Corporation Superfund Site, 47076-47077 2018-20163 Tolerance Exemptions: Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 79, 47074-47076 2018-20285 NOTICES Access to Confidential Business Information: General Dynamics Information Technology, 47147-47148 2018-20286 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus SAS Airplanes, 47042-47044, 47056-47059 2018-19854 2018-19856 2018-19857 2018-19858 Learjet, Inc. Airplanes, 47044-47047 2018-19853 Amendment of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Pyongyang Flight Information Region, 47059-47065 2018-20173 Operating Limitations: New York LaGuardia Airport, 47065-47067 2018-20226 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 47113-47116 2018-20098 Weatherly Aircraft Co., 47116-47118 2018-20002 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2018, 47079-47097 2018-19548 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47148-47153 2018-20240 2018-20241 2018-20250 2018-20251 2018-20252 2018-20270 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 47077-47079 2018-20257 NOTICES Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Iowa, 47186-47187 2018-20258 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 47146-47147 2018-20197 2018-20202 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Exemptions: World Shipping Council, 47123 2018-20167 NOTICES Agreements Filed, 47153-47154 2018-20219 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 47238 2018-20204 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 47154 2018-20159 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 47154 2018-20253 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES Energy Labeling Rule; CFR Correction, 47067-47068 2018-20328 NOTICES Early Terminations: Waiting Period under Premerger Notification Rules; Approvals, 47166-47168 2018-20274 Waiting Period under the Premerger Notification Rules, 47159-47161 2018-20275 Proposed Consent Agreements: Patriot Puck, 47161-47166 2018-20272 Sandpiper of California and PiperGear USA; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 47154-47159 2018-20271 Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board, 47168 2018-20198 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Listing of Color Additives Subject to Certification; D and C Black No. 4, 47069 2018-20288 PROPOSED RULES Food Additive Petitions: Oakshire Naturals LP, 47118-47119 2018-20217 NOTICES Meetings: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Establishment of a Public Docket, 47178-47180 2018-20233 Post-Marketing Pediatric-Focused Product Safety Reviews; Establishment of a Public Docket, 47177-47178 2018-20214 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Deere-Hitachi Construction Machinery Corp.; Foreign-Trade Zone 230; Piedmont Triad Area, NC, 47130 2018-20255 DSM Nutritional Products, LLC; Foreign-Trade Zone 149; Freeport, TX, 47131 2018-20256 Lilly del Caribe (Pharmaceutical Products); Foreign-Trade Zone 7; Mayaguez, PR, 47130 2018-20254 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Migrant Health, 47180-47181 2018-20268
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment, 47180 2018-20269 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Gaming: Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Amendments in the State of Oklahoma, 47187 2018-20187 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47241-47242 2018-20220 2018-20222 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems and Components Thereof, 47187-47188 2018-20236 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof Such as Spare Parts, 47188-47190 2018-20189 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 47184-47185 2018-20262 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 47183 2018-20264 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 47181-47184 2018-20261 2018-20265 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 47181-47183 2018-20263 2018-20267 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 47182-47183 2018-20260 2018-20266 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Other Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 47099-47100 2018-20249 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47136-47138 2018-20207 2018-20212 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Planning, Protection or Restoration, 47136-47137 2018-20208 U.S. Territorial Catch and Fishing Effort Limits, 47138 2018-20227 Draft 2018 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 47131-47135 2018-20185 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Northwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research, 47135-47136 2018-20186 National Park National Park Service RULES Transporting Bows and Crossbows Across National Park System Units, 47071-47073 2018-20093 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering, 47192 2018-20170 National Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Restoration of Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats; Habitat Projects on Federally Managed Lands; Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source); Sea Turtles; Marine Mammals; Birds; and Oysters and Finding of No Significant Impact, 47124-47126 2018-20168 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions: Xcel Energy, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 47192-47203 2018-20283 License Amendment Application: Vistra Operations Co., LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, 47203-47207 2018-20211 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Temporary Labor Camps, 47190-47191 2018-20201 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Hazardous Materials: Emergency Waiver No. 6, 47239 2018-20188 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Market Tests, 47119-47123 2018-20287 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Farm Safety and Health Week (Proc. 9784), 47281-47282 2018-20469 National Hispanic Heritage Month (Proc. 9783), 47277-47280 2018-20468 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Applications: Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization Demonstration Programs, 47126-47127 2018-20215 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47207, 47218-47221, 47229-47230 2018-20277 2018-20278 2018-20279 2018-20280 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47215-47216 2018-20318 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 47210-47215 2018-20237 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 47207-47210 2018-20190 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 47230-47232 2018-20195 NYSE Arca, Inc., 47216-47218, 47221-47229, 47232-47234 2018-20193 2018-20194 2018-20196 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Request to Change End User, End Use and/or Destination of Hardware, 47235-47236 2018-20209 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Victorian Radicals: From the Pre-Raphaelites to the Arts and Crafts Movement, 47235 2018-20210 Delegations of Authority: Payment of Rewards, 47234-47235 2018-20284 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Procedures to Consider Requests for Exclusion of Particular Products from the Additional Action Pursuant to Section 301: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 47236-47238 2018-20246 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Net Worth, Asset Transfers, and Income Exclusions for Needs-Based Benefits, 47246-47275 2018-19895 VA Acquisition Regulation: Subcontracting Policies and Procedures; Government Property, 47097-47099 2018-20183 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Accelerated Aging among Vietnam-Era Veterans Survey, 47243 2018-20200 Certification of Change or Correction of Name Government Life Insurance, 47242-47243 2018-20199 Meetings: Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee, 47242 2018-20282 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Veterans Affairs Department, 47246-47275 2018-19895 Part III Presidential Documents, 47277-47282 2018-20469 2018-20468 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.

83 181 Tuesday, September 18, 2018 Rules and Regulations BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Part 1022 [Docket No. CFPB-2018-0025] RIN 3170-AA82 Summaries of Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Regulation V) AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION:

Interim final rule with request for public comment.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing an interim final rule to update the Bureau's model forms for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights and the Summary of Consumer Rights to incorporate a notice of rights required by a new provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, added by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

DATES:

This interim final rule is effective on September 21, 2018. Comments must be received on or before November 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0025 or RIN 3170-AA82, by any of the following methods:

Email: [email protected] Include Docket No. CFPB-2018-0025 or RIN 3170-AA82 in the subject line of the email.

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

Mail: Comment Intake, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.

Instructions: All submissions should include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning 202-435-7275.

All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Seth Caffrey, David Hixson, Amanda Quester, or Pavneet Singh, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or https://reginquiries.consumerfinance.gov/. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the Interim Final Rule

Effective September 21, 2018, new section 605A(i)(5) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), added by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act), requires that a new notice of rights be included whenever a consumer is required to receive a summary of rights required by FCRA section 609. This new notice of rights does not appear in the model forms currently in Appendices I and K, which were published on November 14, 2012. The interim final rule amends the model forms to incorporate the new required notice of rights, amends the model form in Appendix I to reflect a statutory change to the minimum duration of initial fraud alerts, and makes adjustments to update contact information for certain FCRA enforcement agencies in the model form in Appendix K. To mitigate the impact of these changes on users of the existing model forms, the interim final rule also provides that the Bureau will regard the use of the model forms published in Appendices I and K on November 14, 2012, to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring such forms, so long as a separate page that contains the additional required information is provided in the same transmittal. The Bureau is soliciting comment on the interim final rule's amendments to Appendices I and K to inform possible further revisions to the model forms that the Bureau may consider in the future.

II. Background A. Summaries of Rights Required by the FCRA

Section 609 of the FCRA requires the Bureau to prepare two consumer disclosures: A model summary of rights to obtain and dispute information in consumer reports and to obtain credit scores (Summary of Consumer Rights); and a model summary of rights of identity theft victims (Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights).1 The Bureau's model forms for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights and the Summary of Consumer Rights are found in Appendices I and K to Regulation V, respectively.

1 15 U.S.C. 1681g(c)(1)(A), (d)(1).

The Summary of Consumer Rights explains certain major consumer rights under the FCRA, including the right to obtain a copy of a consumer report, the frequency and circumstances under which a consumer is entitled to receive a free consumer report, the right to dispute information in a consumer's file, and the right to obtain a credit score. A consumer reporting agency must provide a Summary of Consumer Rights whenever it makes a written disclosure of information from a consumer's file or a credit score to the consumer.2 The FCRA also requires certain other persons to provide a Summary of Consumer Rights to consumers under specified circumstances.3

2 15 U.S.C. 1681g(c)(2)(A) (requirement to provide a Summary of Consumer Rights with any written file disclosure). A consumer reporting agency must also provide an employer with a Summary of Consumer Rights before furnishing a consumer report for employment purposes. 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(1)(B) (requirement to provide a Summary of Consumer Rights with a report for employment purposes if the Summary of Consumer Rights has not been provided previously).

3See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3) (generally requiring persons using a consumer report for employment purposes to provide the consumer with a Summary of Consumer Rights before taking any adverse action based on the report). The Bureau must also actively publicize the availability of the Summary of Consumer Rights, conspicuously post its availability on the Bureau's internet website, and promptly make it available to consumers, on request. 15 U.S.C. 1681g(c)(1)(C).

The Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights explains the rights consumers have under the FCRA when they seek to remedy the effects of fraud or identity theft, including the right to place a fraud alert and block certain information from appearing in a consumer report. A consumer reporting agency must provide a Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights that contains all of the information required by the Bureau if a consumer contacts the consumer reporting agency and expresses a belief that the consumer is a victim of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor.4

4 15 U.S.C. 1681g(d)(2).

Regulation V provides that use or distribution of the Bureau's model forms and disclosures in Appendices I and K, or substantially similar forms and disclosures, will constitute compliance with any FCRA section or subsection requiring that such forms and disclosures be used by or supplied to any person.5 Substantially similar means that all information in the Bureau's prescribed model is included in the document that is distributed, and that the document distributed is formatted in a way consistent with the format prescribed by the Bureau.6 The document that is distributed cannot include anything that interferes with, detracts from, or otherwise undermines the information contained in the Bureau's prescribed model.7

5 12 CFR 1022.1(c)(1).

6 12 CFR 1022.1(c)(2).

7Id.

B. Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act

On May 24, 2018, the President signed the Act into law.8 Section 301(a)(1) of the Act amends the FCRA to extend from 90 days to one year the minimum time that nationwide consumer reporting agencies must include an initial fraud alert in a consumer's file under FCRA section 605A(a)(1)(A). Section 301(a)(2) of the Act adds new FCRA section 605A(i), which requires nationwide consumer reporting agencies to provide national security freezes free of charge to consumers. At any time a consumer is required to receive a summary of rights required under FCRA section 609, new FCRA section 605A(i)(5) requires inclusion of a notice of rights regarding the right to obtain a security freeze. Section 301(c) of the Act provides that the amendments made by section 301 of the Act take effect 120 days after the date of enactment, which is September 21, 2018.

8 Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1296 (2018).

III. Legal Authority

The Bureau is issuing this interim final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCRA and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).9 Effective July 21, 2011, section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act 10 transferred to the Bureau the rulemaking and certain other authorities of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the prudential regulators relating to the enumerated consumer laws, including most rulemaking authority under the FCRA.11 Likewise, section 1088 of the Dodd-Frank Act made conforming amendments to the FCRA transferring rulemaking authority under much of the FCRA to the Bureau,12 except those regulations applicable to certain motor vehicle dealers.13 As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FCRA generally authorizes the Bureau to issue regulations “as may be necessary or appropriate to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of [the FCRA], and to prevent evasions thereof or to facilitate compliance therewith.” 14

9 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

10 12 U.S.C. 5581.

11 Section 1002(12)(F) of the Dodd-Frank Act designates most of the FCRA as an “enumerated consumer law.”

12 The Dodd-Frank Act did not, however, transfer to the Bureau rulemaking authority for FCRA sections 615(e) (“Red Flag Guidelines and Regulations Required”) and 628 (“Disposal of Records”).

13 Dodd-Frank Act section 1029.

14 Dodd-Frank Act section 1088(a)(10)(E) (codified at 15 U.S.C. 1681s(e)).

IV. Administrative Procedure Act

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau for good cause finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.15 Similarly, publication of this interim final rule at least 30 days before its effective date is not required if provided for by the Bureau for good cause found.16

15 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

16 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The Bureau finds that prior notice and public comment are unnecessary because the revisions involve technical changes necessary for the regulation to contain model forms that comply with section 301 of the Act. The revisions merely incorporate a new notice of rights required by the Act into the model forms, update the description of initial fraud alerts in the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights to reflect the new minimum duration of initial fraud alerts specified in the Act, and make adjustments to update contact information for certain FCRA enforcement agencies in the Summary of Consumer Rights. The revisions also include in both model forms optional language clarifying that the security freeze right applies only to nationwide consumer reporting agencies. Entities that do not wish to use the new model forms may use substantially similar forms. They may also continue using the existing model forms (or substantially similar forms) to comply with the provisions in the FCRA that require such forms if they provide the notice of rights required by new FCRA section 605A(i)(5) on a separate page in the same transmittal and, for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights, a short explanation of the changed minimum duration of initial fraud alerts.

The Bureau also finds that prior notice and public comment are impractical because notice and comment would afford insufficient time to finalize the revisions to the model forms necessary for them to comply with section 301 of the Act before the effective date of that section. If revisions to the model forms were not finalized prior to the effective date of the statutory changes, legal uncertainty and risk could arise as to how entities could comply with both the regulation and section 301 of the Act at the same time.

The Bureau also finds that there is good cause for this interim final rule to be effective less than 30 days after publication to ensure that these necessary technical revisions to the model forms are in effect by the effective date of section 301 of the Act to avoid the legal uncertainty and risk that could arise as to how entities could comply with both the regulation and section 301 of the Act at the same time.

For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and impractical and that there is good cause for this interim final rule to be effective less than 30 days after publication.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis Appendix I to Part 1022—Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights

Effective September 21, 2018, FCRA section 605A(i)(5) requires that whenever a consumer is required to receive a summary of rights required under FCRA section 609, a notice of rights regarding the new security freeze right must be included. This notice of rights does not appear in the model form for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights currently in Appendix I. To conform to this statutory change, the Bureau is amending the model form in Appendix I to include the new required notice of rights.

Under section 301 of the Act, a security freeze prohibits consumer reporting agencies that are described in FCRA section 603(p) (nationwide consumer reporting agencies) from releasing information subject to various exceptions. To clarify the scope of the new security freeze right under the FCRA, the Bureau has added a sentence before the new notice of rights in the model form in Appendix I stating that the following FCRA right applies with respect to nationwide consumer reporting agencies. The Bureau will regard the model form in Appendix I without this sentence as substantially similar to the model form in Appendix I and will regard use of the model form without this sentence to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring such forms.

The model form for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights currently in Appendix I provides that “[a]n initial fraud alert stays in your file for at least 90 days” (emphasis in original). Effective September 21, 2018, section 301(a)(1) of the Act amends the FCRA to extend the minimum time from 90 days to one year that nationwide consumer reporting agencies must include fraud alerts in a consumer's file under FCRA section 605A(a)(1)(A). To conform to this statutory change, the Bureau is amending the model form in Appendix I to provide that “[a]n initial fraud alert stays in your file for at least one year.”

The Bureau recognizes that some entities may have already begun preparing to implement the Act and may be preparing Summaries of Consumer Identity Theft Rights that include the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5) in a different location on the form than shown on the new model form published today. The Bureau will regard use of forms that are the same as the model form published today but that include the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5) in a different location on the form to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights and will regard such forms as substantially similar to the model form for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights published today.17

17 The Bureau will also regard use of forms that deviate in other ways from the model form published today but that are still substantially similar to the model form published today to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights.

The Bureau recognizes that some entities may find it less burdensome to include the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5) on a separate page in the same transmittal with the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights published on November 14, 2012, and to clarify in the separate page that the Act changed the minimum duration of initial fraud alerts from 90 days to one year. To mitigate the impact of the model form changes on users of the existing model forms, the Bureau will regard the use of the model form for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights published on November 14, 2012 (or a substantially similar form), with a separate page provided in the same transmittal that includes the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5) and that states on the separate page, before or after the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5), that “The minimum duration of initial fraud alerts changed from 90 days to one year effective September 21, 2018,” to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights.18 The Bureau will regard the model form for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights published on November 14, 2012 (or a substantially similar form), provided with such a separate page, as substantially similar to the model form for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights published in this document.19

18 An entity using this approach need not include the sentence about the minimum duration of initial fraud alerts on the separate page if it changes “90 days” to “one year” in the model form for the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights published on November 14, 2012. Entities may also, at their option, add the following statement on the separate page before the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5): “The following FCRA right applies with respect to nationwide consumer reporting agencies.”

19 The use of the versions of the model forms in Appendices I, K, M, and N as published on December 21, 2011, should be discontinued no later than September 21, 2018. See 76 FR 79308 (Dec. 21, 2011); 77 FR 67744 (Nov. 14, 2012); 81 FR 25323 (Apr. 28, 2016).

Appendix K to Part 1022—Summary of Consumer Rights

Effective September 21, 2018, FCRA section 605A(i)(5) requires that whenever a consumer is required to receive a summary of rights required under FCRA section 609, a notice of rights regarding the new security freeze right must be included. This notice does not appear in the model form for the Summary of Consumer Rights currently in Appendix K. To conform to this statutory change, the Bureau is amending the model form in Appendix K to include the new required notice of rights.

Under section 301 of the Act, a security freeze prohibits consumer reporting agencies that are described in FCRA section 603(p) (nationwide consumer reporting agencies) from releasing information subject to various exceptions. To clarify the scope of the new security freeze right under the FCRA, the Bureau has added a sentence before the new notice of rights in the model form in Appendix K stating that the following FCRA right applies with respect to nationwide consumer reporting agencies. The Bureau will regard the model form in Appendix K without this sentence as substantially similar to the model form in Appendix K and will regard use of the model form without this sentence to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring such forms.

The Bureau has also amended the model form in Appendix K to update contact information provided for certain FCRA enforcement agencies.

The Bureau recognizes that some entities may have already begun preparing to implement the Act and may be preparing Summaries of Consumer Rights that include the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5) in a different location on the form than shown on the new model form published today. The Bureau will regard use of forms that are the same as the model form published today but that include the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5) in a different location on the form to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring the Summary of Consumer Rights and will regard such forms as substantially similar to the model form for the Summary of Consumer Rights published today.20

20 The Bureau will also regard use of forms that deviate in other ways from the model form published today but that are still substantially similar to the model form published today to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring the Summary of Consumer Rights.

The Bureau recognizes that some entities may find it less burdensome to include the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5) on a separate page in the same transmittal with the Summary of Consumer Rights published on November 14, 2012. To mitigate the impact of these changes on users of the existing model forms, the Bureau will regard the use of the model form for the Summary of Consumer Rights published on November 14, 2012 (or a substantially similar form), with a separate page provided in the same transmittal that includes the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5), to constitute compliance with the FCRA provisions requiring the Summary of Consumer Rights.21 The Bureau will regard the model form for the Summary of Consumer Rights published on November 14, 2012 (or a substantially similar form), provided with such a separate page as substantially similar to the model form for the Summary of Consumer Rights published in this document.22

21 Entities may also, at their option, add the following statement on the separate page before the notice of rights required by FCRA section 605A(i)(5): “The following FCRA right applies with respect to nationwide consumer reporting agencies.”

22See supra note 18.

VI. Request for Comment

The Bureau may consider possible further revisions to the model forms in Appendices I and K to Regulation V in the future. Although notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are not required for the revisions made in this interim final rule, the Bureau invites comment on this interim final rule, implementation of the Act in the model forms, and any other changes that may be necessary or appropriate to the model forms in Appendices I and K to Regulation V.23

23 We note that, in 2010, the FTC proposed revisions to these and other model forms, but the rulemaking was not finalized. See Summary of Rights and Notices of Duties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 75 FR 52655 (Aug. 27, 2010).

VII. Effective Date

This interim final rule is effective on September 21, 2018.

VIII. Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022(b) Analysis A. Overview

In developing the interim final rule, the Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts required by section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, section 1022(b)(2) calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of access by consumers to consumer financial products or services, the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the impact on consumers in rural areas. In addition, section 1022(b)(2)(B) directs the Bureau to consult, before and during the rulemaking, with appropriate prudential regulators or other Federal agencies, regarding consistency with objectives those agencies administer. The Bureau has consulted, or offered to consult, with the prudential regulators and the FTC regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by those agencies.

In considering the relevant potential benefits, costs, and impacts, the Bureau consulted the available data and applied its knowledge and expertise concerning consumer financial markets. Where available, the Bureau used the economic analyses that it regards as most reliable and helpful to consider the relevant potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the interim final rule. However, the Bureau notes that, in some instances, there are limited data available to inform the quantification of the potential benefits, costs, and impacts. Where possible, the Bureau makes quantitative estimates based on economic principles as well as available data. However, where data are limited, the Bureau generally provides a qualitative discussion of the interim final rule's potential benefits, costs, and impacts.

The Bureau is using a post-statute baseline to assess the impact of this interim final rule. Using a post-statute baseline, the analysis evaluates the benefits, costs, and impacts of the interim final rule as compared to enactment of the statute alone. A post-statute baseline focuses the consideration of the benefits, costs, and impacts on the amendments in this interim final rule, which are technical and do not impose any new substantive obligations on regulated entities.24

24 The Bureau has discretion in future rulemakings to choose the relevant provisions to discuss and the most appropriate baseline for that particular rulemaking. The Bureau also considers the benefits, costs, and impacts of certain other requirements in new FCRA section 605A(i) related to the new disclosure requirements where doing so provides a more complete understanding of the impacts of these requirements on consumers and covered persons.

As discussed above, the interim final rule amends Regulation V, which implements the FCRA, to reflect new FCRA section 605A(i), added by the Act. Under the interim final rule, the Bureau is amending two model forms in Regulation V to conform to new FCRA section 605A(i)(5). The amended model form in Regulation V, Appendix K, the Summary of Consumer Rights, reflects two changes relative to the current model form: The addition of a notice of rights that details the consumer's right to a security freeze; and an update to the contact information listed for certain FCRA enforcement agencies. The amended model form in Regulation V, Appendix I, the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights, reflects two changes relative to the current model form: The addition of the same notice of rights detailing the consumer's right to a security freeze that has been added to the Summary of Consumer Rights; and an update to the disclosed minimum amount of time that an initial fraud alert stays in a consumer's file. The rule also includes in both model forms optional language clarifying that the security freeze right applies only to nationwide consumer reporting agencies.

Rather than requiring entities subject to the interim final rule to use the new model forms, the interim final rule allows entities to comply in a variety of ways. These include, for example: (1) Allowing entities to continue to use the current forms while also including a separate page that includes the new statutorily prescribed notice of rights and, with respect to the disclosure in Appendix I, either highlighting in the separate page the change from 90 days to one year for the minimum duration of initial fraud alerts or updating the current forms to include the change in the minimum duration of initial fraud alerts; or (2) allowing entities flexibility as to the placement of the new notice of rights on the forms. For the purpose of this analysis, the Bureau does not differentiate between which of these methods of compliance an entity chooses, and these methods are collectively referred to as the “alternative approach.”

Regarding baseline behavior and practices, the Bureau assumes that if the interim final rule were not adopted, entities subject to the rule would comply with both new FCRA section 605A(i)(5) and current Regulation V. For the purpose of this analysis, the Bureau assumes that if the interim final rule were not adopted, to convey the information required by new FCRA section 605A(i)(5) along with the information contained in either of the current model forms under current Regulation V, entities subject to the rule would comply in a manner that is substantially similar to the alternative approach described above, using two double-sided sheets of standard printer paper.25

25 The Summary of Consumer Rights model form in current Regulation V can be printed on three sides of standard printer paper. Since the new information required by new FCRA section 605A(i)(5) can be printed on a single side, the combination of these disclosures should take no more than four sides of paper, or two double-sided sheets of paper. The Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights model form in current Regulation V can be printed on two sides of standard printer paper. Therefore, the combination of this disclosure and the information required by new FCRA section 605A(i)(5) should take no more than three sides of paper, or the equivalent of two double-sided sheets of paper.

As this analysis details below, the similarity between the alternative approach and the assumed behavior and practices under the baseline result in the Bureau estimating minimal additional costs under the interim final rule. Where illuminating, the Bureau also considers the costs to entities of adopting the amended model forms. These analyses demonstrate that the Bureau's estimate of costs is not affected by whether entities adopt the model form or use the alternative approach.

B. Potential Benefits and Costs to Consumers and Covered Persons Benefits

The impact on consumers of the interim final rule depends on whether a particular consumer prefers, or would otherwise benefit from, receiving the amended disclosures.26 As described above, this analysis assumes that entities subject to the rule would provide the information required by both new FCRA section 605A(i)(5) and current Regulation V, even if this rule were not adopted. However, this rule provides entities with the option to provide the information from these two sources under the unified disclosure designs of the amended model forms. The Bureau expects that these unified designs will make finding and comprehending information easier for consumers relative to the baseline by lowering the cost to consumers of information search and processing. The precise magnitude of this benefit to consumers is difficult to quantify because the Bureau does not have data regarding how much individual consumers value it. However, the Bureau can estimate, broadly, the scope of consumers who may benefit. Prior to the Act, of the consumers who experienced one or more attempted or successful incidents of identity theft and who also contacted a consumer reporting agency, approximately 70 percent requested a fraud alert be placed on their file.27 This large proportion reflects a substantial consumer demand for this service.28 Similarly, prior to the Act, about 40 percent of consumers who experienced one or more attempted or successful incidents of identity theft, and who also contacted a consumer reporting agency, requested a security freeze.29 After the Act, the Bureau expects demand for fraud alerts and security freezes will increase; 30 and, of the consumers who demand these services, some will become informed through the disclosures required by Regulation V and new FCRA section 605A(i)(5). These consumers are likely to benefit from this rule through lower information search and processing costs relative to the baseline, as described above.

26 Benefits will also depend on the extent to which entities adopt the model forms or substantially similar forms (rather than using the alternative approach). Since each rule is unique, the Bureau does not have data that would allow it to reliably estimate adoption rates. However, in general, greater adoption of the model forms or substantially similar disclosures will lead to a greater benefit of this rule.

27 U.S. Dep't. of Justice, Victims of Identity Theft, 2014 at 1, 18 (Sept. 27, 2015), available at https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5408.

28 The Bureau assumes about one million consumers contact consumer reporting agencies requesting fraud alerts annually. This estimate is based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice. Approximately 17.6 million people were victims of identity theft in 2014, and an estimated 8.1 percent contacted a consumer reporting agency. See id.

29See id.

30 The Act provides, and prescribes the disclosure of, new rights to consumers. The Bureau expects that these new rights will be of value to consumers, and that these new disclosures will help to inform consumers of their rights.

Regarding benefits to industry, this interim final rule harmonizes Regulation V with the FCRA, as amended by the Act. The Bureau intends to reduce legal uncertainty and risk in the industry regarding responsibilities and liabilities among market participants about how they may comply with both the statute and Regulation V at the same time. There may be a general benefit from the certainty and risk reduction provided through this harmonization. However, without data on how entities would comply with the statute and Regulation V absent this interim final rule, the Bureau cannot quantify the benefit of this additional certainty.

Costs

The Bureau estimates minimal additional costs under the interim final rule. The Bureau does not anticipate any additional one-time costs due to this rule, relative to the baseline. Regarding ongoing costs, this interim final rule does not alter the circumstances under which disclosures under the FCRA are required. Nor does the Bureau estimate any additional costs to providing disclosures due to this rule, relative to the baseline. Nonetheless, this analysis considers each of the potential sources of cost for each of the disclosures that are updated by this interim final rule, given the baseline, including: Development of new disclosure templates, destruction or disposal of out-of-date materials, changes to production of disclosures, and changes to delivery of disclosures.

Summary of Consumer Rights

The Bureau believes that the costs of this interim final rule of development of a new Summary of Consumer Rights disclosure template, or destruction or disposal of out-of-date materials, will be minimal. As stated above, the Bureau believes that the alternative approach allowed by this rule is substantially similar to how entities would comply with both new FCRA section 605A(i)(5) and current Regulation V if this interim final rule were not adopted. The Bureau therefore expects that to come into compliance with this rule, relative to the baseline, entities subject to the rule will not incur additional costs to update disclosure templates or to destroy, or dispose of, out-of-date materials.31

31 If entities were to choose to adopt the model form, or if this analysis were to adopt a pre-statute baseline, the Bureau would continue to estimate these costs to be small. Because the Bureau is providing model forms, it believes the cost of developing new disclosure templates would be small. Because the Bureau is allowing the alternative approach, it believes that entities could use their old stock rather than destroying or disposing of it.

Regarding production and delivery of the Summary of Consumer Rights disclosure, there are two relevant classes of recipients: Consumers and employers. The Bureau estimates additional costs under the interim final rule to be very small for production and delivery to either class. Each is considered separately below.

For production and delivery to consumers, the Bureau estimates minimal additional costs under the interim final rule. The Bureau expects that the alternative approach will take two double-sided sheets to be printed, which is the same number of sheets as under the approach the Bureau assumes entities will take under the baseline.32 Since the printing needs are the same, there are no additional costs.33 It is possible that use of the alternative approach could result in an entity using a third sheet of paper to produce the disclosure; however, the Bureau believes that any entity choosing to use an extra sheet of paper under the interim final rule would also choose to do so under the baseline.34

32 The Bureau typically accounts for printing costs in terms of the cost of double-sided printing on standard 8.5 inch by 11 inch printer paper. However, this interim final rule does not specify how entities print or the size of the paper they use. Indeed, the Bureau expects that each entity will use the method of printing that is least costly to it.

33 The Bureau also assumes there to be no substantial cost of electronic distribution, and therefore that there is no change in costs, regardless of the chosen method of delivery.

34 If entities were to adopt the model form, then the Bureau would continue to estimate these costs to be small because the amended Summary of Consumer Rights model form disclosure takes two double-sided sheets to be printed, which is the same number of sheets as under the approach the Bureau assumes entities will take under the baseline.

If this analysis were to adopt a pre-statute baseline, then this analysis would still estimate minimal additional costs due to this part of the rule. When printed on double-sided sheets, the disclosure under current Regulation V takes two sheets of standard printer paper, which is the same number of sheets as under both the amended model form and the alternative approach under this interim final rule. Although this rule does technically imply that additional ink would be used relative to printing the current disclosure, the Bureau typically estimates a total cost per sheet of printing inclusive of paper costs, depreciation of printing hardware, and the ink required for a double-sided, completely printed, sheet. Therefore, the implied cost of additional ink would already have been counted in the cost of previous rules.

For production and delivery to employers, the Bureau estimates minimal additional costs under the interim final rule. Under the FCRA, employers must be provided a copy of the Summary of Consumer Rights disclosure by a consumer reporting agency before the consumer reporting agency furnishes a consumer report for employment purposes, unless the consumer reporting agency already provided a copy of the disclosure to that employer. The Bureau believes that, under the baseline, consumer reporting agencies will provide an updated copy of the Summary of Consumer Rights to employers once the Act takes effect. However, because the Bureau assumes that consumer reporting agencies' baseline approach will be substantially similar to the alternative approach under this interim final rule, the Bureau estimates the cost to sending an updated copy to employers to be the same under the rule as under the baseline.35

35 If entities were to adopt the model form, then the Bureau would continue to estimate additional costs to be small because the amended Summary of Consumer Rights model form disclosure takes two double-sided sheets to be printed, which is the same number of sheets as under the approach the Bureau assumes entities will take under the baseline.

If this analysis were to adopt a pre-statute baseline, the Bureau would estimate a one-time cost to consumer reporting agencies of between $0 and $435,000, depending on the method by which the disclosures are delivered. This estimate assumes printing costs of $0.20 per disclosure (two sheets * $0.10 per sheet), and postage cost of $0.375 per disclosure. See U.S. Postal Serv., Postal Explorer—Price List, https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/Notice123.htm#_c096. It further assumes that there are approximately 757,310 employers in the United States that use consumer reports for employment purposes, and that each employer requests consumer reports from at most one consumer reporting agency. This estimated number of employers comes from the fact that there are approximately 5,726,160 firms in the United States that have employees (2014) and a survey which reported that 13 percent of employers use credit reports to screen candidates for all positions. The reported range of potential cost depends on the proportion of disclosures assumed to be sent electronically. If all disclosures were sent electronically, the estimated cost would be approximately $0. However, if all disclosures were sent via U.S. mail, the estimated cost would be approximately $435,000 (($0.20 + $0.375)*757,310). See U.S. Small Bus. Admin., Firm Size Data, available at https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data and Society for Human Res. Mgmt., Background Checking—The Use of Credit Background Checks in Hiring Decisions (July 19, 2012), available at https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Pages/creditbackgroundchecks.aspx.

Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights

For the same reasons described in the previous part, the Bureau believes that the additional costs under this interim final rule of development of a new Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights disclosure template, or destruction or disposal of out-of-date materials, will be minimal.

Regarding production and delivery of the Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights disclosure, the Bureau estimates the total change in costs will be very small. The Bureau expects that the alternative approach will take no more than two double-sided sheets to be printed, which is the same number of sheets as under the approach the Bureau assumes entities will take under the baseline. Since the printing needs are the same, there are no new costs.36

36 This analysis assumes there to be no substantial cost of electronic distribution, and therefore no change in costs, regardless of the chosen method of delivery.

If entities were to choose to adopt the model form, the Bureau would continue to estimate the costs to be very small because the amended Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights model form disclosure takes two double-sided sheets to be printed, which is the same number of sheets as under the approach the Bureau assumes entities will take under the baseline.

If this analysis were to adopt a pre-statute baseline, printing the amended Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights model form would use one additional sheet of paper relative to the current model form, and the total change in costs would be between $0 and approximately $140,000 annually, depending on the methods by which consumer reporting agencies distribute their disclosures. These estimates assume additional printing costs of $0.10 per disclosure (one sheet * $0.10 per sheet), but no additional postage cost (the cost to send a business class letter via the USPS is the same whether it contains one or two sheets of paper). In addition, these estimates assume that about 1.4 million consumers contact consumer reporting agencies regarding identity theft. See supra note 26.

An estimated 42 percent of consumers submit disputes to consumer reporting agencies online, 44 percent by mail, 13 percent by phone, and the remainder by fax, walk-ins, or other methods (which the Bureau assumes result in burden resembling disputes submitted by mail). Under the assumptions that these methods of contact are representative of consumer behavior across products, and that consumer reporting agencies respond in-kind to electronic disputes but respond to all other methods of consumer contact via U.S. mail, 42 percent of these disclosures would be sent electronically, and 58 percent would be sent via U.S. mail. This would result in an expected cost to consumer reporting agencies of approximately $81,200 annually. See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Protection, Key Dimensions and Processes in the U.S. Credit Reporting System 27 (Dec. 2012), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_credit-reporting-white-paper.pdf.

The Bureau does not anticipate that the interim final rule will generate costs for consumers, given the baseline.

C. Potential Specific Impacts of the Rule

This analysis estimates minimal additional costs under the interim final rule, and therefore the Bureau does not believe that the rule would reduce consumers' access to consumer financial products or services.

The Bureau does not expect the interim final rule to have distinct impacts on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets or on consumers in rural areas, relative to other entities or consumers.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.37 As noted previously, the Bureau has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this interim final rule. Accordingly the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

37 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Bureau has determined that the interim final rule does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

XI. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,38 the Bureau will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule's published effective date. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

38 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

List of Subjects

Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit unions, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Holding companies, National banks, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State member banks.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation V, 12 CFR part 1022, as set forth below:

PART 1022—FAIR CREDIT REPORTING (REGULATION V) 1. The authority citation for part 1022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 5512, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1681a, 1681b, 1681c, 1681c-1, 1681e, 1681g, 1681i, 1681j, 1681m, 1681s, 1681s-2, 1681s-3, and 1681t; Sec. 214, Public Law 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952.

2. Revise Appendix I to read as follows: Appendix I to Part 1022—Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights

The prescribed form for this summary is a disclosure that is substantially similar to the Bureau's model summary with all information clearly and prominently displayed. A summary should accurately reflect changes to those items that may change over time (such as telephone numbers) to remain in compliance. Translations of this summary will be in compliance with the Bureau's prescribed model, provided that the translation is accurate and that it is provided in a language used by the recipient consumer.

ER18SE18.006 ER18SE18.007 ER18SE18.008
3. Revise Appendix K to read as follows: Appendix K to Part 1022—Summary of Consumer Rights

The prescribed form for this summary is a disclosure that is substantially similar to the Bureau's model summary with all information clearly and prominently displayed. The list of Federal regulators that is included in the Bureau's prescribed summary may be provided separately so long as this is done in a clear and conspicuous way. A summary should accurately reflect changes to those items that may change over time (e.g., dollar amounts, or telephone numbers and addresses of Federal agencies) to remain in compliance. Translations of this summary will be in compliance with the Bureau's prescribed model, provided that the translation is accurate and that it is provided in a language used by the recipient consumer.

BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P ER18SE18.009 ER18SE18.010 ER18SE18.011 ER18SE18.012
Dated: September 11, 2018. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2018-20184 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-C
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0365; Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD; Amendment 39-19399; AD 2018-18-20] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective October 23, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0365.

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-2018-0365; 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 in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

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 all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22222). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

We are issuing this AD to address safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for the Airbus A310, A300-600 and A300-600ST family aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus A310 and A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR) for the Airbus A310 and A300-600, which are approved by EASA, are specified in the Airbus A310 and A300-600 (including A300-600ST) ALS Part 3 documents. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continuing airworthiness.

Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2013-0072 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2015-08-06, Amendment 39-18142 (80 FR 23230, April 27, 2015) (“AD 2015-08-06”)] to require the implementation of the maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A310 and A300-600 ALS Part 3 documents at original issue.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations were approved by EASA. Consequently, Airbus published Revision 01 of the A310 ALS Part 3 and A300-600 ALS Part 3, compiling all ALS Part 3 changes approved since original issue.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0072, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in A310 ALS Part 3 Revision 01 and A300-600 ALS Part 3 Revision 01.

This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition involves safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems.

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-2018-0365.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. FedEx Express indicated its support for the NPRM.

Request To Release Related ADs at the Same Time

Airbus requested that we release this final rule at the same time as the following related ADs to provide clarity to operators. All four pending ADs are related to the removal of the same 15 nose landing gear parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0390, Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD (EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0364, Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-AD (EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017).

• Docket No. FAA-2018-0396, Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD (EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017).

We agree with the request. While we cannot ensure that all four final rules will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and attempt to issue all four final rules at the same time.

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 change 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

Airbus SAS has issued A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017; and A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017. This service information describes mandatory maintenance tasks that operators must perform at specified intervals. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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 127 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although this figure 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).

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 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): 2018-18-20 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19399; Docket No. FAA-2018-0365; Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD affects AD 2015-08-06, Amendment 39-18142 (80 FR 23230, April 27, 2015) (“AD 2015-08-06”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017; or Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017; as applicable. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time specified in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017; or Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017; as applicable; or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

After accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) 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 (j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2015-08-06

Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2015-08-06.

(j) 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 (k)(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.

(k) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 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-2018-0365.

(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

(l) 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 A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017.

(ii) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com.

(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 16, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19857 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0327; Product Identifier 2018-CE-001-AD; Amendment 39-19404; AD 2018-19-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Learjet, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Learjet, Inc. Models 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A, 36, 36A, 55, 55B, 55C, and 60 airplanes. This AD was prompted by fatigue cracks initiating in the flap support structure due to repetitive flap loads, which has caused flap nose roller support bracket failure. This AD requires replacement of the flap nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with improved components. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-2000; email: [email protected]; internet: https://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0327.

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-2018-0327; 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:

Tara Shawn, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4141; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected] or [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 Learjet, Inc. Models 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A, 36, 36A, 55, 55B, 55C, and 60 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20740). The NPRM was prompted by a report that a skewed flap and aileron became bound on a Model 31A airplane, which was later found to have fatigue cracks in the flap support structure due to repetitive flap loads. Fatigue cracks in the flap support structure caused by repetitive flap loads can result in failure of the flap nose roller support bracket. Repetitive flap loads occur on all models identified by this AD. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of the flap nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with improved components. This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of roll control on approach with consequent loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Clarification of Repair Method

We have revised this action to clarify that operators are not required to obtain repair instructions from Learjet. Instead, operators must use a repair method approved by the Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except for the changes described previously and other minor editorial changes. We have determined that these 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.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Bombardier Learjet 28/29 Service Bulletin SB 28/29-27-31 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 31 SB 31-27-35 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 35/36 SB 35/36-27-50 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 55 SB 55-27-41 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; and Bombardier Learjet 60 SB 60-27-39 Recommended, Revision 1, dated January 15, 2018. For the applicable models, the service information describes procedures for replacement of the flap nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with improved components. The service information also contains instructions to ensure correct flap alignment. 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 706 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost * Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Replacement of flap nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with improved components 188 work-hours × $85 per hour = $15,980 $12,213 $28,193 $19,904,258 * Parts cost is an average of the combined costs for replacement of all of the kits per airplane. Not all airplanes will need all kits, as credit is allowed for some previous installations.
    Individual Parts Cost * Kit Number (K/N) Part cost K/N 2381000-802 $827 K/N 2381000-804 822 K/N 2381000-806 780 K/N 2381000-808 793 K/N 2381000-809 1,358 K/N 2381000-810 1,358 K/N 2381000-811 1,822 K/N 2381000-817 1,674 K/N 2381000-818 1,432 K/N 2381000-819 1,415 K/N 2381000-820 1,912 K/N 2381000-821 1,912 * Parts required for replacement may vary for different models and different airplanes. 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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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): 2018-19-04 Learjet, Inc.: Amendment 39-19404; Docket No. FAA-2018-0327; Product Identifier 2018-CE-001-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the Learjet, Inc. model airplanes that are certificated in any category, as listed in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.

    ER18SE18.000 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2750, TE Flap Control System.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks initiating in the flap support structure due to repetitive flap loads. We are issuing this AD to require replacement of the flap nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with improved components. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could cause failure of the flap nose roller support bracket and lead to loss of roll control on approach with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Corrective Action

    (1) For Models 28 and 29 airplanes:

    (i) Within 24 months after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 400 landings after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace the nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with replacement parts by following the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Learjet 28/29 Service Bulletin SB 28/29-27-31 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017.

    (ii) Although Paragraph 3.B.(1) of the applicable SB for these models that have modified flap roller assemblies requires the operator to contact Learjet Inc. for repair instructions, this AD requires that you do the repair using a method approved by the Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

    (2) For Models 31 and 31A airplanes: Within 24 months after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 400 landings after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace the nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with replacement parts by following the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Learjet 31 SB 31-27-35 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017.

    (3) For Models 35, 35A, 36, and 36A airplanes: Within 24 months after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 400 landings after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace the nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with replacement parts by following the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Learjet 35/36 SB 35/36-27-50 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017.

    (4) For Models 55, 55B, and 55C airplanes: Within 24 months after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 400 landings after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace the nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with replacement parts by following the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Learjet 55 SB 55-27-41 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017.

    (5) For Model 60 airplanes: Within 12 months after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 200 landings after October 23, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace the nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with replacement parts by following the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Learjet 60 SB 60-27-39 Recommended, Revision 1, dated January 15, 2018.

    (6) For all airplanes: Some compliance times in this AD are presented in landings. If you do not keep a record of the total number of landings, then use a 1-to-1 conversion for hours time-in-service (TIS) to landings. Example: 20 hours TIS = 20 landings.

    (7) For Models 31, 31A, 35, 35A, 36, 36A, 55, 55B, 55C, and 60 airplanes: Although Paragraph 3.B.(2) of the applicable SB for these models that have modified flap roller assemblies requires the operator to contact Learjet Inc. for repair instructions, this AD requires you do the repair using a method approved by the Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    For Model 60 airplanes: This AD allows credit for actions required in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following Bombardier Learjet 60 SB 60-27-39 Recommended, Basic Issue, dated September 11, 2017.

    (i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Bombardier Learjet 28/29 SB 28/29-27-31 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 31 SB 31-27-35 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 35/36 SB 35/36 -27-50 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 55 SB 55-27-41 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; and Bombardier Learjet 60 SB 60-27-39 Recommended, Revision 1, dated January 15, 2018, all specify to submit a compliance response form to the manufacturer per paragraph 3.E., this AD does not require that action.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita 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 (k)(1) of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tara Shawn, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4141; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference 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) Bombardier Learjet 28/29 Service Bulletin (SB) 28/29-27-31 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017;

    (ii) Bombardier Learjet 31 SB 31-27-35 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017;

    (iii) Bombardier Learjet 35/36 SB 35/36 -27-50 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017;

    (iv) Bombardier Learjet 55 SB 55-27-41 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; and

    (v) Bombardier Learjet 60 SB 60-27-39 Recommended, Revision 1, dated January 15, 2018.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-2000; email: [email protected]; internet: https://www.bombardier.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1078.

    (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 Kansas City, Missouri, on August 31, 2018. Melvin J. Johnson, Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-19853 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0390; Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD; Amendment 39-19397; AD 2018-18-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness limitation items (ALI) document. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the specified maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES: 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-2018-0390; 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 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:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

    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 all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2018 (83 FR 21955). The NPRM was prompted by a revision of an ALI document. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the specified maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

    We are issuing this AD to address the reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible loss of controllability of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Some airworthiness limitations previously defined in A300 ALS [Airworthiness Limitations Section] Part 1 have been removed from that document and should normally be included in an ALS Part 4. Airbus does not plan to issue an ALS Part 4 for A300 aeroplanes.

    Nevertheless, failure to comply with these airworthiness limitations could result in an unsafe condition.

    For the reason described above, it has been decided to require the application of these airworthiness limitations through a separate AD.

    Previously, EASA issued AD 2013-0210 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-16-13, Amendment 39-17937 (79 FR 51083, August 27, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-13”)] to require implementation of airworthiness limitations applicable to main landing gear (MLG) barrel assembly, retraction actuator assembly, linkage assembly and flanged duct, which were previously defined in Revision 00 of A300 ALS Part 1 but removed from Revision 01 of A300 ALS Part 1, adding those limits as an Appendix to the AD.

    Since EASA AD 2013-0210 was issued, improvement of safe life component selection resulted, among others, in removal of 15 nose landing gear (NLG) parts from Revision 02 of A300 ALS Part 1.

    Consequently, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0210, which is superseded, and requires, in addition to the implementation of airworthiness limitations already contained in EASA AD 2013-0210, the implementation of airworthiness limitations applicable to NLG barrel assembly and shock absorber assembly, previously contained in Revision 01 of A300 ALS Part 1, as specified in Appendix 1 of this AD.

    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-2018-0390.

    Comments

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

    Request To Supersede AD 2014-16-13

    Airbus questioned the need to keep AD 2014-16-13 and whether the proposed AD should instead supersede AD 2014-16-13. Airbus noted that the proposed AD lists all of the ALIs in EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017, not just the ALIs that have been updated since we issued AD 2014-16-13. We infer that Airbus wanted the proposed AD changed to a supersedure AD.

    We disagree with the request to change this AD to a supersedure AD. To address the unsafe condition, we chose to match EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017, and include the same ALIs. Because accomplishment of the requirements of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-16-13, a supersedure is not necessary. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Release Related ADs at the Same Time

    Airbus requested that we release this final rule at the same time as the following related ADs to provide clarity to operators. All four pending ADs are related to the same removal of 15 nose landing gear parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0364, Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-AD (EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017).

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0365, Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD (EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017).

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0396, Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD (EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017).

    We agree with the request insofar as we can control the publication schedule. While we cannot ensure that all four will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and attempt to issue all four final rules at the same time.

    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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    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).

    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 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): 2018-18-18 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19397; Docket No. FAA-2018-0390; Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-16-13, Amendment 39-17937 (79 FR 51083, August 27, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-13”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness limitation items (ALI) document. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane and possible loss of controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the safe life limits included in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. The initial compliance time for the replacements is prior to the applicable life limits specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. The term “FH” in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD means total flight hours. The term “LDG” in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD means total airplane landings.

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ER18SE18.001 ER18SE18.002 ER18SE18.003 ER18SE18.004 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P (h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) 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 (j)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Terminating Action for AD 2014-16-13

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-16-13.

    (j) 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 (k)(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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 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-2018-0390.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 24, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-19854 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0396; Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD; Amendment 39-19400; AD 2018-18-21] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0396.

    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-2018-0396; 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 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:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

    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 all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20743). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.

    We are issuing this AD to address the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. Such effects could change system characteristics, leading to an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or controllability of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for the Airbus A310, A300-600 and A300-600ST family aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus A310 and A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR) for the Airbus A310 and A300-600, are specified in the Airbus A310 and Airbus A300-600 (including A300-600ST) ALS Part 4 documents. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continuing airworthiness.

    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    EASA previously issued AD 2013-0075 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2015-02-16, Amendment 39-18083 (80 FR 5028, January 30, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-16”)] to require the implementation of the maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A310 and A300-600 ALS Part 4 documents at Revision 02.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations were approved by EASA. Consequently, Airbus published Revision 03 of A310 and A300-600 ALS Part 4 documents, compiling all ALS Part 4 changes approved since previous Revision 02.

    For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0075, which is superseded, and requires the implementation of the actions specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 4 Revision 03 and Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4 Revision 03.

    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-2018-0396.

    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. FedEx Express stated that they had no objections to the proposed AD.

    Request To Release Related ADs at the Same Time

    Airbus requested in docket numbers, FAA-2018-0390 and FAA-2018-0365 that we release this final rule and the following related ADs at the same time to provide clarity to operators. All four pending ADs are related to the removal of the same 15 nose landing gear parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0390, Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD (EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017).

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0364, Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-AD (EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017).

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0365, Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD (EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017).

    We agree with the commenter's request insofar as we can control the publication schedule. While we cannot ensure that all four final rules will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regarding publication of all four final rules at the same time.

    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

    Airbus SAS has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017; and A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017. This service information describes new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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 127 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    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).

    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 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): 2018-18-21 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19400; Docket No. FAA-2018-0396; Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2015-02-16, Amendment 39-18083 (80 FR 5028, January 30, 2015) (“AD 2015-02-16”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (2) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (3) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (5) Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to mitigate the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. Such effects could change system characteristics, leading to an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017; or A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017; as applicable. The initial compliance time for doing the revised actions is at the applicable time specified in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017, or A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017; as applicable; or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

    (h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

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

    (i) Terminating Action for AD 2015-02-16

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2015-02-16.

    (j) 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 (k)(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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 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-2018-0396.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

    (l) 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 A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017.

    (ii) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (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 24, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-19856 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0364; Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-AD; Amendment 39-19398; AD 2018-18-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A300 and A310 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0364.

    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-2018-0364; 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 in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

    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 all Airbus SAS Model A300 and A310 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22219). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 and A310 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for the Airbus A300, A310, A300-600 and A300-600ST family aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus A300, A310 and A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items are specified in the A300, A310 and A300-600 (including the A300-600ST) ALS Part 1 documents. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continuing airworthiness.

    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    EASA previously issued AD 2013-0248 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2015-22-05, Amendment 39-18310 (80 FR 69846, November 12, 2015) (“AD 2015-22-05”)] to require the implementation of the instructions and airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A300, A310 and A300-600 ALS Part 1 documents at Revision 01.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, improvement of safe life component selection and life extension campaigns resulted in life limitations changes, among others new or more restrictive life limitations, approved by EASA. Consequently, Airbus published Revision 02 of the A300, A310 and A300-600 ALS Part 1, compiling all ALS Part 1 changes approved since previous Revision 01.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0248, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in A300 ALS Part 1 Revision 02, A310 ALS Part 1 Revision 02 and A300-600 ALS Part 1 Revision 02.

    This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition is fatigue damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. 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-2018-0364.

    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 To Remove Duplicated Language

    Airbus asked that we remove the duplicated language in the Discussion section of the NPRM which repeats the phrase “compiling all ALS Part 1.”

    We agree that the specified language in the Discussion section was duplicated, and have removed this duplication accordingly.

    Request To Release Related ADs at the Same Time

    Airbus requested in docket numbers, FAA-2018-0390 and FAA-2018-0365 that we release this final rule and the following related ADs at the same time to provide clarity to operators. All four pending ADs are related to the same removal of 15 nose landing gear parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0390, Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-AD (EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017).

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0365, Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD (EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017).

    • Docket No. FAA-2018-0396, Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD (EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017).

    We agree with the request insofar as we can control the publication schedule. While we cannot ensure that all four will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and attempt to issue all four final rules at the same time.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for 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.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

    • For Model A300 series airplanes: Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    • For Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes): Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    • For Model A310 series airplanes: Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    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 132 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    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).

    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 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): 2018-18-19 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19398; Docket No. FAA-2018-0364; Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2015-22-05, Amendment 39-18310 (80 FR 69846, November 12, 2015) (“AD 2015-22-05”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/maintenance checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the applicable information specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable. The initial compliance times for accomplishing the tasks is at the applicable times specified in the applicable information specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) For Model A300 series airplanes: Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    (2) For Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes): Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    (3) For Model A310 series airplanes: Section 4, “Life Limits (LL)/Demonstrated Fatigue Lives (DF),” of Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    (h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) 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 (j)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2015-22-05.

    (j) 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 (k)(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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 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-2018-0364.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

    (l) 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) Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    (ii) Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    (iii) Part 1, “Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL—ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, of the Airbus Model A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (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 30, 2018. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-19858 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 91 [Docket No.: FAA-2018-0838; Amdt. No. 91-352] RIN 2120-AL34 Amendment of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Pyongyang Flight Information Region (FIR) (ZKKP) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends the prohibition against certain flight operations in the Pyongyang Flight Information Region (FIR) (ZKKP) by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The FAA is also providing an approval process and exemption information for this Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFAR), consistent with the approval process and exemption information for more recently published flight prohibition SFARs. This final rule will remain in effect for 2 years.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on September 18, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Filippell, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-8166; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary

    This action amends the prohibition of flight operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) 1 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. From February 17, 1998, until November 3, 2017, the FAA prohibited U.S. civil aviation operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) west of 132 degrees east longitude under SFAR No. 79 due to the hazardous situation created by North Korea's military capabilities and its rules of engagement. On November 3, 2017, the FAA issued KICZ Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) A0023/17, prohibiting U.S. civil aviation operations in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) due to the hazardous situation created by North Korean military capabilities and activities, including unannounced North Korean missile launches and air defense weapons systems. This amendment to SFAR No. 79 incorporates the November 3, 2017 NOTAM's expanded flight prohibition into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The FAA finds this action necessary due to continued hazards to U.S. civil aviation operations in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP).

    1 The FAA notes that, prior to this rule, the FAA referred to the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) as “the flight information region of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)” in the title of SFAR No. 79. The FAA has changed that reference in this rule to more accurately represent the FIR name, in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) naming conventions. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is the official name of North Korea.

    Further, this action moves SFAR No. 79 into subpart M, Special Federal Aviation Regulations, of part 91 and adds an expiration date, consistent with other flight prohibition SFARs. The FAA also is providing an approval process and exemption information for SFAR No. 79, 14 CFR 91.1615, consistent with the approval process and exemption information for more recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

    SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, will expire on September 18, 2020.

    II. Legal Authority and Good Cause A. Legal Authority

    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49, U.S. Code, Subtitle I, sections 106(f) and (g). Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

    This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority, because it prohibits the persons subject to paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, (formerly paragraph (1)) from conducting flight operations in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) due to the continued hazards to the safety of such persons' flight operations, as described in the Background section of this final rule.

    B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d) also authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. To the extent that the rule is based upon classified information, such information is not permitted to be shared with the general public. Also, threats to U.S. civil aviation and intelligence regarding these threats are fluid. As a result, the agency's original proposal could become unsuitable for minimizing the hazards to U.S. civil aviation in the affected airspace during or after the notice and comment process. The FAA further finds an immediate need to address the hazardous situation for U.S. civil aviation that exists in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) due to North Korean military capabilities and activities, including unannounced North Korean missile launches and air defense weapons systems. These hazards are further described in the Background section of this rule.

    For these reasons, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. The FAA also finds that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure that the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.

    III. Background

    On April 24, 1997, the FAA published a final rule, SFAR No. 79, which prohibited certain U.S. civil flight operations within the entire FIR of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea), i.e., the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). 62 FR 20076. In its original form, SFAR No. 79 prohibited all U.S. air carriers or commercial operators; all persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except such persons operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and all operators of aircraft registered in the U.S., except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier, from conducting flight operations through the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). At that time, North Korea had begun allowing routine international overflights, and the U.S. Government had lifted its prohibition on the payment of overflight fees to North Korea, which had the practical effect of allowing U.S. operators to fly in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). Nevertheless, the FAA determined that a variety of factors in North Korea posed a potential threat to civil aircraft flying through the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), necessitating an FAA flight prohibition.

    These factors included the potential for periods of heightened tension on the Korean peninsula, North Korea's high state of military readiness and emphasis on air defense of certain areas, and the fact that the North Korean air defense system included modern surface-to-air missile systems and interceptor aircraft capable of engaging aircraft at cruising altitudes. The FAA further stated that it had been unable to determine the level of coordination and cooperation between North Korean civil air traffic authorities and air defense commanders for civil aircraft overflights, including military rules of engagement if an aircraft were to stray from its assigned flight route. The FAA was concerned that any lack of coordination, combined with North Korea's air defense capabilities, including its rules of engagement and limited capability to distinguish between military and civil aircraft, could result in civil aircraft operating in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) west of 132 degrees east longitude being misidentified and inadvertently engaged by North Korea. In the FAA's view, this potential threat justified a prohibition on U.S. civil aviation operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) west of 132 degrees east longitude.

    With respect to U.S. civil aviation operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude, the FAA indicated that, since it had not yet reviewed all applicable safety information provided by North Korea and necessary for operators to meet international safety standards prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), it had not determined that the proper level of operational overflight safety could be assured. Remaining issues for review included, but were not limited to: Differences from ICAO standards, if any; search and rescue capabilities and procedures; and North Korean military pilot training in the proper civil aircraft intercept procedures. The FAA stated that, once this information was reviewed, the FAA was prepared to amend SFAR No. 79, as warranted, to permit U.S. civil flights in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude. 62 FR 20077.

    Subsequently, North Korea provided the FAA with a copy of its Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). Following a review of North Korea's AIP, the FAA determined that the proper level of flight safety could be assured for overflights occurring in the international airspace of the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude. On February 17, 1998, the FAA published a final rule amending SFAR No. 79 to permit U.S. civil aviation to conduct flights in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude. 63 FR 8016; corrected at 63 FR 19286, (Apr. 17, 1998).

    In recent years, North Korea has conducted a number of provocative actions that posed flight safety hazards and necessitated the FAA's issuance of various advisory NOTAMs regarding the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) and adjacent areas to warn U.S. civil aviation of these hazards. In 2014, North Korea initiated a ballistic missile test program involving frequent unannounced missile launches into the Sea of Japan. A number of the missiles impacted in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of the eastern boundary of SFAR No. 79 and in relatively close proximity to international air routes transiting the region. North Korea, as recently as April 2016, has also employed electronic jamming equipment on several occasions for intentional interference with aviation and maritime navigation and communication networks. While these intentional interference events have primarily impacted flight operations in the Incheon (RKRR) FIR, the associated capabilities and effects could also affect operations in adjoining airspace, including the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). In recent months, increased North Korean military capabilities and activities, including upgraded air defense weapons systems and unannounced North Korean missile launches, have increased the risk of U.S. civil aviation operating in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude being either misidentified as a threat and inadvertently engaged by North Korea or struck by a missile or debris from an unannounced launch. Such events could involve loss of life, injuries, and property damage.

    In response to this situation, the FAA issued KICZ NOTAM A0023/17 on November 3, 2017, to prohibit flight operations in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), including the area east of 132 degrees east longitude, by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.

    IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    As a result of the significant continuing risk to U.S. civil aviation in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), including the area east of 132 degrees east longitude, and given the uncertainty about when the above-described hazards will abate sufficiently to allow for safe U.S. civil aviation operations therein, this amendment to SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, incorporates the flight prohibition contained in KICZ NOTAM A0023/17. To maintain consistency with other flight prohibition SFARs, the FAA moves SFAR No. 79 into subpart M of part 91, Special Federal Aviation Regulations. SFAR No. 79 will now be found at 14 CFR 91.1615. The FAA also adds an expiration date to SFAR No. 79 of September 18, 2010. Finally, the FAA is also publishing an approval process and exemption information for this SFAR, which is similar to those for more recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

    The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen may be able to operate safely in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). Amendments to SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.

    V. Approval Process Based on a Request From a Department, Agency, or Instrumentality of the United States Government A. Approval Process Based on a Request From a Department, Agency, or Instrumentality of the United States Government

    In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person covered under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo, or other operations, in the Pyongyang (ZKKP) FIR, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons covered under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, to conduct such operations.

    An approval request must be made directly by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. The senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently highly placed within his or her organization to demonstrate that the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval and (2) ensure that any support from the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. The FAA will not accept or consider requests for approval by anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality intends to commence the proposed operations.

    The letter must be sent to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-8166, to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons covered under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, and/or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe—

    • The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;

    • The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

    • To the extent known, the specific locations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and

    • The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (i.e., pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases).

    The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP). Additional operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be identified to, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, from the FAA for operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), before such operators commence such operations. The approval conditions discussed below apply to any such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling (202) 267-8166.

    If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Michael Filippell for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

    FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

    B. Approval Conditions

    If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization (AVS) will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:

    (1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.

    (2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:

    (a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses; and

    (b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP).

    (3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.

    The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.

    If the proposed operations are approved, the FAA will issue an OpSpec or an LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request. The FAA-issued OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, authorizes the operator(s) to conduct the approved operations. The FAA will also notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested FAA approval of such operation(s) of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter.

    VI. Information Regarding Petitions for Exemption

    Any operations not conducted under an approval issued by the FAA through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615. A petition for an exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11 and requires exceptional circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval process described in the previous section. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—

    • The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;

    • The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

    • The specific locations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land;

    • The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (i.e., pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases); and

    • The plans and procedures that the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in the Background section of this rule, to the proposed operations, so that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.

    Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to previously, are required as a condition of any exemption issued under SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615.

    The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 79, § 91.1615, may be planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While these operations will not be permitted through the approval process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.

    VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), 19 U.S.C. chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards.

    Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. chapter 25, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

    A. Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule prohibits U.S. civil flights in the entire Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), including the area east of 132 degrees east longitude, due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in the Background section of this preamble. By mid-summer 2017, most, if not all, U.S. scheduled operators had voluntarily ceased flying in the portion of the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude due to the hazards posed by unannounced North Korean missile launches and increased tensions in the region. Nevertheless, in the rare cases where U.S. operators might have opted to transit that area but for this final rule, alternative flight routes could result in additional fuel usage and other flight time-associated operator costs, as well as costs attributed to passenger time. The FAA believes there are very few, if any, U.S. operators who intend to operate in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) at this time due to the hazards described in the Background section of this final rule. The FAA anticipates receiving very few, if any, requests to operate in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP) east of 132 degrees east longitude due to the previously discussed hazards.

    Consequently, the FAA expects the costs of this rule to be minimal and these minimal costs to be exceeded by the benefits of avoided risks of deaths, injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged).

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this situation, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are not required.

    C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

    The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from hazards to their operations in the Pyongyang FIR (ZKKP), a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million.

    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA's policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation.

    While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition. In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised/directed by their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.

    G. Environmental Analysis

    The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957, January 4, 1979), and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined that this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114, because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.

    In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination; this memorandum has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

    VIII. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

    D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.

    IX. Additional Information A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from the internet by—

    • Searching the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    • Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or

    • Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at http://www.fdsys.gov.

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

    Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal Document Management System Portal referenced previously.

    B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, North Korea.

    The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

    Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 79 [Removed] 2. In part 91, remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 79. 3. Add § 91.1615 to subpart M to read as follows:
    § 91.1615 Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 79—Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Pyongyang Flight Information Region (FIR) (ZKKP).

    (a) Applicability. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applies to the following persons:

    (1) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators;

    (2) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and

    (3) All operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.

    (b) Flight prohibition. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, no person described in paragraph (a) of this section may conduct flight operations in the Pyongyang Flight Information Region (FIR) (ZKKP).

    (c) Permitted operations. This section does not prohibit persons described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight operations in the Pyongyang Flight Information Region (FIR) (ZKKP), provided that such flight operations are conducted under a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. government (or under a subcontract between the prime contractor of the department, agency, or instrumentality and the person described in paragraph (a) of this section) with the approval of the FAA, or under an exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA will consider requests for approval or exemption in a timely manner, with the order of preference being: First, for those operations in support of U.S. government-sponsored activities; second, for those operations in support of government-sponsored activities of a foreign country with the support of a U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality; and third, for all other operations.

    (d) Emergency situations. In an emergency that requires immediate decision and action for the safety of the flight, the pilot in command of an aircraft may deviate from this section to the extent required by that emergency. Except for U.S. air carriers and commercial operators that are subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 119, 121, 125, or 135, each person who deviates from this section must, within 10 days of the deviation, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays, submit to the responsible Flight Standards Office a complete report of the operations of the aircraft involved in the deviation, including a description of the deviation and the reasons for it.

    (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain in effect until September 18, 2020. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR, as necessary.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on September 4, 2018. Daniel K. Elwell, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20173 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR part 93 [Docket No.: FAA-2006-25755] Operating Limitations at New York Laguardia Airport AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Extension to order.

    SUMMARY:

    This action extends the Order Limiting Operations at New York LaGuardia Airport (LGA) published on December 27, 2006, as most recently extended May 25, 2016. The Order remains effective until October 24, 2020.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on September 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests may be submitted by mail to the Slot Administration Office, System Operations Services, AJR-0, Room 300W, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by email to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions concerning this Order contact: Bonnie C. Dragotto, Regulations Division, FAA Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-240, Room 916N, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3808; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You may obtain an electronic copy using the internet by:

    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

    You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

    Background

    The FAA has historically limited the number of arrivals and departures at LGA during peak demand periods through the implementation of the High Density Rule (HDR), to address constraints based on LGA's limited runway capacity.1 By statute enacted in April 2000, the HDR's applicability to LGA operations terminated as of January 1, 2007.2

    1 33 FR 17896 (Dec. 3, 1968). The FAA codified the rules for operating at high density traffic airports in 14 CFR part 93, subpart K. The HDR required carriers to hold a reservation, which came to be known as a “slot,” for each takeoff or landing under instrument flight rules at the high density traffic airports.

    2 Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000), 49 U.S.C. 41715(a)(2).

    The FAA issued an Order on December 27, 2006, adopting temporary limits pending the completion of rulemaking to address long term limits and related policies.3 This Order was amended on November 8, 2007, and August 19, 2008.4 The FAA extended the December 27, 2006, Order placing temporary limits on operations at LGA, as amended, on October 7, 2009, April 4, 2011, May 14, 2013, March 27, 2014, and May 25, 2016.5

    3 71 FR 77854.

    4 72 FR 63224; 73 FR 48428.

    5 74 FR 51653; 76 FR 18616, amended by 77 FR 30585 (May 23, 2012); 78 FR 28278; 79 FR 17222; and, 81 FR 33126.

    Under the Order for LGA, as amended, the FAA (1) maintains the current hourly limits on scheduled and unscheduled operations at LGA during the peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs) with defined exceptions; (3) provides a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational reasons; (4) provides for a lottery to reallocate withdrawn, surrendered, or unallocated OAs; and (5) allows for trades and leases of OAs for consideration for the duration of the Order.

    The reasons for issuing the Order have not changed appreciably since it was implemented. Runway capacity at LGA remains limited, while demand for access to LGA remains high. The average weekday hourly flights are generally scheduled to a level consistent with the limits under this Order. The FAA has reviewed the on-time and other performance metrics in the peak May to August 2017 and 2018 months and found continuing improvements relative to the same period in 2008.6 However, the FAA has determined that the operational limitations imposed by this Order remain necessary. Without the operational limitations imposed by this Order, the FAA expects severe congestion-related delays due to the anticipated demand of new operations and the retiming of existing flights into more desirable hours. The FAA, in coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), will continue to consider potential rulemaking in the future to codify the slot management policies at LGA, and also at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).7

    6 Docket No. FAA-2006-25755 includes a copy of the MITRE analysis completed for the FAA.

    7 Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport. 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008), as amended.

    Current Issues

    The FAA has received specific proposals for policy changes that would necessitate amending the LGA and JFK Orders. For example, several carriers have requested a simplified process for the administrative management of temporary slot transfers, whereby the marketing and operating carriers would not be required to formally transfer slots for operation by carriers under common marketing control and whereby the slot holder could choose whether the holder or the operator would be responsible for reporting slot usage to the FAA. The FAA is considering proposing this and other potential changes in a future action on the LGA and JFK Orders.

    However, the Orders expire at the end of the current summer scheduling season and carriers are planning winter schedules. There is insufficient time to publish for comment proposed policy changes, adjudicate comments, and issue a final Order before the Orders expire. The FAA has therefore determined to proceed with an extension of the Orders, without policy changes, to meet current needs and allow time to further develop any proposed changes to the Orders. Accordingly, the FAA is extending the expiration date of this Order until October 24, 2020. This expiration date coincides with the extended expiration date for the Order limiting scheduled operations at JFK, as also published in today's Federal Register. This extension of the LGA Order includes minimal changes for clarification purposes only, including the removal of obsolete references to rulemaking in paragraph A7. In addition, the description of unscheduled operations in paragraph B3 and footnote 12 has been revised to provide greater clarity of existing policy.

    The FAA finds that notice and comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest, as carriers have begun planning schedules for the winter 2018/2019 season and no significant policy changes are included in this action. For these reasons, the FAA also finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

    The Amended Order

    The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety:

    A. Scheduled Operations

    With respect to scheduled operations at LaGuardia:

    1. The Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday. Seventy-one (71) Operating Authorizations are available per hour and will be assigned by the FAA on a 30-minute basis. The FAA will permit additional, existing operations above this threshold; however, the FAA will retire Operating Authorizations that are surrendered to the FAA, withdrawn for non-use, or unassigned during each affected hour until the number of Operating Authorizations in that hour reaches seventy-one (71).

    2. The Order takes effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire on October 24, 2020.

    3. The FAA will assign operating authority to conduct an arrival or a departure at LaGuardia during the affected hours to the air carrier that holds equivalent slot or slot exemption authority under the High Density Rule of FAA slot exemption rules as of January 1, 2007; to the primary marketing air carrier in the case of AIR-21 small hub/non-hub airport slot exemptions; or to the air carrier operating the flights as of January 1, 2007, in the case of a slot held by a non carrier. The FAA will not assign operating authority under the Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate economic authority under 14 CFR part 121, 129 or 135. The Chief Counsel of the FAA will be the final decision maker regarding the initial assignment of Operating Authorizations.

    4. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign an identification number to each Operating Authorization.

    5. An air carrier may lease or trade an Operating Authorization to another carrier for any consideration, not to exceed the duration of the Order. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email [email protected], and must come from a designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of the transaction. However, the FAA will approve transfers between carriers under the same marketing control up to 5 business days after the actual operation. This post-transfer approval is limited to accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the scheduled operation.

    6. Each air carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of the Operating Authorizations actually operated for each day of the two-month reporting period within 14 days after the last day of the two-month reporting period beginning January 1 and every two months thereafter. Any Operating Authorization not used at least 80 percent of the time over a two-month period will be withdrawn by the FAA except:

    A. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by an air carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January.

    B. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization obtained by an air carrier through a lottery under paragraph 7 for the first 120 days after allocation in the lottery.

    C. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80 percent usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition which is beyond the control of the air carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.

    7. In the event that Operating Authorizations are withdrawn for nonuse, surrendered to the FAA or are unassigned, the FAA will determine whether any of the available Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. If so, the FAA will conduct a lottery using the provisions specified under 14 CFR 93.225. The FAA may retime an Operating Authorization prior to reallocation in order to address operational needs.

    8. If the FAA determines that a reduction in the number of allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the air carrier from which it was taken, provided that the air carrier continues to operate scheduled service at LaGuardia.

    B. Unscheduled Operations 8

    8 Unscheduled operations are operations other than those regularly conducted by an air carrier between LaGuardia and another service point. Unscheduled operations include general aviation, public aircraft, military, irregular charter, ferry, and positioning flights. Regularly conducted commercial flights require an Operating Authorization and may not use unscheduled operation reservations. Helicopter operations are excluded from the reservation requirement. Unscheduled flights operating under visual flight rules (VFR) may be accommodated by the local air traffic control facilities and are not included in the hourly limits.

    With respect to unscheduled flight operations at LaGuardia, the FAA adopts the following:

    1. The Order applies to all operators of unscheduled flights, except helicopter operations, at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday.

    2. The Order takes effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire on October 24, 2020.

    3. No person can operate an aircraft other than a helicopter to or from LaGuardia unless the operator has received, for that unscheduled operation, a reservation that is assigned by the David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center's Airport Reservation Office (ARO), or for unscheduled visual flight rule operations, received clearance from ATC. Additional information on procedures for obtaining a reservation is available via the internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.

    4. Three (3) reservations are available per hour for unscheduled operations at LaGuardia. The ARO will assign reservations on a 30-minute basis.

    5. The ARO receives and processes all reservation requests. Reservations are assigned on a “first-come, first-served” basis, determined as of the time that the ARO receives the request. A cancellation of any reservation that will not be used as assigned is required.

    6. Filing a request for a reservation does not constitute the filing of an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, as separately required by regulation. After the reservation is obtained, an IFR flight plan can be filed. The IFR flight plan must include the reservation number in the “remarks” section.

    7. Air Traffic Control will accommodate declared emergencies without regard to reservations. Nonemergency flights in direct support of national security, law enforcement, military aircraft operations, or public aircraft operations will be accommodated above the reservation limits with the prior approval of the Vice President, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization. Procedures for obtaining the appropriate reservation for such flights are available via the internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.

    8. Notwithstanding the limits in paragraph 4, if the Air Traffic Organization determines that air traffic control, weather, and capacity conditions are favorable and significant delay is not likely, the FAA can accommodate additional reservations over a specific period. Unused operating authorizations can also be temporarily made available for unscheduled operations. Reservations for additional operations are obtained through the ARO.

    9. Reservations cannot be bought, sold, or leased.

    C. Enforcement

    The FAA may enforce the Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). The FAA also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106, 46107, seeking to enjoin any carrier from violating the terms of the Order.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 11, 2018. Jeffrey Planty, Deputy Vice President, System Operations Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20226 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 305 Energy Labeling Rule CFR Correction In Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 0 to 999, revised as of January 1, 2018, on page 330, in Appendix L to Part 305, “Sample Label 1—Refrigerator-Freezer” is inserted before “Sample Label 3—Dishwasher” to read as follows: BILLING CODE 1301-00-D ER18SE18.013 [FR Doc. 2018-20328 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-C DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 74 [Docket No. FDA-2017-C-0935] Listing of Color Additives Subject to Certification; D&C Black No. 4; Confirmation of Effective Date AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the effective date of July 10, 2018, for the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of June 7, 2018, and that amended the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of D&C Black No. 4 for coloring ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) non-absorbable sutures for use in general surgery.

    DATES:

    Effective date of final rule published in the Federal Register of June 7, 2018 (83 FR 26356) confirmed: July 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this final rule 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:

    Joseph M. Thomas, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-796-9465.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of June 7, 2018 (83 FR 26356), we amended the color additive regulations to add § 74.3054, “D&C Black No. 4,” (21 CFR 74.3054) to provide for the safe use of D&C Black No. 4 for coloring UHMWPE non-absorbable sutures for use in general surgery.

    We gave interested persons until July 9, 2018, to file objections or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date of the final rule that published in the Federal Register of June 7, 2018, should be confirmed.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 74

    Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, we are giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed in response to the June 7, 2018, final rule. Accordingly, the amendments issued in the final rule became effective July 10, 2018.

    Dated: September 12, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20288 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 300 [Docket ID: DOD-2017-OS-0029] RIN 0790-AJ71 Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of Information Act Program AGENCY:

    Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program. On February 6, 2018, the DoD published a FOIA program final rule as a result of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. When the DoD FOIA program rule was revised, it included DoD component information and removed the requirement for component supplementary rules. The DoD now has one DoD-level rule for the FOIA program that contains all the codified information required for the Department. Therefore, this part can be removed from the CFR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 18, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lewis Oleinick at 571-767-6194.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures.

    DLA internal guidance concerning the implementation of the FOIA within DLA will be published in DLA Instruction (DLAI) 5400.11.

    This rule is one of 14 separate DoD FOIA rules. With the finalization of the DoD-level FOIA rule at 32 CFR part 286, the Department is eliminating the need for this separate FOIA rule and reducing costs to the public as explained in the preamble of the DoD-level FOIA rule published at 83 FR 5196-5197.

    This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”; therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 300

    Freedom of information.

    PART 300—[REMOVED] Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 300 is removed. Dated: September 13, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20228 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0725] Special Local Regulations, Marine Events Within the Fifth Coast Guard District; Correction AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard published a document in the Federal Register of August 13, 2018, concerning a notice of enforcement of regulations of special local regulations for the Baltimore Air Show from October 4, 2018, through October 7, 2018. The document contained incorrect times for the enforcement periods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Ron Houck, 410-576-2674.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Corrections

    In the Federal Register of August 13, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-17282:

    1. On page 39879, in the first column, correct the DATES caption to read:

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the Baltimore Air Show regulated area listed in item b.23 in the table to § 100.501 from 2:45 p.m. through 4:30 p.m. on October 4, 2018, from 10:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 5, 2018, from 11:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 6, 2018, and from 11:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 7, 2018.

    2. On page 39879, in the second column, correct lines 12 through 16 to read:

    Regulated area from 2:45 p.m. through 4:30 p.m. on October 4, 2018, from 10:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 5, 2018, from 11:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 6, 2018, and from 11:30 a.m. through 5.

    Dated: September 12, 2018. Joseph B. Loring, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20206 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 222 RIN 1810-AB24 [Docket ID ED-2015-OESE-0109] Impact Aid Program; Corrections AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations; correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education (Department) published final regulations in the Federal Register on September 20, 2016 to amend the Impact Aid Program (IAP) regulations issued under title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. The amendatory instructions at the end of the 2016 final rule inadvertently removed some definitions from these regulations. This document corrects the regulations by adding those definitions back into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

    DATES:

    These regulations are effective September 18, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Walls, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C103, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-3858. Email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 20, 2016, the Secretary published final regulations for this program in the Federal Register (81 FR 64728). The amendatory instructions for § 222.161 resulted in some of the definitions from § 222.161 being mistakenly removed. It was not our intention to remove these definitions through that rulemaking and the preamble to the proposed or final rule never indicated that we were removing these definitions. We are taking this action to correct the regulations. The definitions that were removed and that we are adding back in their proper place are: Equalize expenditures, local tax revenues, local tax revenues covered under a State equalization program, revenue, State aid, and total local tax.

    Waiver of Rulemaking

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). There is good cause to waive rulemaking here as unnecessary.

    Rulemaking is “unnecessary” in those situations in which “the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2001), quoting U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 31 (1947) and South Carolina v. Block, 558 F. Supp. 1004, 1016 (D.S.C. 1983).

    These regulations merely restore the regulatory definitions as they appeared in the CFR prior to their unintended removal in connection with the 2016 Impact Aid final rule. Because the definitions were originally adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking and their removal was in error, rulemaking to restore the definitions is unnecessary.

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

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

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

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.041 Impact Aid) List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 222

    Administrative practice and procedure, Education of individuals with disabilities, Elementary and secondary education, Federally affected areas, Grant programs—education, Indians—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School construction.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Frank Brogan, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.

    Accordingly, part 222 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by making the following amendments:

    PART 222—IMPACT AID PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 7701-7714, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 222.161 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 222.161 How is State aid treated under section 7009 of the Act?

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this subpart:

    Current expenditures is defined in section 7013(4) of the Act. Additionally, for the purposes of this section it does not include expenditures of funds received by the agency under sections 7002 and 7003(b) (including hold harmless payments calculated under section 7003(e)) that are not taken into consideration under the State aid program and exceed the proportion of those funds that the State would be allowed to take into consideration under § 222.162.

    Equalize expenditures means to meet the standard set forth in § 222.162.

    Local tax revenues means compulsory charges levied by an LEA or by an intermediate school district or other local governmental entity on behalf of an LEA for current expenditures for educational services. “Local tax revenues” include the proceeds of ad valorem taxes, sales and use taxes, income taxes and other taxes. Where a State funding formula requires a local contribution equivalent to a specified mill tax levy on taxable real or personal property or both, “local tax revenues” include any revenues recognized by the State as satisfying that local contribution requirement.

    Local tax revenues covered under a State equalization program means “local tax revenues” as defined in paragraph (c) of this section contributed to or taken into consideration in a State aid program subject to a determination under this subpart, but excluding all revenues from State and Federal sources.

    Revenue means an addition to assets that does not increase any liability, does not represent the recovery of an expenditure, does not represent the cancellation of certain liabilities without a corresponding increase in other liabilities or a decrease in assets, and does not represent a contribution of fund capital in food service or pupil activity funds. Furthermore, the term “revenue” includes only revenue for current expenditures.

    State aid means any contribution, no repayment for which is expected, made by a State to or on behalf of LEAs within the State for current expenditures for the provision of free public education.

    Total local tax revenues means all “local tax revenues” as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, including tax revenues for education programs for children needing special services, vocational education, transportation, and the like during the period in question but excluding all revenues from State and Federal sources.

    [FR Doc. 2018-20221 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 2 [Docket ID: NPS-2018-0003; NPS-WASO-25595; PPWOVPADU0/PPMPRLE1Y.Y00000] RIN 1024-AE44 Transporting Bows and Crossbows Across National Park System Units AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service allows individuals to carry or possess an unloaded bow or crossbow within the National Park System when accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The comments received on the proposed rule and an economic analysis are available on www.regulations.gov in Docket ID: NPS-2018-0003.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jay Calhoun, NPS Regulations Program, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. Phone: (202) 513-7112. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    National Park Service (NPS) regulations at 36 CFR 2.4(b)(3) allow bows and crossbows that are not ready for immediate use to be possessed by individuals in NPS-administered areas within a mechanical mode of conveyance. This provides regulatory relief for transient individuals passing through park areas in vehicles and other forms of mechanical transport. This rule extends this relief to individuals transporting unloaded bows and crossbows on foot or horseback when accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible. Possessing bows and crossbows in this manner is subject to applicable state laws and is not allowed if the individual is otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a bow or crossbow.

    This rule recognizes and addresses the difficulties faced by some individuals attempting to access private property or other lands and waters adjacent to NPS-administered areas. In some cases, the use of mechanical transport to access these adjacent lands and waters is impracticable. As a result, individuals must traverse NPS areas on foot or horseback to reach these lands and waters but under existing regulations cannot do so with bows and crossbows without first obtaining a permit from the park Superintendent. This rule removes the permit requirement in order to carry or possess bows or crossbows for this purpose. This rule does not change the regulations in 36 CFR part 2 governing the use of a bow or crossbow in park areas.

    Summary of and Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

    The NPS published the proposed rule on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 8959), with request for public comment through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov, or by mail or hand delivery. The 60-day comment period ended on May 1, 2018. The NPS received 40 comments, 34 of which supported the proposed rule and did not request any changes. Other comments were not in favor of the proposed rule or were in favor but suggested changes. A summary of these comments and NPS responses is provided below. After taking the public comments into consideration, the NPS has not made any changes in the final rule.

    1. Comment. Several commenters expressed concern that the rule will cause individuals to use bows and crossbows illegally, either within the National Park System or on adjacent lands where hunting is not allowed. These commenters are concerned that this illegal activity will adversely impact threatened or endangered wildlife.

    NPS Response: This rule does not change NPS regulations governing the use of weapons, including bows and crossbows, within the National Park System. Illegal hunting will remain illegal in the same manner that it was before this rule. Unfortunately illegal hunting and trapping does occur. NPS law enforcement staff work alone and with state and local partners to identify illegal activity and prosecute offenders according to the law. The NPS does not believe that individuals who are willing to hunt and trap illegally will be emboldened by this rule. These individuals are unlikely to have requested a permit from the NPS prior to bringing bows and crossbows into NPS areas in order to hunt or trap illegally. Existing NPS regulations allow individuals to travel through NPS lands with bows and crossbows in a motor vehicle. The NPS does not believe that a person who is willing to engage in illegal hunting would be deterred from doing so by existing regulation, which requires motorized transport of his or her bow or crossbow, especially when NPS regulations allow individuals to carry firearms within the National Park System outside of a motor vehicle without needing to obtain a permit.

    2. Comment. Several commenters were concerned that this rule would result in individuals leaving bows, crossbows, and related equipment, such as arrows and quivers, behind on NPS lands.

    NPS Response: The NPS has no reason to believe that individuals would intentionally leave this type of equipment behind in NPS areas. NPS regulations at 36 CFR 2.22 prohibit abandoning property.

    3. Comment. One commenter supported removing the permit requirement, but suggested that the NPS also remove the requirement that an individual must be accessing otherwise “inaccessible” lands or waters. This commenter also suggested that the NPS change the requirement that “other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible” to “impracticable or less convenient.”

    NPS Response: The language limiting possession to situations when individuals are “accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible” has been part of NPS regulations concerning permits to carry weapons since 1983 (48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983). This language helps ensure that individuals transport bows and crossbows through NPS lands for legitimate purposes, such as accessing private property or other public lands that cannot be accessed another way—either through the National Park System in a motor vehicle or through a non-NPS area.

    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 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 Executive Order 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. The executive order 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. Executive Order 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. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 13771)

    This rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because it imposes less than zero costs by removing a regulatory permit requirement that imposes unnecessary costs upon individuals seeking to safely access remote lands and waters. The costs associated with the requirement to obtain a permit before transporting a bow or crossbow across NPS lands or waters outside of a mechanical conveyance are eliminated.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on information contained in the economic analyses found in the report entitled “Benefit-Cost and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Transporting Bows and Crossbows Across National Park System Units” that is available to the public on regulations.gov in Docket ID: NPS-2018-0003.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 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 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

    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. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.

    Takings (Executive Order 12630)

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

    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. 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. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and has determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the NPS intends to categorically exclude this rule under 516 DM 12.5(A)(10). This rule modifies existing NPS regulations in a manner that does not increase public use or introduce non-compatible uses to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the National Park System or causing physical damage to it. The rule does not conflict with adjacent ownerships or lands uses, or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. We have also determined that the rule does 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 in not required.

    List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 2

    National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 2 as set forth below:

    PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102.

    2. Amend § 2.4 as follows: a. Redesignate paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(3)(i). b. Add a new paragraph (b)(3)(ii). c. Revise paragraph (e) introductory text.

    The addition and revision read as follows:

    § 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) An individual may carry or possess an unloaded bow or crossbow when accessing otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible if:

    (A) The individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the bow or crossbow; and

    (B) The possession of the bow or crossbow is in compliance with the law of the State in which the park area is located.

    (e) The superintendent may issue a permit to carry or possess a weapon that is not otherwise authorized, a trap, or a net under the following circumstances:

    Andrea Travnicek, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Water and Science, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20093 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0505; FRL-9983-95—Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On October 20, 2015, the State of Oregon made a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is approving the submission as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in any other state.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective October 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0505. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    I. Background Information

    On July 19, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve Oregon as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state (83 FR 34094). An explanation of the Clean Air Act requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for the proposal ended August 20, 2018.

    II. Response to Comments

    We received one comment in support of the proposed rulemaking and several anonymous comments unrelated to Oregon's submission. After reviewing the anonymous comments, we have determined that the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action and fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. For more information, please see our memorandum included in the docket for this action.

    III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Oregon's October 20, 2015, submission certifying that the SIP is sufficient to meet the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth in the proposed rulemaking for this action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 19, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 5, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart MM—Oregon 2. Section 52.1992 is added to read as follows:
    § 52.1992 Interstate Transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    (a) The EPA approves Oregon's SIP revision submitted on October 20, 2015, addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    (b) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2018-20172 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0608; FRL-9983-67] Beauveria bassiana Strain PPRI 5339; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 in or on all food commodities when this pesticide chemical is used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 in or on all food commodities under FFDCA.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective September 18, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 19, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0608, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0608 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 19, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0608, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92758) (FRL-9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6F8485) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the insecticide Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 in or on all food commodities. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner BASF Corporation and available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Safety Determination for Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339” (Safety Determination). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    The available data demonstrated that Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 is not toxic, pathogenic, or infective through most of the routes of exposure, except through inhalation where it is highly toxic by itself (100% active ingredient). When Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 is combined with an oil and its concentration is decreased (8% active ingredient), however, data demonstrated it is not toxic through inhalation. Although there may be some exposure to residues when Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 is used on food commodities in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices, there is a lack of concern due to the lack of toxicity from dietary exposure to Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339. There are no residential uses currently associated with Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339. In the event residential uses may be sought in the future, those exposures would not be aggregated with the dietary exposure due to the difference in toxic effects. Moreover, EPA intends to mitigate the potential for inhalation risk through terms on any associated registration(s). EPA also determined in the Safety Determination that retention of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor was not necessary as part of the qualitative assessment conducted for Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339.

    Based upon its evaluation in the Safety Determination, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 in or on all food commodities when this pesticide chemical is used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 7, 2018. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Add § 180.1362 to subpart D to read as follows:
    § 180.1362 Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all food commodities when this pesticide chemical is used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    [FR Doc. 2018-20285 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-9983-84—Region 5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Beloit Corporation Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 16, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the Research Center Property (RCP) of the Beloit Superfund Site (Beloit Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA is withdrawing the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion because EPA did not provide timely notice of the publication of this rulemaking through publication of an advertisement in a local newspaper as required by EPA policy.

    DATES:

    This withdrawal of the direct final action 83 FR 32798 (July 16, 2018) is effective as of September 14, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-6036, or via email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 16, 2018, the EPA published a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion (83 FR 32825) and a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion (83 FR 32798) for the Research Center Property (RCP) of the Beloit Superfund Site (Beloit Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL). After consideration of the comments received, if appropriate, EPA will publish a Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register based on the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and place a copy of the final partial deletion package, including a Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, in docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011, accessed through the http://www.regulations.gov website and in the Beloit Site repositories.

    Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the Beloit Site, as well as the comments that we received during the comment period, are available in docket [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011], accessed through the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the docket index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Superfund Records Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 886-0900, Hours: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Talcott Free Library, 101 East Main Street, Rockton, IL 61072, Phone: (815) 624-7511, Hours: Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Wednesday and Friday 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Saturday 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:

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

    Dated: September 7, 2018. James Payne, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. Accordingly, the amendment to Table 1 of Appendix B to 40 CFR part 300 to add a “P” in the Notes column in the entry “IL”, “Beloit Corp.”, “Rockton”, published on July 16, 2018 (83 FR 32798), is withdrawn as of September 14, 2018.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20163 Filed 9-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8547] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

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

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

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain
  • Federal assistance
  • no longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region IV South Carolina: Camden, City of, Kershaw County 450117 April 2, 1975, Emerg; November 2, 1983, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp September 28, 2018 September 28, 2018. Kershaw County, Unincorporated Areas 450115 June 10, 1975, Emerg; November 2, 1983, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Lancaster County, Unincorporated Areas 450120 July 3, 1975, Emerg; January 6, 1983, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Sumter, City of, Sumter County 450184 December 11, 1973, Emerg; March 1, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Sumter County, Unincorporated Areas 450182 September 17, 1979, Emerg; January 5, 1989, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Region V Wisconsin: Marathon County, Unincorporated Areas 550245 April 9, 1971, Emerg; February 1, 1979, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Rothschild, Village of, Marathon County 555577 April 2, 1971, Emerg; May 11, 1973, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Wausau, City of, Marathon County 550258 April 2, 1971, Emerg; January 5, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Weston, Village of, Marathon County 550323 N/A, Emerg; April 10, 2008, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Region X Oregon: Bay City, City of, Tillamook County 410197 June 11, 1974, Emerg; August 1, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Garibaldi, City of, Tillamook County 410280 November 13, 1975, Emerg; April 17, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Manzanita, City of, Tillamook County 410199 November 8, 1974, Emerg; May 1, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Nehalem, City of, Tillamook County 410200 April 17, 1973, Emerg; April 3, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Rockaway Beach, City of, Tillamook County 410201 November 18, 1974, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp September 28, 2018 September 28, 2018. Tillamook, City of, Tillamook County 410202 March 30, 1973, Emerg; May 1, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Tillamook County, Unincorporated Areas 410196 December 29, 1972, Emerg; August 1, 1978, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Wheeler, City of, Tillamook County 410203 March 27, 1974, Emerg; November 16, 1977, Reg; September 28, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. * ......do and Do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: September 6, 2018. Katherine B. Fox, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration—FEMA Resilience, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20257 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [MD Docket No. 18-175; FCC 18-126] Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2018 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission revises its Schedule of Regulatory Fees to recover an amount of $322,035,000 that Congress has required the Commission to collect for fiscal year 2018. Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees under sections 9(b)(2) and 9(b)(3), respectively, for annual “Mandatory Adjustments” and “Permitted Amendments” to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.

    DATES:

    Effective September 18, 2018, except for the amendment to § 1.1940, which is effective October 1, 2018. To avoid penalties and interest, regulatory fees should be paid by the due date of September 25, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 18-126, MD Docket No. 18-175, adopted on August 28, 2018 and released on August 29, 2018. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's website at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0906/FCC-17-111A1.pdf.

    I. Administrative Matters A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is located towards the end of this document.

    1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).

    B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

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

    C. Congressional Review Act

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

    II. Introduction

    1. This Report and Order adopts a schedule of regulatory fees to assess and collect $322,035,000 in regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2018, pursuant to section 9 2 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's FY 2018 Appropriation.3 The schedule of regulatory fees for FY 2018 adopted herein is attached in Table 4. The regulatory fees for all payors are due in September 2018.

    2 47 U.S.C. 159. Although the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018, or the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018, amended sections 8 and 9 and added section 9A to the Communications Act, those provisions do not become effective until October 1, 2018. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law Number 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084, Division P—RAY BAUM's Act of 2018, Title I, 103 (2018).

    3 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Division E—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2018, Title V—Independent Agencies, Public Law 115-141 (March 23, 2018) (FCC FY 2018 Appropriation).

    2. Additionally, we amend our rules in accordance with the directives of the RAY BAUM'S Act regarding the collection of delinquent debts.4 This rule change will become effective on October 1, 2018.

    4See supra note 1.

    III. Background

    3. The Commission is required by Congress to assess regulatory fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its appropriation.5 Regulatory fees, mandated by Congress, are collected “to recover the costs of . . . enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking activities, user information services, and international activities.” 6 Regulatory fees are to “be derived by determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing” these activities, “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payer of the fee by the Commission's activities. . . . .” 7 Regulatory fees recover direct costs, such as salary and expenses; indirect costs, such as overhead functions; and support costs, such as rent, utilities, and equipment.8 Regulatory fees also cover the costs incurred in regulating entities that are statutorily exempt from paying regulatory fees,9 entities whose regulatory fees are waived,10 and entities providing services for which we do not assess regulatory fees.

    5 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(B).

    6 47 U.S.C. 159(a).

    7 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).

    8Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 11662, 11666, paragraph 11 (2004) (FY 2004 Report and Order), 69 FR 41028 (July 7, 2004).

    9 For example, governmental and nonprofit entities are exempt from regulatory fees under section 9(h). 47 U.S.C. 159(h); 47 CFR 1.1162.

    10 47 CFR 1.1166.

    4. Congress sets the amount of regulatory fees the Commission must collect each year in the Commission's fiscal year appropriations. Section 9(a)(2) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to collect fees sufficient to offset the amount appropriated.11 To calculate regulatory fees, the Commission allocates the total collection target across all regulatory fee categories. The allocation of fees to fee categories is based on the Commission's calculation of Full Time Employees (FTEs) in each regulatory fee category.12 FTEs are classified as “direct” if the employee is in one of the four “core” bureaus; otherwise, that employee is considered an “indirect” FTE.13 The total FTEs for each fee category includes the direct FTEs associated with that category, plus a proportional allocation of indirect FTEs.14 The Commission then allocates the total amount to be collected among the various regulatory fee categories within each of the core bureaus. Each regulatee within a fee category pays its proportionate share based on an objective measure (e.g., revenues or number of subscribers).15 These calculations are illustrated in Table 3. The sources for the unit estimates that are used in these calculations are listed in Table 5.

    11 47 U.S.C. 159(a)(2).

    12 One FTE is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually by a full-time person (working a 40 hour workweek for a full year) assigned to the particular job, and subject to agency personnel staffing limitations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

    13 The core bureaus, which have the direct FTEs, are the Wireline Competition Bureau (124), Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (101), Media Bureau (135), and part of the International Bureau (24). The indirect FTEs are the employees from the following bureaus and offices: Enforcement Bureau (203), Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (136), Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (104), part of the International Bureau (72), part of the Wireline Competition Bureau (38), Chairman and Commissioners' offices (15), Office of the Managing Director (149), Office of General Counsel (74), Office of the Inspector General (46), Office of Communications Business Opportunities (8), Office of Engineering and Technology (73), Office of Legislative Affairs (9), Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (15), Office of Workplace Diversity (5), Office of Media Relations (14), and Office of Administrative Law Judges (4).

    14 The Commission observed in the FY 2013 Report and Order that “the high percentage of the indirect FTEs is indicative of the fact that many Commission activities and costs are not limited to a particular fee category and instead benefit the Commission as a whole.” See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2013, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 12351, 12357, paragraph 17 (2013) (FY 2013 Report and Order), 78 FR 52433 (Aug. 23, 2013).

    15See Procedures for Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 8458, 8461-62, paragraphs 8-11 (2012) (FY 2012 NPRM), 77 FR 29275 (May 17, 2012).

    5. The Commission annually reviews the regulatory fee schedule, proposes changes to the schedule to reflect changes in the amount of its appropriation, and proposes increases or decreases to the schedule of regulatory fees.16 As part of its annual review, the Commission also regularly seeks to improve the regulatory fee process.17

    16 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(B).

    17 In the FY 2013 Report and Order, the Commission adopted updated FTE allocations to more accurately reflect the number of FTEs working on regulation and oversight of regulatees in the fee categories. FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12354-58, paragraphs 10-20. This was recommended in a report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2012. See GAO “Federal Communications Commission Regulatory Fee Process Needs to be Updated,” GAO-12-686 (August 2012) (GAO Report) at 36, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-686. The Commission has since updated the FTE allocations annually. In addition, the Commission reallocated some FTEs from the International Bureau as indirect; combined the UHF and VHF television stations into one regulatory fee category; and added internet Protocol Television (IPTV) to the cable television regulatory fee category. FY 2013 Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 12355-63, paragraphs 13-33.

    6. In the FY 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to collect $322,035,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2018 and sought comment on a detailed proposed fee schedule.18 The Commission sought comment specifically on an incremental increase in the DBS regulatory fee 19 and on proposed regulatory fees for terrestrial and satellite international bearer circuits for FY 2018.20 Additionally, the Commission sought comment on the methodology for calculating broadcast television station regulatory fees for FY 2019 21 and whether to adopt a new regulatory fee category for small satellites for FY 2019, and if so, what the appropriate regulatory fee for small satellites should be.22 We received 9 comments and four reply comments on the FY 2018 NPRM. 23

    18Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2018, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-65 (2018) (FY 2018 NPRM), 83 FR 27846 (June 14, 2018).

    19Id. paragraphs 17-20.

    20Id. paragraphs 22-26.

    21Id. paragraphs 27-31.

    22Id. paragraphs 32-33. We defer consideration of a new regulatory fee category, and the appropriate regulatory fee, for small satellites until we adopt a definition of “small satellites” in the pending Small Satellite NPRM proceeding. See Streamlining Licensing Procedures for Small Satellites, IB Docket No. 18-86, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-44 (2018) (Small Satellite NPRM), 83 FR 24064 (May 24, 2018).

    23 Commenters to the FY 2018 NPRM are listed in Appendix A.

    IV. Report and Order

    7. In this FY 2018 Report and Order, we adopt the regulatory fee schedule proposed in the FY 2018 NPRM for FY 2018, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act, to collect $322,035,000 in regulatory fees. Of this amount, we project approximately $20.3 million (6.25 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the International Bureau regulatees; $84.7 million (26.3 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees; $103.99 million (32.29 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees; and $113.22 million (35.16 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the Media Bureau regulatees. These regulatory fees are due in September 2018. The schedule of regulatory fees for FY 2018 adopted herein is attached as Table 4.

    FY 2018 Adjustment: Video Distribution Provider Regulatory Fees

    8. Among other activities, the Media Bureau oversees the regulation of video distribution providers like multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), i.e., regulated companies that make available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming. The Media Bureau relies on a common pool of FTEs to carry out its oversight of MVPDs and other video distribution providers. These responsibilities include market modifications, local-into-local, must-carry and retransmission consent disputes, program carriage and program access complaints, over-the-air reception device declaratory rulings and waivers, media rule modernization, media ownership, and proposed transactions.24

    24See NCTA Comments at 6-7; ACA Comments at 4 & n.13.

    9. For these activities in FY 2018, the Commission must collect $62,330,000 in regulatory fees from three categories of providers: Cable TV systems, IPTV providers, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators. Although the Commission decided to assess cable TV systems and IPTV providers the same for regulatory fee purposes—assessing each provider based on its subscribership—the Commission took a different approach when it began to assess Media Bureau-based regulatory fees on DBS operators. Specifically, the Commission decided to phase in the new Media Bureau-based regulatory fee for DBS, starting at 12 cents per subscriber per year.25 At the same time, the Commission committed to updating the regulatory fee rate in future years “as necessary for ensuring an appropriate level of regulatory parity and considering the resources dedicated to this new regulatory fee subcategory.” 26 Accordingly, the Commission increased the regulatory fee for DBS operators to 27 cents (including a three cent moving fee) and then 38 cents (including a two cent moving fee) per subscriber per year, with the regulatory fees paid by DBS operators reducing those paid by other MVPDs.27

    25Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2015, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 10268, 10277, paragraph 20 (2015) (FY 2015 Report and Order), 80 FR 55775 (Sept. 17, 2015).

    26FY 2015 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 10277, paragraph 20.

    27Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2017, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 7057, 7067, paragraph 20 (2017) (FY 2017 Report and Order), 82 FR 44322 (Sept. 22, 2017); Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2016, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 10339, 10350, paragraph 30 (2016) (FY 2016 Report and Order), 81 FR 65926 (Sept. 26, 2016).

    10. For FY 2018, the Commission proposed to continue the transition by increasing the DBS regulatory fee rate to 48 cents per subscriber per year, thereby leaving other MVPDs with a regulatory fee of 77 cents per subscriber per year.28 Although a common pool of FTEs work on MVPD and related issues for DBS operators, IPTV providers, and cable TV systems, which some commenters argue justifies immediate parity in regulatory fees across these providers,29 we believe it prudent to adopt our proposal to increase such rates by less than one cent per subscriber per month, or 10 cents per subscriber per year. Doing so reflects the statutory imperative to take into account the FTEs devoted to oversight of this common category of regulatees, “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities, including . . . factors that the Commission determines are necessary in the public interest,” 30 such as our concern to mitigate the impact of increases on MVPDs should we move to immediate parity (which a regulatory fee of 67 cents per subscriber per year would achieve).31

    28FY 2018 NPRM at paragraph 19.

    29 ACA Comments at 1-3; NCTA Comments at 4.

    30 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(1)(A).

    31 For similar reasons, we reject NCTA's request to increase the DBS regulatory fee to at least 60 cents per subscriber per year (and reduce the proposed cable television/IPTV regulatory fee to 72 cents per subscriber per year) in order to accommodate cable television providers' chosen billing systems. See NCTA Comments at 8 & n.23.

    11. AT&T and DISH—the two DBS operators—reiterate several arguments against any increase in DBS regulatory fees that they have raised, and the Commission has rejected, in previous years. For example, AT&T and DISH claim that the proposed fee increase will result in “rate shock,” 32 even though last year the Commission held an increase of about one penny per subscriber per month would not cause such shock.33 AT&T and DISH also claim the Commission cannot increase DBS regulatory fees without an allocation of “additional FTEs to handle DBS matters,” 34 even though last year the Commission held that the DBS regulatory fee is based on the significant number of Media Bureau FTEs that work on MVPD issues that include DBS, “not a particular number of FTEs focused solely on DBS” or “specific recent proceedings.” 35 For these reasons, we reject these arguments and agree with commenters that the continued participation of DBS operators in Commission proceedings, along with the use of a common pool of FTEs to oversee MVPD matters (including matters related to DBS operators in particular), justifies an increase in the DBS regulatory fee rate.

    32 DISH and AT&T Comments at 9.

    33See also FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7067, paragraph 21 (rejecting the claim that a regulatory fee increase of several cents per subscriber, per month would harm customers given that “such an increase is a negligible faction of a monthly bill”).

    34 AT&T and DISH Comments at 3.

    35FY 2017 Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7067-68, paragraphs 22-23; see also FY 2015 NPRM and Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5354, 5369, paragraph 33 (2015) (FY 2015 NPRM and Report and Order), 80 FR 37206 (June 30, 2015) (“We also reject the argument raised by DIRECTV and DISH that section 9 of the Act requires us to ‘show that DBS and cable occupy a comparable number of FTEs.’ ”).

    FY 2018 Adjustment: Terrestrial and Satellite International Bearer Circuits

    12. As discussed in the FY 2018 NPRM, the Commission has previously sought comment on adopting a tiered methodology for assessing terrestrial and satellite international bearer circuit regulatory fees, and we should have sufficient information from payors in September 2018 to be able to consider a tiered rate structure for FY 2019.36 In the meantime, the Commission proposed to continue assessing terrestrial and satellite IBC regulatory fees on a per-circuit basis for FY 2018, using Gbps as the measurement rather than 64 kbps.37 CenturyLink observes that the proposed rate of $0.02 per circuit in Appendix B to the FY 2018 NPRM used 64 kbps instead of Gbps.38 We agree with CenturyLink that the measurement listed in the FY 2018 NPRM should have been Gbps instead of 64 kbps, and we are therefore adopting the proposed per-circuit fee of $176, using Gbps, in lieu of 64 kbps. No commenter opposed this proposal.

    36See FY 2018 NPRM, paragraphs 22-26. SIA raises a number of arguments in opposition to a tiered methodology for assessing terrestrial and satellite IBC regulatory fees. See SIA Comments at 1-2 (“SIA continues to oppose use of a tier-based system to calculate fees . . . . Instead, the Commission should reconsider exempting satellite IBCs from IBC [regulatory] fees or retain the current assessment method.); id. at 2-5. Because we do not adopt a tiered methodology at this time, we do not address SIA's arguments here.

    37FY 2018 NPRM. paragraph 26.

    38 CenturyLink Comments at 1-2.

    FY 2019 Amendment: Broadcast Television Stations

    13. Full service television station licensees are subject to regulatory fee payments based on the market served. Historically, broadcast full service television stations pay regulatory fees based on the schedule of regulatory fees established in section 9(g) of the Communications Act, which consolidated stations into market groupings 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-100, and remaining markets.39 The Commission subsequently established a separate fee category for broadcast television satellite stations.40 The Commission uses Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs) to define the market a station serves. For FY 2017, the regulatory fees for full service stations ranged from $1,725 for satellite stations to $59,750 for stations in markets 1-10.

    39 47 U.S.C. 159(g).

    40Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 1995, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13512, 13534, paragraph 60 (1995), 60 FR 34004 (June 29, 1995).

    14. In the FY 2018 NPRM, we sought comment on whether we could more accurately ascertain the actual market served by a station for purposes of assessing regulatory fees by examining the actual population covered by the station's contours rather than using DMAs.41 Specifically we sought comment on whether, for FY 2019 and going forward, regulatory fees should be assessed for full-power broadcast television stations based on the population covered by the station's contour, instead of DMAs.42 No commenter opposed this proposal. In the FY 2018 NPRM, we also sought comment on whether to phase in the implementation of this methodology over a two-year, or longer, period of time.43 In order to facilitate the transition to this new fee structure, for FY 2019, we plan to adopt a fee based on an average of the current DMA methodology and the population covered by a full-power broadcast station's contour. Thereafter, in 2020, we plan to assess regulatory fees for full-power broadcast stations based on the population covered by the station's contour. Such an approach is consistent with the methodology used for AM and FM broadcasters, in which fees are based on population served and the class of service based on the signal contours. In addition, this approach addresses concerns about the assessment of regulatory fees on broadcast television satellite stations serving small markets at the fringe of larger DMAs.44 The population data for broadcasters' service areas will be extracted annually from the TVStudy database, based on a station's projected noise-limited service contour, consistent with our rules,45 and we will enable broadcasters to review population data for their service area in our annual regulatory fee NPRM. We will multiply the population by a factor for which we will seek comment in the annual regulatory fee NPRM, e.g., 0.63 cents ($.0063).

    41FY 2018 NPRM at paragraph 28.

    42FY 2018 NPRM at paragraph 28.

    43FY 2018 NPRM at paragraph 28.

    44See, e.g., FY 2017 NPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 4534-36, paragraphs 20-22, 82 FR 26019 (June 6, 2017) (discussing concerns about the regulatory fees assessed on broadcast satellite television stations serving small markets at the fringe of larger DMAs).

    45 47 CFR 73.622(e).

    15. The adoption of these methodologies for assessing regulatory fees for broadcast television stations is a permitted amendment as defined in section 9(b)(3) of the Act,46 and pursuant to section 9(b)(4)(B), it must be submitted to Congress at least 90 days before it would become effective.47 Therefore, for FY 2018, we will assess regulatory fees for all broadcast television stations using the same methodology as we did for FY 2017.48 The regulatory fees for broadcast television stations for FY 2018 are in Table 4.

    46 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3).

    47 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(4)(B).

    48See e.g., FY 2018 NPRM at Appendix H.

    V. Order—Collection Costs for Regulatory and Application Fees

    16. The Commission's rules requires the assessment of administrative costs incurred for processing and handling delinquent debts.49 However, the RAY BAUM'S Act amended the Communications Act, in relevant part, prohibiting the Commission from assessing its administrative costs of collecting delinquent regulatory and application fee debt (or related penalties), effective October 1, 2018.50 Therefore, we amend our rules to reflect these statutory changes.51 This rule change will become effective on October 1, 2018.

    49 47 CFR 1.1940(c). This provision implements 31 U.S.C. 3717(e), part of the Debt Collection Improvement Act.

    50 New section 9A(c)(2) requires the Commission to charge interest at the rate set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3717 on delinquent regulatory and application fee debt as well as the 25 percent penalty prescribed in new section 9A(c)(1). However, new section 9A(c)(2) provides that section 3717 shall not otherwise apply to such a fee or penalty. Thus, while new section 9A(c)(2) of the Communications Act leaves intact those parts of § 1.1940 of the Commission's rules pertaining to interest charges, the Commission is no longer authorized to assess its administrative costs on these delinquent debts.

    51See “Final Rules” section at the end of this document (amending § 1.1940(c) of the Commission's rules).

    17. We find good cause under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act 52 to adopt this change without prior notice and comment. Section 553(b)(B) provides that notice and public comment procedures do not apply when “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” New section 9A of the Communications Act is clear in its directive that the Commission must cease applying to regulatory and application fees or penalties the provisions of section 3717 of Title 31, United States Code, that do not involve interest rates. The Commission is thus afforded no discretion to apply such provisions of section 3717 to such fees or penalties because its prior authority has been eliminated by statute. As a result, prior notice or comment is unnecessary.53

    52 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

    53 The Commission previously has applied the unnecessary prong to encompass rule amendments that involve little or no exercise of agency discretion. See, e.g., Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 73, and 74 of the Commission's Rules, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 13538, 13544, 13539-41, 13543, 13545, paragraphs 4-5, 10, 15 (OMD 2011), 76 FR 70904 (Nov. 16, 2011) (deleting or amending obsolete rule provisions, including those superseded by an Act of Congress).

    VI. Procedural Matters Broadcast Television Licenses, Post-Incentive Auction

    18. On March 29, 2016, the Commission commenced the incentive auction to allow broadcast television stations to make their spectrum available for wireless broadband licensees. On April 13, 2017, the Commission released a Public Notice formally closing the auction 54 and beginning the 39-month post-auction transition period during which some broadcast television stations will transition to new channel assignments and other stations will go off the air. We remind licensees that those who held a broadcast television station license on October 1, 2017 are responsible for FY 2018 regulatory fees for that license.55 Licensees who have relinquished their licenses by September 30, 2017 are not responsible for FY 2018 regulatory fees for the cancelled license.56

    54Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 2786 (MB, WTB 2017).

    55See “Standard Fee Calculation and Payment Dates,” paragraph 20, infra.

    56 Cancelled licenses from May 31, 2017 through September 30, 2017 are, according to the Commission's records, the following call signs: KSPR, WIFR, WAGT, WDLP-CD, WEMM-CD, KMMA-CD, WAZF-CD, WLPH-CD, WQVC-CD, WQCH-CD, WBOA-CD, WMUN-CD, WTSD-CD, WATA-CD, WHTV, WMEI, WWIS-CD.

    Payment of Regulatory Fees 1. Checks Are Not Accepted for Payment of Annual Regulatory Fees

    19. All regulatory fee payments must be made by online Automated Clearing House (ACH) payment, online credit card, or wire transfer. Any other form of payment (e.g., checks, cashier's checks, or money orders) will be rejected. For payments by wire, a Form 159-E should still be transmitted via fax so that the Commission can associate the wire payment with the correct regulatory fee information.

    2. Credit Card Transaction Levels

    20. Since June 1, 2015, in accordance with U.S. Treasury Announcement No. A-2014-04 (July 2014), the amount that can be charged on a credit card for transactions with federal agencies has is $24,999.99.57 Transactions greater than $24,999.99 will be rejected. This limit applies to single payments or bundled payments of more than one bill. Multiple transactions to a single agency in one day may be aggregated and treated as a single transaction subject to the $24,999.99 limit. Customers who wish to pay an amount greater than $24,999.99 should consider available electronic alternatives such as Visa or MasterCard debit cards, ACH debits from a bank account, and wire transfers. Each of these payment options is available after filing regulatory fee information in Fee Filer. Further details will be provided regarding payment methods and procedures at the time of FY 2018 regulatory fee collection in Fact Sheets, available at https://www.fcc.gov/regfees.

    57 Customers who owe an amount on a bill, debt, or other obligation due to the federal government are prohibited from splitting the total amount due into multiple payments. Splitting an amount owed into several payment transactions violates the credit card network and Fiscal Service rules. An amount owed that exceeds the Fiscal Service maximum dollar amount, $24,999.99, may not be split into two or more payment transactions in the same day by using one or multiple cards. Also, an amount owed that exceeds the Fiscal Service maximum dollar amount may not be split into two or more transactions over multiple days by using one or more cards.

    3. Payment Methods

    21. During the fee season for collecting FY 2018 regulatory fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through Pay.gov,58 ACH, debit card,59 or by wire transfer. Additional filing and payment instructions are posted on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/regulatory-fees. The receiving bank for all wire payments is the U.S. Treasury, New York, New York. When making a wire transfer, regulatees must fax a copy of their Fee Filer generated Form 159-E to the Federal Communications Commission at (202) 418-2843 at least one hour before initiating the wire transfer (but on the same business day) so as not to delay crediting their account. Regulatees should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their bankers several days before they plan to make the wire transfer to allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. Complete instructions for making wire payments are posted at https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/wire-transfer.

    58 In accordance with U.S. Treasury Financial Manual Announcement No. A-2014-04 (July 2014), the amount that may be charged on a credit card for transactions with federal agencies has been reduced to $24,999.99.

    59 In accordance with U.S. Treasury Financial Manual Announcement No. A-2012-02, the maximum dollar-value limit for debit card transactions is eliminated. Only Visa and MasterCard branded debit cards are accepted by Pay.gov.

    4. De Minimis Regulatory Fees

    22. Under the Commission's de minimis rule for regulatory fee payments, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is $1,000 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees, not regulatory fees paid through multi-year filings, and it is not a permanent exemption. Each regulatee will need to reevaluate the total annual fee liability each fiscal year to determine whether they meet the de minimis exemption.

    5. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates

    23. The Commission will accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment of regulatory fees. The responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as follows:

    Media Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for initial construction permits that were granted on or before October 1, 2017 for AM/FM radio stations, VHF/UHF full service television stations, and satellite television stations. Regulatory fees must be paid for all broadcast facility licenses granted on or before October 1, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

    Wireline (Common Carrier) Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. Audio bridging service providers are included in this category.60 For Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs) that manage Toll Free Numbers (TFN), regulatory fees should be paid on all working, assigned, and reserved toll free numbers as well as toll free numbers in any other status as defined in § 52.103 of the Commission's rules.61 The unit count should be based on toll free numbers managed by RespOrgs on or about December 31, 2017.

    60 Audio bridging services are toll teleconferencing services.

    61 47 CFR 52.103.

    Wireless Services: CMRS cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based on number of subscribers or telephone number count): Regulatory fees must be paid for authorizations that were granted on or before October 1, 2017. The number of subscribers, units, or telephone numbers on December 31, 2017 will be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

    Wireless Services, Multi-year fees: The first eight regulatory fee categories in our Schedule of Regulatory Fees pay “small multi-year wireless regulatory fees.” Entities pay these regulatory fees in advance for the entire amount period covered by the five-year or ten-year terms of their initial licenses, and pay regulatory fees again only when the license is renewed or a new license is obtained. We include these fee categories in our rulemaking to publicize our estimates of the number of “small multi-year wireless” licenses that will be renewed or newly obtained in FY 2018.

    Multichannel Video Programming Distributor Services (cable television operators, CARS licensees, DBS, and IPTV): Regulatory fees must be paid for the number of basic cable television subscribers as of December 31, 2017.62 Regulatory fees also must be paid for CARS licenses that were granted on or before October 1, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date. For providers of Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service and IPTV-based MVPDs, regulatory fees should be paid based on a subscriber count on or about December 31, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

    62 Cable television system operators should compute their number of basic subscribers as follows: Number of single family dwellings + number of individual households in multiple dwelling unit (apartments, condominiums, mobile home parks, etc.) paying at the basic subscriber rate + bulk rate customers + courtesy and free service.

    Note: Bulk-Rate Customers = Total annual bulk-rate charge divided by basic annual subscription rate for individual households. Operators may base their count on “a typical day in the last full week” of December 2017, rather than on a count as of December 31, 2017.

    International Services: Regulatory fees must be paid for (1) earth stations and (2) geostationary orbit space stations and non-geostationary orbit satellite systems that were licensed and operational on or before October 1, 2017. In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date.

    International Services (Submarine Cable Systems): Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems are to be paid on a per cable landing license basis for all systems that are licensed and operational as of October 1, 2017. The fee is based on circuit capacity as of December 31, 2017. In instances where a license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the license as of the fee due date. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 2018 will remain at 87.6 percent for submarine cable and 12.4 percent for satellite/terrestrial facilities.

    International Services (Terrestrial and Satellite Services): Regulatory fees for Terrestrial and Satellite IBCs are to be paid based on active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31, 2017 in any terrestrial or satellite transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier. When calculating the number of such active circuits, entities must include circuits used by themselves or their affiliates. For these purposes, “active circuits” include backup and redundant circuits as of December 31, 2017 and include both common carrier and non-common carrier circuits for both terrestrial and satellite services. Whether circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant for purposes of determining that they are active circuits.63 In instances where a permit or license is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2017, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the permit or license as of the fee due date based on circuit counts as of December 31, 2017. For regulatory fee purposes, the allocation in FY 2018 will remain at 87.6 percent for submarine cable and 12.4 percent for satellite/terrestrial facilities.

    63 We encourage terrestrial and satellite service providers to seek guidance from the International Bureau's Telecommunications and Analysis Division to verify their particular IBC reporting processes to ensure that their calculation methods comply with our rules.

    Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) and Mobile Services Assessments

    24. The Commission will compile data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0 ports (“in” and “out”).64 This information of telephone numbers (subscriber count) will be posted on the Commission's electronic filing and payment system (Fee Filer) along with the carrier's Operating Company Numbers (OCNs).

    64See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2005, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 12259, 12264, paragraphs 38-44 (2005).

    25. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing Fee Filer and follow the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation or supporting documentation.65 The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting documentation and either approve or disapprove the submission in Fee Filer. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response from the provider, or we do not reverse our initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in Fee Filer. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number counts are final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are to be paid. Providers can view their final telephone counts online in Fee Filer. A final CMRS assessment letter will not be mailed out.

    65 In the supporting documentation, the provider will need to state a reason for the change, such as a purchase or sale of a subsidiary, the date of the transaction, and any other pertinent information that will help to justify a reason for the change.

    26. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in Fee Filer. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (i.e., compute their telephone number counts as of December 31, 2017), and submit their fee payment accordingly. Whether a carrier reviews its telephone number counts in Fee Filer or not, the Commission reserves the right to audit the number of telephone numbers for which regulatory fees are paid. In the event that the Commission determines that the number of telephone numbers that are paid is inaccurate, the Commission will bill the carrier for the difference between what was paid and what should have been paid.

    Enforcement

    27. To be considered timely, regulatory fee payments must be made electronically by the payment due date for regulatory fees. Section 9(c) of the Act requires us to impose a late payment penalty of 25 percent of the unpaid amount to be assessed on the first day following the deadline for filing these fees.66 Failure to pay regulatory fees and/or any late penalty will subject regulatees to sanctions, including those set forth in § 1.1910 of the Commission's rules,67 which generally requires the Commission to withhold action on “applications, including on a petition for reconsideration or any application for review of a fee determination, or requests for authorization by any entity found to be delinquent in its debt to the Commission” and in the DCIA.68 We also assess administrative processing charges on delinquent debts to recover additional costs incurred in processing and handling the debt pursuant to the DCIA and § 1.1940(c) of the Commission's rules.69 These administrative processing charges will be assessed on any delinquent FY 2018 regulatory fee, in addition to the 25 percent late charge penalty. In the case of partial payments (underpayments) of regulatory fees, the payor will be given credit for the amount paid, but if it is later determined that the fee paid is incorrect or not timely paid, then the 25 percent late charge penalty (and other charges and/or sanctions, as appropriate) will be assessed on the portion that is not paid in a timely manner.

    66 47 U.S.C. 159(c).

    67See 47 CFR 1.1910.

    68 Delinquent debt owed to the Commission triggers the “red light rule,” which places a hold on the processing of pending applications, fee offsets, and pending disbursement payments. 47 CFR 1.1910, 1.1911, 1.1912. In 2004, the Commission adopted rules implementing the requirements of the DCIA. See Amendment of Parts 0 and 1 of the Commission's Rules, MD Docket No. 02-339, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6540 (2004), 69 FR 27843 (May 17, 2004); 47 CFR part 1, subpart O, Collection of Claims Owed the United States.

    69 47 CFR 1.1940(c). As discussed in Part IV above, the amendment to § 1.1940(c) of the Commission's rules that we adopt to reflect amendments to the Communications Act by the RAY BAUM'S Act does not take effect until October 1, 2018. Therefore, the Commission will assess administrative processing charges for failure to timely pay FY 2019 regulatory fees, which are due in September 2018.

    28. In addition to financial penalties, section 9(c)(3) of the Act,70 and § 1.1164(f) of the Commission's rules 71 grant the FCC the authority to revoke authorizations for failure to pay regulatory fees in a timely fashion. Should a fee delinquency not be rectified in a timely manner the Commission may require the licensee to file with documented evidence within sixty (60) calendar days that full payment of all outstanding regulatory fees has been made, plus any associated penalties as calculated by the Secretary of Treasury in accordance with § 1.1164(a) of the Commission's rules,72 or show cause why the payment is inapplicable or should be waived or deferred. Failure to provide such evidence of payment or to show cause within the time specified may result in revocation of the station license.73

    70 47 U.S.C. 159(c)(3).

    71 47 CFR 1.1164(f).

    72 47 CFR 1.1164(a).

    73See, e.g., Cortaro Broadcasting Corp., Order to Pay or Show Cause, 32 FCC Rcd 9336 (MB 2017).

    29. Pursuant to the “red light rule,” we will withhold action on any applications or other requests for benefits filed by anyone who is delinquent in any non-tax debts owed to the Commission (including regulatory fees) and will ultimately dismiss those applications or other requests if payment of the delinquent debt or other satisfactory arrangement for payment is not made.74 Failure to pay regulatory fees can also result in the initiation of a proceeding to revoke any and all authorizations held by the entity responsible for paying the delinquent fee(s).75

    74See 47 CFR 1.1161(c), 1.1164(f)(5), and 1.1910.

    75 47 U.S.C. 159.

    Effective Date 6. Report and Order—FY 2018 Regulatory Fees

    30. Providing a 30-day period after Federal Register publication before this Report and Order becomes effective as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) will not allow sufficient time to collect the FY 2018 fees before FY 2018 ends on September 30, 2018. For this reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find there is good cause to waive the requirements of section 553(d), and this Report and Order will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. Because payments of the regulatory fees will not actually be due until late September, persons affected by this Report and Order will still have a reasonable period in which to make their payments and thereby comply with the rules established herein.

    7. Order—Collection Costs for Regulatory and Application Fees

    31. In our Order above, we amend § 1.1940 of our rules and find that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to adopt the clarification without following the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act.76 Similarly, under these circumstances, we find that these actions fall under the good cause exemption to the 5 U.S.C. 553(d) effective date requirements and the clarification of § 1.1940 of our rules will become effective on October 1, 2018.

    76See supra Section V.

    VII. Additional Tables Table 1—List of Commenters Commenter Abbreviated name American Cable Assocation ACA. Astro Digital, US, Inc., Planet, Inc., and Spire Global, Inc Astro Digital, Planet, and Spire. CenturyLink, Inc CenturyLink. DISH Network L.L.C. and AT&T Services, Inc DISH and AT&T. Richard A. Golden Golden. NCTA—The Internet and Television Association NCTA. Satellite Industry Association SIA. Somos, Inc Somos. University Small-Satellite Researchers Small-Satellite Researchers. Table 2—List of Reply Commenters AT&T Services, Inc AT&T. CenturyLink, Inc CenturyLink. EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation and Hughes Network Systems, LLC EchoStar. NCTA—The Internet & Television Assocation and the American Cable Association NCTA and ACA.

    Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

    Table 3—Calculation of FY 2018 Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees Fee category FY 2018
  • payment
  • units
  • Years FY 2017
  • revenue
  • estimate
  • Pro-rated
  • FY 2018
  • revenue
  • requirement
  • Computed
  • FY 2018
  • regulatory
  • fee
  • Rounded
  • FY 2018
  • regulatory
  • fee
  • Expected
  • FY 2018
  • revenue
  • PLMRS (Exclusive Use) 340 10 325,000 85,000 25 25 85,000 PLMRS (Shared use) 12,500 10 1,600,000 1,250,000 10 10 1,250,000 Microwave 7,750 10 2,950,000 1,937,500 25 25 1,937,500 Marine (Ship) 7,150 10 1,215,000 1,072,500 15 15 1,072,500 Aviation (Aircraft) 4,000 10 420,000 400,000 10 10 400,000 Marine (Coast) 75 10 60,000 30,000 40 40 30,000 Aviation (Ground) 1,000 10 220,000 200,000 20 20 200,000 AM Class A 1 63 1 305,500 266,175 4,214 4,225 266,175 AM Class B 1 1,523 1 3,807,500 3,274,450 2,162 2,150 3,274,450 AM Class C 1 872 1 1,348,500 1,177,200 1,352 1,350 1,177,200 AM Class D 1 1,503 1 4,476,000 3,907,800 2,592 2,600 3,907,800 FM Classes A, B1 & C3 1 3,166 1 9,371,250 8,152,450 2,582 2,575 8,152,450 FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 & C2 1 3,128 1 11,521,800 10,009,600 3,203 3,200 10,009,600 AM Construction Permits 2 9 1 5,550 4,950 550 550 4,950 FM Construction Permits 2 109 1 110,740 105,185 965 965 105,185 Satellite TV 126 1 217,350 189,000 1,497 1,500 189,000 Digital TV Mkt 1-10 144 1 8,305,250 7,164,000 49,739 49,750 7,164,000 Digital TV Mkt 11-25 140 1 5,898,275 5,243,000 37,455 37,450 5,243,000 Digital TV Mkt 26-50 189 1 5,439,050 4,729,725 25,013 25,025 4,729,725 Digital TV Mkt 51-100 290 1 4,267,875 3,617,750 12,470 12,475 3,617,750 Digital TV Remaining Markets 389 1 1,807,475 1,594,900 4,099 4,100 1,594,900 Digital TV Construction Permits 2 3 1 14,775 12,300 4,100 4,100 12,300 LPTV/Translators/Boosters/Class A TV 3,989 1 1,741,930 1,515,820 378 380 1,515,820 CARS Stations 175 1 215,050 188,125 1,068 1,075 188,125 Cable TV Systems, including IPTV 61,000,000 1 58,900,000 46,970,000 .7658 .77 46,970,000 Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 32,000,000 1 12,350,000 15,360,000 .480 .48 15,360,000 Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers $34,600,000,000 1 111,740,000 100,686,000 0.002906 0.00291 100,686,000 Toll Free Numbers 33,200,000 1 3,924,000 3,320,000 0.10405 0.10 3,320,000 CMRS Mobile Services (Cellular/Public Mobile) 404,000,000 1 82,530,000 80,800,000 0.195 0.20 80,800,000 CMRS Messag. Services 1,000,000 1 168,000 80,000 0.0800 0.080 80,000 BRS/ 3 1,175 1 696,000 567,050 600 600 705,000 LMDS 400 1 316,000 378,250 600 600 240,000 Per Gbps circuit Int'l Bearer Circuits Terrestrial (Common and Non-Common) & Satellite (Common & Non-Common) 2,831 1 901,680 685,102 176 176 685,102 Submarine Cable Providers (see chart in Table 4) 4 41.19 1 5,660,261 4,959,228 120,405 120,400 4,959,035 Earth Stations 3,400 1 1,224,000 1,105,000 326 325 1,105,000 Space Stations (Geostationary) 97 1 13,669,725 12,401,450 127,839 127,850 12,401,450 Space Stations (Non-Geostationary) 7 1 947,450 859,425 122,776 122,775 859,425 ****** Total Estimated Revenue to be Collected 358,670,986 324,323,753 324,365,671 ****** Total Revenue Requirement 356,710,992 322,035,000 322,035,000 Difference 1,959,994 2,288,753 2,330,671 Notes on Table 3: 1 The fee amounts listed in the column entitled “Rounded New FY 2018 Regulatory Fee” constitute a weighted average broadcast regulatory fee by class of service. The actual FY 2018 regulatory fees for AM/FM radio station are listed on a grid located at the end of Table 4. 2 The AM and FM Construction Permit revenues and the Digital (VHF/UHF) Construction Permit revenues were adjusted, respectively, to set the regulatory fee to an amount no higher than the lowest licensed fee for that class of service. Reductions in the Digital (VHF/UHF) Construction Permit revenues, and in the AM and FM Construction Permit revenues, were offset by increases in the revenue totals for Digital television stations by market size, and in the AM and FM radio stations by class size and population served, respectively. 3 MDS/MMDS category was renamed Broadband Radio Service (BRS). See Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14169, paragraph 6 (2004), 69 FR 72048 (Dec. 10, 2004). 4 The chart at the end of Table 4 lists the submarine cable bearer circuit regulatory fees (common and non-common carrier basis) that resulted from the adoption of the Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6388 (2008), 73 FR 5028 (Aug. 26, 2008) and Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, Second Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4208 (2009), 74 FR 22104 (May 12, 2009).

    Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

    Table 4—FY 2018 Regulatory Fees Fee category Annual
  • regulatory fee
  • (U.S. $'s)
  • PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90) 25 Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101) 25 Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80) 15 Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80) 40 Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category) 10 PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90) 10 Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87) 10 Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87) 20 CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90) .20 CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90) .08 Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part 27) 600 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR part 101) 600 AM Radio Construction Permits 550 FM Radio Construction Permits 965 Digital TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF and UHF Commercial: Markets 1-10 49,750 Markets 11-25 37,450 Markets 26-50 25,025 Markets 51-100 12,475 Remaining Markets 4,100 Construction Permits 4,100 Satellite Television Stations (All Markets) 1,500 Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Translators & Boosters (47 CFR part 74) 380 CARS (47 CFR part 78) 1,075 Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76), Including IPTV .77 Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) (per subscriber) (as defined by section 602(13) of the Act) .48 Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar) .00291 Toll Free (per toll free subscriber) (47 CFR 52.101(f) of the rules) .10 Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25) 325 Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100) 127,850 Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) 122,775 International Bearer Circuits—Terrestrial/Satellites (per Gbps circuit) 176 Submarine Cable Landing Licenses Fee (per cable system) See Table Below
    FY 2018 Radio Station Regulatory Fees Population served AM Class A AM Class B AM Class C AM Class D FM Classes
  • A, B1 & C3
  • FM Classes
  • B, C, C0,
  • C1 & C2
  • <=25,000 $880 $635 $550 $605 $965 $1,100 25,001-75,000 $1,325 $950 $825 $910 $1,450 $1,650 75,001-150,000 $1,975 $1,425 $1,250 $1,350 $2,175 $2,475 150,001-500,000 $2,975 $2,150 $1,850 $2,050 $3,250 $3,725 500,001-1,200,000 $4,450 $3,225 $2,775 $3,050 $4,875 $5,575 1,200,001-3,000,00 $6,700 $4,825 $4,175 $4,600 $7,325 $8,350 3,000,001-6,000,00 $10,025 $7,225 $6,275 $6,900 $11,000 $12,525 >6,000,000 $15,050 $10,850 $9,400 $10,325 $16,500 $18,800
    FY 2018 International Bearer Circuits—Submarine Cable Systems Submarine cable systems
  • (capacity as of December 31, 2017)
  • Fee amount for FY 2018
    Less than 50 Gbps $9,850 50 Gbps or greater, but less than 250 Gbps 19,725 250 Gbps or greater, but less than 1,000 Gbps 39,425 1,000 Gbps or greater, but less than 4,000 Gbps 78,875 4,000 Gbps or greater 157,750
    Table 5—Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY 2018

    In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2018, we adjusted FY 2017 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2018 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections when available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), Consolidated Database System (CDBS) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast.

    We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, we compared FY 2018 estimates with actual FY 2017 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated with sufficient accuracy. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2018 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates from time to time due to economic, technical, or other reasons. When we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2018 payment units are based on FY 2017 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2018 projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2017. We have either rounded the FY 2018 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.

    Fee category Sources of payment unit estimates Land Mobile (All), Microwave, Marine (Ship & Coast), Aviation (Aircraft & Ground), Domestic Public Fixed Based on Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) projections of new applications and renewals taking into consideration existing Commission licensee data bases. Aviation (Aircraft) and Marine (Ship) estimates have been adjusted to take into consideration the licensing of portions of these services on a voluntary basis. CMRS Cellular/Mobile Services Based on WTB projection reports, and FY 17 payment data. CMRS Messaging Services Based on WTB reports, and FY 17 payment data. AM/FM Radio Stations Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2017 payment units. Digital TV Stations
  • (Combined VHF/UHF units)
  • Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2017 payment units.
    AM/FM/TV Construction Permits Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2017 payment units. LPTV, Translators and Boosters, Class A Television Based on CDBS data, adjusted for exemptions, and actual FY 2017 payment units. BRS (formerly MDS/MMDS)
  • LMDS
  • Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2017 payment units.
  • Based on WTB reports and actual FY 2017 payment units.
  • Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) Stations Based on data from Media Bureau's COALS database and actual FY 2017 payment units. Cable Television System Subscribers, Including IPTV Subscribers Based on publicly available data sources for estimated subscriber counts and actual FY 2017 payment units. Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers Based on FCC Form 499-Q data for the four quarters of calendar year 2017, the Wireline Competition Bureau projected the amount of calendar year 2017 revenue that will be reported on 2018 FCC Form 499-A worksheets due in April, 2018. Earth Stations Based on International Bureau (“IB”) licensing data and actual FY 2017 payment units. Space Stations (GSOs & NGSOs) Based on IB data reports and actual FY 2017 payment units. International Bearer Circuits Based on IB reports and submissions by licensees, adjusted as necessary. Submarine Cable Licenses Based on IB license information.
    Table 6—Factors, Measurements, and Calculations That Determine Station Signal Contours and Associated Population Coverages AM Stations: For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phase, spacing, and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all directions in the horizontal plane (RMS) figure (milliVolt per meter (mV/m) @1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or augmented standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in §§ 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. Radiation values were calculated for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated soil conductivity data was retrieved from a database representing the information in FCC Figure R3. Using the calculated horizontal radiation values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the distance to the principal community (5 mV/m) contour was predicted for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block centroids were contained in the polygon. (A block centroid is the center point of a small area containing population as computed by the U.S. Census Bureau.) The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area. FM Stations: The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power (ERP) (kW) and respective height above average terrain (HAAT) (m) combination was used. Where the antenna height above mean sea level (HAMSL) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves specified in 47 CFR 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the principal community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt per meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block centroids were contained in the polygon. The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area. Table 7—FY 2017 Schedule of Regulatory Fees

    Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.

    Fee category Annual
  • regulatory fee
  • (U.S. $s)
  • PLMRS (per license) (Exclusive Use) (47 CFR part 90) 25 Microwave (per license) (47 CFR part 101) 25 Marine (Ship) (per station) (47 CFR part 80) 15 Marine (Coast) (per license) (47 CFR part 80) 40 Rural Radio (47 CFR part 22) (previously listed under the Land Mobile category) 10 PLMRS (Shared Use) (per license) (47 CFR part 90) 10 Aviation (Aircraft) (per station) (47 CFR part 87) 10 Aviation (Ground) (per license) (47 CFR part 87) 20 CMRS Mobile/Cellular Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24, 27, 80 and 90) .21 CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (47 CFR parts 20, 22, 24 and 90) .08 Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS/MDS) (per license) (47 CFR part 27) 800 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (per call sign) (47 CFR part 101)
  • 800
  • AM Radio Construction Permits 555 FM Radio Construction Permits 980 Digital TV (47 CFR part 73) VHF and UHF Commercial: Markets 1-10 59,750 Markets 11-25 45,025 Markets 26-50 30,050 Markets 51-100 14,975 Remaining Markets 4,925 Construction Permits 4,925 Satellite Television Stations (All Markets) 1,725 Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FM Trans. & Boosters (47 CFR part 74) 430 CARS (47 CFR part 78) 935 Cable Television Systems (per subscriber) (47 CFR part 76), including IPTV .95 Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) (per subscriber) (as defined by section 602(13) of the Act) .38 Interstate Telecommunication Service Providers (per revenue dollar) .00302 Toll Free (per toll free subscriber) (47 CFR 52.101(f) of the rules) .12 Earth Stations (47 CFR part 25) 360 Space Stations (per operational station in geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) also includes DBS Service (per operational station) (47 CFR part 100) 140,925 Space Stations (per operational system in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) 135,350 International Bearer Circuits—Terrestrial/Satellites (per 64KB circuit) .03 Submarine Cable Landing Licenses Fee (per cable system) See Table Below
    FY 2017 Radio Station Regulatory Fees Population served AM Class A AM Class B AM Class C AM Class D FM Classes
  • A, B1 & C3
  • FM Classes
  • B, C, C0,
  • C1 & C2
  • <=25,000 $895 $640 $555 $610 $980 $1,100 25,001-75,000 1,350 955 830 915 1,475 1,650 75,001-150,000 2,375 1,700 1,475 1,600 2,600 2,925 150,001-500,000 3,550 2,525 2,200 2,425 3,875 4,400 500,001-1,200,000 5,325 3,800 3,300 3,625 5,825 6,575 1,200,001-3,000,00 7,975 5,700 4,950 5,425 8,750 9,875 3,000,001-6,000,00 11,950 8,550 7,400 8,150 13,100 14,800 >6,000,000 17,950 12,825 11,100 12,225 19,650 22,225
    FY 2017 Regulatory Fees International Bearer Circuits—Submarine Cable Submarine cable systems
  • (capacity as of December 31, 2016)
  • Fee amount
    <2.5 Gbps $8,600 2.5 Gbps or greater, but less than 5 Gbps 17,175 5 Gbps or greater, but less than 10 Gbps 34,350 10 Gbps or greater, but less than 20 Gbps 68,725 20 Gbps or greater 137,425
    VIII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),77 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 78 The Commission sought written public comment on these proposals including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the IRFA.79

    77 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law Number 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).

    78Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2017, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7057 (2017), 82 FR 50598 (Nov. 1, 2017).

    79 5 U.S.C. 604.

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

    33. In this Report and Order we adopt our proposal in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on collecting $322,035,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2018, pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act).80 These regulatory fees will be due in September 2018. Under section 9 of the Communications Act, regulatory fees are mandated by Congress and collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities in an amount that can be reasonably expected to equal the amount of the Commission's annual appropriation.81 This Report and Order adopts the regulatory fees proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    80 47 U.S.C. 159.

    81 47 U.S.C. 159(a).

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

    34. None.

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

    35. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted.82 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 83 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.84 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.85 Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.86

    82 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

    83 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    84 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”

    85 15 U.S.C. 632.

    86See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf.

    36. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” 87 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees.88 Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.89 Thus, under this size standard, most firms in this industry can be considered small.

    87http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    88See 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 517110.

    89http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    37. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 6 of this FRFA. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.90 According to Commission data, census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.91 The Commission therefore estimates that most providers of local exchange carrier service are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.

    90 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    91http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    38. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 6 of this FRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.92 According to Commission data, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.93 Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted. Three hundred and seven (307) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers.94 Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees.95

    92 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    93http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    94See Trends in Telephone Service, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division at Table 5.3 (September 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service).

    95Id.

    39. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate NAICS code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 6 of this FRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.96 U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.97 Based on this data, the Commission concludes that most Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider services.98 Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees.99 In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees.100 Also, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.101 Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees.102 Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.

    96 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    97http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    98See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    99Id.

    100Id.

    101Id.

    102Id.

    40. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest NAICS code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 6 of this FRFA. The applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.103 U.S. Census data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.104 According to internally developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services.105 Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees.106 Consequently, the Commission estimates that most interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.

    103 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    104http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    105See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    106Id.

    41. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry.107 Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.108 U.S. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.109 Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards.110 All 193 carriers have 1,500 or fewer employees.111 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.

    107http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssd/naics/naicsrch.

    108 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

    109http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    110See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    111Id.

    42. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.112 Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.113 Under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these local resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services.114 Of this total, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees.115 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.

    112 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

    113http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    114See Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3.

    115Id.

    43. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS code Category is Telecommunications Resellers, and the SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers.116 Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.117 Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.118 Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services.119 Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees.120 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities.

    116 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

    117http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    118Id.

    119Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

    120Id.

    44. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS code category is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 6 of this FRFA. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.121 Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.122 Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, most Other Toll Carriers can be considered small. According to internally developed Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage.123 Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees.124 Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.

    121 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

    122http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    123Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

    124Id.

    45. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.125 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services.126 Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees.127 Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

    125 NAICS code 517210. See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssd/naics/naiscsrch.

    126Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.

    127Id.

    46. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” 128 These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.129 The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 television broadcasting firms operated during that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of less than $25 million per year. Based on that Census data we conclude that most firms that operate television stations are small. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,383.130 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database, on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or less.131 We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.

    128 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS code Economic Census Definitions, http://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    129 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515120.

    130See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2017,” April 11, 2017; https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344256A1.pdf.

    131 We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the FCC total.

    47. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 132 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

    132 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.” 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).

    48. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational television stations to be 394.133 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.134 There are also 2,382 low power television stations, including Class A stations.135 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

    133See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2017,” April 11, 2017; https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344256A1.pdf.

    134See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).

    135See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2017,” April 11, 2017; https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344256A1.pdf.

    49. Radio Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.” 136 The SBA has established a small business size standard for this category, which is: such firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.137 Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year.138 According to Commission staff review of BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Radio Database, on March 28, 2012, about 10,759 (97 percent) of 11,102 commercial radio stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less. Therefore, most such entities are small entities.

    136https://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    137 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515112.

    138http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    50. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above size standard, business affiliations must be included.139 In addition, to be determined to be a “small business,” the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.140 We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.

    139 “Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both. It does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists.” 13 CFR 121.103(a)(1) (an SBA regulation).

    140 13 CFR 121.102(b) (an SBA regulation).

    51. Cable Television and Other Subscription Programming. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.141 The SBA has established a size standard for this industry of $38.5 million or less. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 367 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 319 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million.142 Thus under this size standard, most firms offering cable and other program distribution services can be considered small and may be affected by rules adopted.

    141https://www.census.gov.cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    142http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US-51SSSZ5&prodType=Table.

    52. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.143 The Commission's industry data indicate that there are currently 4,160 active cable systems in the United States.144 Of this total, all but ten cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size standard.145 In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.146 Current Commission records show 4,160 cable systems nationwide.147 Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.

    143 47 CFR 76.901(e).

    144 As of July 5, 2018, there were 4,160 active cable systems in the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing Systems (COALS) database.

    145See https://www.snl.com/web/client?auth=inherit#industry/topCableMSOs (last visited July 18, 2017).

    146 47 CFR 76.901(c)

    147See footnote 2, supra.

    53. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” 148 There are approximately 53 million cable video subscribers in the United States today.149 Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.150 Based on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard.151 We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.152 Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

    148 47 CFR 76.901(f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3.

    149See NCTA Industry Data, Cable's Customer Base, available at https://www.ncta.com/industry-data (last visited July 6, 2017).

    150 47 CFR 76.901(f) and notes ff. 1, 2, and 3.

    151See https://www.snl.com/web/client?auth=inherit#industry/topCableMSOs (last visited July 18, 2018).

    152 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 76.901(f).

    54. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census category “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.153 The SBA determines that a wireline business is small if it has fewer than 1500 employees.154 Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 wireline companies were operational during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.155 Based on that data, we conclude that most wireline firms are small under the applicable standard. However, currently only two entities provide DBS service, AT&T and DISH Network. AT&T and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Accordingly, we conclude that DBS service is provided only by large firms.

    153http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    154 NAICS code 517110; 13 CFR 121.201.

    155https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=PEP_2017_PEPANNRES&src=pt.

    55. All Other Telecommunications. “All Other Telecommunications” is defined as follows: This U.S. industry is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.156 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less.157 For this category, census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million.158 Thus, most “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by the rules adopted can be considered small.

    156http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ssssd/naics/naicsrch.

    157 13 CFR 121.201; NAICS code 517919.

    158http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    56. RespOrgs. RespOrgs, i.e., Responsible Organizations, are entities chosen by toll-free subscribers to manage and administer the appropriate records in the toll-free Service Management System for the toll-free subscriber.159 Although RespOrgs are often wireline carriers, they can also include non-carrier entities. Therefore, in the definition herein of RespOrgs, two categories are presented, i.e., Carrier RespOrgs and Non-Carrier RespOrgs.

    159See 47 CFR 52.101(b)

    57. Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the U.S. Census, nor the SBA have developed a definition for Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based definitional categories for Carrier RespOrgs are Wired Telecommunications Carriers 160 and Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).161

    160 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110

    161 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517210.

    58. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wired Telecommunications Carriers as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.162 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees.163 Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 Wired Telecommunications Carrier firms that operated for that entire year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with less than 1,000 employees.164 Based on that data, we conclude that most Carrier RespOrgs that operated with wireline-based technology are small.

    162http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.

    163 13 CFR 120,201, NAICS code 517110.

    164http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    59. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite) as establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.165 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.166 Census data for 2012 show that 967 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers operated in that year. Of that number, 955 operated with less than 1,000 employees.167 Based on that data, we conclude that most Carrier RespOrgs that operated with wireless-based technology are small.

    165http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.

    166 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 517120.

    167http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    60. Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the Census, nor the SBA have developed a definition of Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based definitional categories for Non-Carrier RespOrgs are “Other Services Related To Advertising” 168 and “Other Management Consulting Services.” 169

    168 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890.

    169 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541618.

    61. The U.S. Census defines Other Services Related to Advertising as comprising establishments primarily engaged in providing advertising services (except advertising agency services, public relations agency services, media buying agency services, media representative services, display advertising services, direct mail advertising services, advertising material distribution services, and marketing consulting services.170 The SBA has established a size standard for this industry as annual receipts of $15 million dollars or less.171 Census data for 2012 show that 5,804 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 5,249 operated with annual receipts of less than $10 million.172 Based on that data we conclude that most Non-Carrier RespOrgs who provide TFN-related advertising services are small.

    170http://www.census,gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.

    171 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 541890.

    172http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    62. The U.S. Census defines Other Management Consulting Services as establishments primarily engaged in providing management consulting services (except administrative and general management consulting; human resources consulting; marketing consulting; or process, physical distribution, and logistics consulting). Establishments providing telecommunications or utilities management consulting services are included in this industry.173 The SBA has established a size standard for this industry of $15 million dollars or less.174 Census data for 2012 show that 3,683 firms operated in this industry for that entire year. Of that number, 3,632 operated with less than $10 million in annual receipts.175 Based on this data, we conclude that most non-carrier RespOrgs who provide TFN-related management consulting services are small.176

    173http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics.naicsrch.

    174 13 CFR 120.201, NAICS code 514618.

    175http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    176 The four NAICS code-based categories selected above to provide definitions for Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs were selected because as a group they refer generically and comprehensively to all RespOrgs. Therefore, all RespOrgs, including those not identified specifically or individually, must comply with the rules adopted in the Regulatory Fees Report and Order associated with this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

    63. In addition to the data contained in the four (see above) U.S. Census NAICS code categories that provide definitions of what services and functions the Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs provide, Somos, the trade association that monitors RespOrg activities, compiled data showing that as of July 1, 2016, there were 23 RespOrgs operational in Canada and 436 RespOrgs operational in the United States, for a total of 459 RespOrgs currently registered with Somos.177

    177 Email from Jennifer Blanchard, Somos, July 1, 2016.

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

    64. This Report and Order does not adopt any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

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

    65. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.178

    178 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

    66. This Report and Order adopts the proposals in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to collect $322,035,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2018, as detailed in the fee schedules in Table 4, including an increase in the DBS fee rate to 48 cents per subscriber so that the DBS fee would approach the cable television/IPTV fee, based on the Media Bureau FTEs devoted to issues that include DBS. The two DBS providers are not small entities. The regulatory fees adopted do not include any new fee categories, except for the addition of non-common carrier terrestrial international bearer circuits to the regulatory fee category of international bearer circuits, that previously did not pay regulatory fees. To the extent such providers are small entities, the rates for smaller numbers of circuits would be lower than the rates for larger quantity of circuits and, in addition, the de minimis of $1,000 would likely exempt the smaller entities from paying annual regulatory fees.

    67. In keeping with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered certain alternative means of mitigating the effects of fee increases to a particular industry segment. For example, the Commission has increased the de minimis threshold to $1,000, which will impact many small entities that pay regulatory fees. This increase in the de minimis threshold to $1,000 will relieve regulatees both financially and administratively. Regulatees may also seek waivers or other relief on the basis of financial hardship. See 47 CFR 1.1166.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict

    68. None.

    IX. Ordering Clauses

    69. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Section 9 (a), (b), (e), (f), and (g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 159(a), (b), (e), (f), and (g), this Report and Order is hereby adopted.

    70. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Division P—RAY BAUM's Act of 2018, Title I, 101-103, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law Number 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084, (2018), the Order in Section V is hereby adopted.

    71. It is further ordered that the Report and Order in Section IV shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    72. It is further ordered that the Order in Section V shall be effective on October 1, 2018.

    73. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in this Report and Order, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules

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

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

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455; Sec. 102(c), Div. P, Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 1.1152 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1152 Schedule of annual regulatory fees for wireless radio services. Exclusive use services (per license) Fee amount 1 1. Land Mobile (Above 470 MHz and 220 MHz Local, Base Station & SMRS) (47 CFR part 90): (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) $25.00 (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 220 MHz Nationwide: (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 2. Microwave (47 CFR Pt. 101) (Private): (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 25.00 3. Shared Use Services Land Mobile (Frequencies Below 470 MHz—except 220 MHz): (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 Rural Radio (Part 22): (a) New, Additional Facility, Major Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 10.00 (b) Renewal, Minor Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) Marine Coast 10.00 Marine Coast (per license) (47 CFR part 80): (a) New Renewal/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 40.00 (b) New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 40.00 (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 40.00 (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 40.00 Aviation Ground: (a) New, Renewal/Mod (FCC 601 & 159) 20.00 (b) New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 601 & 159) 20.00 (c) Renewal Only (FCC 601 & 159) 20.00 (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Only) (FCC 601 & 159) 20.00 Marine Ship: (a) New, Renewal/Mod (FCC 605 & 159) 15.00 (b) New, Renewal/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 15.00 (c) Renewal Only (FCC 605 & 159) 15.00 (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 15.00 Aviation Aircraft: (a) New, Renew/Mod (FCC 605 & 159) 10.00 (b) New, Renew/Mod (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 10.00 (c) Renewal Only (FCC 605 & 159) 10.00 (d) Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) (FCC 605 & 159) 10.00 4. CMRS Cellular/Mobile Services (per unit) (FCC 159) 2 .20 5. CMRS Messaging Services (per unit) (FCC 159) 3.08 6. Broadband Radio Service (formerly MMDS and MDS) 600 7. Local Multipoint Distribution Service 600 1 Note that “small fees” are collected in advance for the entire license term. Therefore, the annual fee amount shown in this table that is a small fee (categories 1 through 5) must be multiplied by the 10-year license term to arrive at the total amount of regulatory fees owed. Also, application fees may apply as detailed in § 1.1102. 2 These are standard fees that are to be paid in accordance with § 1.1157(b). 3 These are standard fees that are to be paid in accordance with § 1.1157(b).
    3. Section 1.1153 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1153 Schedule of annual regulatory fees and filing locations for mass media services. 95 Fee amount Radio [AM and FM] (47 CFR part 73) 1. AM Class A: <=25,000 population $880 25,001-75,000 population 1,325 75,001-150,000 population 1,975 150,001-500,000 population 2,975 500,001-1,200,000 population 4,450 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 6,700 3,000,001-6,000,000 population 10,025 >6,000,000 population 15,050 2. AM Class B: <=25,000 population 635 25,001-75,000 population 950 75,001-150,000 population 1,425 150,001-500,000 population 2,150 500,001-1,200,000 population 3,225 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 4,825 3,000,001-6,000,000 population 7,225 >6,000,000 population 10,850 3. AM Class C: <=25,000 population 550 25,001-75,000 population 825 75,001-150,000 population 1,250 150,001-500,000 population 1,850 500,001-1,200,000 population 2,775 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 4,175 3,000,001-6,000,000 population 6,275 >6,000,000 population 9,400 4. AM Class D: <=25,000 population 605 25,001-75,000 population 910 75,001-150,000 population 1,350 150,001-500,000 population 2,050 500,001-1,200,000 population 3,050 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 4,600 3,000,001-6,000,000 population 6,900 >6,000,000 population 10,325 5. AM Construction Permit 550 6. FM Classes A, B1 and C3: <=25,000 population 965 25,001-75,000 population 1,450 75,001-150,000 population 2,175 150,001-500,000 population 3,250 500,001-1,200,000 population 4,875 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 7,325 3,000,001-6,000,000 population 11,000 >6,000,000 population 16,500 7. FM Classes B, C, C0, C1 and C2: <=25,000 population 1,100 25,001-75,000 population 1,650 75,001-150,000 population 2,475 150,001-500,000 population 3,725 500,001-1,200,000 population 5,575 1,200,001-3,000,000 population 8,350 3,000,001-6,000,000 population 12,525 >6,000,000 population 18,800 8. FM Construction Permits 965 TV (47 CFR part 73) Digital TV (UHF and VHF Commercial Stations): 1. Markets 1 thru 10 49,750 2. Markets 11 thru 25 37,450 3. Markets 26 thru 50 25,025 4. Markets 51 thru 100 12,475 5. Remaining Markets 4,100 6. Construction Permits 4,100 Satellite UHF/VHF Commercial: 1. All Markets 1,500 Low Power TV, Class A TV, TV/FMTranslator, & TV/FM Booster (47 CFR part 74) 380
    4. Section 1.1154 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1154 Schedule of annual regulatory charges for common carrier services. Radio facilities Fee amount 1. Microwave (Domestic Public Fixed) (Electronic Filing) (FCC Form 601 & 159) $25.00. Carriers: 1. Interstate Telephone Service Providers (per interstate and international end-user revenues (see FCC Form 499-A) $.00291. 2. Toll Free Number Fee $.10 per Toll Free Number.
    5. Section 1.1155 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1155 Schedule of regulatory fees for cable television services. 1. Cable Television Relay Service $1,075. 2. Cable TV System, Including IPTV (per subscriber) $.77. 3. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) $.48 per subscriber.
    6. Section 1.1156 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1156 Schedule of regulatory fees for international services.

    (a) Geostationary Orbit (GSO) and Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) Space Stations. The following schedule applies for the listed services:

    Fee category Fee amount Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit) $127,850 Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit) 122,775 Earth Stations: Transmit/Receive & Transmit only (per authorization or registration) 325

    (b) International Terrestrial and Satellite. (1) Regulatory fees for International Bearer Circuits are to be paid by facilities-based common carriers and non-common carrier basis that have active (used or leased) international bearer circuits as of December 31 of the prior year in any terrestrial or satellite transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier, which includes active circuits to themselves or to their affiliates. “Active circuits” for these purposes include backup and redundant circuits. In addition, whether circuits are used specifically for voice or data is not relevant in determining that they are active circuits.

    (2) The fee amount on a per active Gbps basis will be determined for each fiscal year.

    International terrestrial and satellite (capacity as of December 31, 2017) Fee amount Terrestrial Common Carrier $176 per Gbps Circuit. Terrestrial Non-Common Carrier. Satellite Common Carrier. Satellite Non-Common Carrier.

    (c) Submarine cable. Regulatory fees for submarine cable systems will be paid annually, per cable landing license, for all submarine cable systems operating as of December 31 of the prior year. The fee amount will be determined by the Commission for each fiscal year.

    Submarine cable systems (capacity as of Dec. 31, 2017) Fee amount <50 Gbps $9,850 50 Gbps or greater, but less than 250 Gbps 19,725 250 Gbps or greater, but less than 1,000 Gbps 39,425 1,0000 Gbps or greater, but less than 4,000 Gbps 78,875 4,000 Gbps or greater 157,750
    7. Section 1.1940(c) is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1940 Assessment.

    (c) The Commission shall assess administrative costs incurred for processing and handling delinquent debts, unless otherwise prohibited by statute. The calculation of administrative costs may be based on actual costs incurred or upon estimated costs as determined by the Commission. Commission administrative costs include the personnel and service costs (e.g., telephone, copier, and overhead) to notify and collect the debt, without regard to the success of such efforts by the Commission.

    [FR Doc. 2018-19548 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 48 CFR Parts 844 and 845 RIN 2900-AQ05 VA Acquisition Regulation: Subcontracting Policies and Procedures; Government Property AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending and updating its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) in phased increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove procedural guidance internal to VA into the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM), and to incorporate any new agency specific regulations or policies. These changes seek to streamline and align the VAAR with the FAR and remove outdated and duplicative requirements and reduce burden on contractors. The VAAM incorporates portions of the removed VAAR as well as other internal agency acquisition policy. VA will rewrite certain parts of the VAAR and VAAM, and as VAAR parts are rewritten, we will publish them in the Federal Register. In particular, this rulemaking revises VAAR concerning Subcontracting Policies and Procedures and Government Property.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 18, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Rafael N. Taylor, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services, 003A2A, 425 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 382-2787. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 6, 2018, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 14833) which announced VA's intent to amend regulations for VAAR Case RIN 2900-AQ05 (Parts 844 and 845). In particular, this final rule implements FAR part 44 by making public VA's additional requirements for providing its consent to subcontract, describes items that should be evaluated as a part of a contractor's purchasing system review and establishes that contractors should determine whether subcontract items meet the FAR definition of a commercial item and implements and supplements FAR part 45 by addressing procedures for contractors to document their acquisition of property for use in the service of VA contracts; to address the transfer of title to the Government of contractor-acquired property; and to outline the procedures for the use of such property on a successor contract.

    VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on June 5, 2018 and VA received no comments. This document adopts as a final rule the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2018, with minor formatting and/or grammatical edits.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal Governments or on the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The overall impact of this final rule will be of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating procedures. VA is merely adding existing and current regulatory requirements to the VAAR and removing any guidance that is applicable only to VA's internal operation processes or procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual businesses would result from these rule updates. This rulemaking does not change VA's policy regarding small businesses, does not have an economic impact to individual businesses, and there are no increased or decreased costs to small business entities. On this basis, the final rule would not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this regulatory action is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 13771

    Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review defines “significant regulatory action” to mean any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal Governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive order.”

    VA has examined the economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action, and it has been determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. This final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.

    List of Subjects 48 CFR Part 844

    Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    48 CFR Part 845

    Government procurement, Government property, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 24, 2018, for publication.

    Dated: September 12, 2018. Consuela Benjamin, Regulations Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 48 CFR by adding parts 844 and 845 to read as follows: PART 844—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Sec. Subpart 844.2—Consent to Subcontracts 844.202-2 Considerations. Subpart 844.3—Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews 844.303 Extent of review. Subpart 844.4—Subcontracts for Commercial Items and Commercial Components 844.402 Policy requirements. Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1702 and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    Subpart 844.2—Consent to Subcontracts
    844.202-2 Considerations.

    (a)(14) Where other than lowest price is the basis for subcontractor selection, has the contractor adequately substantiated the selection as being fair, reasonable, and representing the best value to the Government?

    Subpart 844.3—Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews
    844.303 Extent of review.

    (f) Policies and procedures pertaining to the use of VA-verified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) and utilization in accordance with subpart 819.70 and the Veterans First Contracting Program;

    (l) Documentation of commercial item determinations to ensure compliance with the definition of “commercial item” in FAR 2.101; and

    (m) For acquisitions involving electronic parts, that the contractor has implemented a counterfeit electronic part detection and avoidance system to ensure that counterfeit electronic parts do not enter the supply chain.

    Subpart 844.4—Subcontracts for Commercial Items and Commercial Components
    844.402 Policy requirements.

    (a)(3) Determine whether a particular subcontract item meets the definition of a commercial item. This requirement does not affect the contracting officer's responsibilities or determinations made under FAR 15.403-1(c)(3).

    PART 845—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY Sec. Subpart 845.4—Title to Government Property 845.402 Title to contractor-acquired property. 845.402-70 Policy. Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 1702 and 48 CFR 1.301-1.304.

    Subpart 845.4—Title to Government Property
    845.402 Title to contractor-acquired property.
    845.402-70 Policy.

    (a) For other than firm-fixed-price contracts, contractor-acquired property items not anticipated at time of contract award, or not otherwise specified for delivery on an existing line item, shall, by means of a contract modification, be specified for delivery to the Government on an added contract line item. The value of such contractor-acquired property item shall be recorded at the original purchase cost. Unless otherwise noted by the contractor at the time of delivery to the Government, the placed-in-service date shall be the date of acquisition or completed manufacture, if fabricated.

    (b) Following delivery and acceptance by the Government of contractor-acquired property items, if these items are to be retained by the contractor for continued use under a successor contract, these items become Government-furnished property (GFP). The items shall be added to the successor contract as GFP by contract modification.

    (c) Individual contractor-acquired property items should be recorded in the contractor's property management system at the contractor's original purchase cost.

    (d) All other contractor inventory that is excess to the needs of the contract shall be disposed of in accordance with FAR subpart 45.6.

    [FR Doc. 2018-20183 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 170817779-8161-02] RIN 0648-XG491 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; “Other Flatfish” in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting retention of “other flatfish” in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2018 “other flatfish” initial total allowable catch (ITAC) in the BSAI has been reached.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 13, 2018, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2018 “other flatfish” ITAC in the BSAI is 3,400 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2018 “other flatfish” ITAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that “other flatfish” in the BSAI be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting retention of “other flatfish” in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as September 12, 2018.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20249 Filed 9-13-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 181 Tuesday, September 18, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 101 [Docket ID OCC-2018-0020] RIN 1557-AE45 Covered Savings Associations AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC is inviting comment on a proposed rule to implement a new section of the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA). The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) amended HOLA to add a new section that allows a Federal savings association with total consolidated assets of $20 billion or less, as of December 31, 2017, to elect to operate as a covered savings association. A covered savings association has the same rights and privileges as a national bank and is subject to the same duties and restrictions as a national bank. A covered savings association retains its Federal savings association charter and existing governance framework. The new section of HOLA requires the OCC to issue rules that, among other things, establish streamlined standards and procedures for elections to operate as covered savings associations and clarify requirements for the treatment of covered savings associations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments to the OCC by any of the methods set forth below. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. Please use the title “Covered Savings Associations” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal—“Regulations.gov:” Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2018-0020” in the Search Box and click “Search.” Click on “Comment Now” to submit public comments. Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting public comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.

    Fax: (571) 465-4326.

    Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID OCC-2018-0020” in your comment. In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish the comments on the Regulations.gov website without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this rulemaking action by any of the following methods:

    Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2018-0020” in the Search box and click “Search.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the right side of the screen. Comments and supporting materials can be viewed and filtered by clicking on “View all documents and comments in this docket” and then using the filtering tools on the left side of the screen.

    • Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov. The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.

    Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information, contact Charlotte Bahin, Senior Advisor for Thrift Supervision, 202-649-6281, Lazaro Barreiro, Director for Governance and Operational Risk Policy, 202-649-6550, Alison MacDonald, Special Counsel, 202-649-5490, Priscilla Benner, Attorney, 202-649-5490, Marta Stewart-Bates, Attorney, 202-649-5490, Frances C. Augello, Special Counsel, 202-649-5500, Demetria C. Hannah, Special Counsel, 202-649-5500, or Kevin S. Kirby, Attorney, 202-649-5500, Chief Counsel's Office, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, 202-649-5597, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 206 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA), Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1310, amended the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) to add a new section 5A (12 U.S.C. 1464a) that allows a Federal savings association with total consolidated assets of $20 billion or less, as of December 31, 2017, to elect to operate as a covered savings association.

    A covered savings association has the same rights and privileges as a national bank that has its main office situated in the same location as the home office of the covered savings association. A covered savings association is subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations that would apply to such a national bank. However, a covered savings association retains its Federal savings association charter and continues to be treated as a Federal savings association for purposes of governance, including for purposes of procedures and requirements governing incorporation and organization, procedures and requirements governing charter and bylaws (e.g., form, amendments), board of director governance procedures and requirements (e.g., elections, term of service), shareholder governance procedures and requirements (e.g., meetings, voting requirements), and requirements governing distribution of dividends (e.g., payment, prior approval, and other restrictions). A covered savings association also is treated as a Federal savings association for purposes of consolidation, merger, dissolution, conversion (including conversion to a stock bank or another charter), conservatorship, and receivership, and for other purposes determined by OCC regulation. A covered savings association may continue to operate any branch or agency that the covered savings association operates on the date an election to operate as a covered savings association takes effect. A covered savings association will continue to be treated as a covered savings association even if its assets exceed $20 billion after it makes an election.1

    1 12 U.S.C. 1464a(g).

    Section 5A of HOLA requires the OCC to issue rules to carry out that section. The OCC must issue rules that: (1) Establish streamlined standards and procedures that clearly identify required documentation and timelines for an election; (2) require a Federal savings association that makes an election to identify specific assets and subsidiaries held by the Federal savings association that do not conform to the requirements for national banks (“nonconforming assets and subsidiaries”); (3) establish a transition process for bringing the nonconforming assets and subsidiaries into conformance with the requirements for national banks and procedures for allowing a Federal savings association to submit an application to continue to hold nonconforming assets and subsidiaries after electing to operate as a covered savings association; (4) establish standards and procedures to allow a covered savings association to terminate an election after an appropriate period of time and to make a subsequent election after terminating an election; and (5) clarify requirements for the treatment of covered savings associations, including the provisions of law that apply to covered savings associations. Section 5A also gives the OCC the authority to issue rules as the Comptroller determines necessary in the interests of safety and soundness.

    The OCC views section 5A of HOLA as a way to provide Federal savings associations with additional flexibility to adapt to new economic conditions and business environments without the cost and time involved in changing their charters.2 This flexibility will allow Federal savings associations to better meet the needs of their communities.

    2See Testimony of Acting Comptroller of the Currency Keith A. Noreika before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, June 22, 2017, at 22.

    For example, section 10(m) of HOLA requires a Federal savings association to maintain its status as a qualified thrift lender (QTL) by either holding a specified percentage of its assets in qualified thrift investments or qualifying as a domestic building and loan association as defined in the Internal Revenue Code.3 Further, prior to the enactment of section 5A of HOLA, a Federal savings association would have been required to convert to a bank charter to pursue a business strategy involving greater commercial or consumer lending if it would have exceeded the investment limits in HOLA. The OCC has heard for a number of years that Federal savings associations would like to engage in additional activities (for example, additional commercial or small business lending and consumer lending) to serve their communities, but they cannot increase lending in those areas because of the statutory lending limits and limitations imposed on the operating strategies of Federal savings associations that are required to comply with QTL. In 2015, the OCC reported this information in written testimony to Congress.4 The OCC noted that the charter conversion process can be time consuming and burdensome, particularly for smaller savings associations. At that time, Federal mutual savings associations faced an especially burdensome process, because they would have had to convert to the stock form of organization before converting to a national bank charter. As discussed in more detail later in this preamble, under the new section 5A of HOLA, a Federal savings association, whether in stock or mutual form, can adjust its business model without the additional burden and expense of changing charters.

    3 12 U.S.C. 1467a(m).

    4See Written Statement of Toney Bland, Senior Deputy Comptroller for Midsize and Community Bank Supervision, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, February 10, 2015, at 9-10.

    As the supervisor of both national banks and Federal savings associations, the OCC is well-positioned to administer section 5A. OCC examination staff are familiar with the unique situations and business models of individual institutions and with national bank and Federal savings association laws.5

    5Id.

    This proposed rule would implement section 5A in a manner that minimizes regulatory burden on Federal savings associations seeking to be treated as covered savings associations while ensuring that these Federal savings associations can continue to operate safely and soundly. The election process set out in the proposed rule is intended to be simple and streamlined. The proposed rule takes a similarly streamlined approach for the procedures and standards applicable to terminations of elections and to reelections.

    The OCC also is mindful of the need to permit all OCC-supervised institutions to engage in the same activities to the extent permitted by different statutory frameworks. The proposed rule does not confer rights or privileges on covered savings associations that would not be available to similarly located national banks, except as required by section 5A of HOLA or specifically set out in the proposed rule. Under the proposed rule, covered savings associations would be required to divest, conform, or discontinue nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities, with appropriate lead-time, so that they do not operate, hold, or conduct subsidiaries, assets, or activities that would not be permissible for a national bank. Consistent with section 5A, the proposed rule would treat covered savings associations and national banks differently when necessary to allow a covered savings association to retain its Federal savings association charter and associated governance processes. To reduce unnecessary burden, the proposed rule also would allow covered savings associations to continue to use Federal savings association procedures rather than national bank procedures where the application of those procedures would not result in substantively different outcomes. For example, a covered savings association would be subject to the Federal savings association requirements for adjudicative proceedings under 12 CFR parts 108 and 109 rather than the national bank requirements under 12 CFR part 19.

    II. Description of the Proposal

    101.1 Authority and purposes. Paragraph (a) of this section provides that the proposed rule is issued pursuant to sections 3, 4, 5, and 5A of HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, and 1464a), section 5239A of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 93a), and section 312(b)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5412(b)(2)(B)).

    Paragraph (b) of this section describes the purposes of the proposed rule. Those purposes are to establish standards and procedures for an election to operate as a covered savings association, to clarify the requirements that apply to covered savings associations, and to establish standards and procedures for terminations of elections and for reelections.

    101.2 Definitions and computation of time. Paragraph (a) of this section sets out definitions for the proposed rule.

    Paragraph (a)(1) of this section defines the term “appropriate OCC supervisory office.” As in 12 CFR 5.3(d), the appropriate OCC supervisory office is the OCC office responsible for supervision of a Federal savings association, as described in subpart A of 12 CFR part 4. The definition is intended to help Federal savings associations identify the office that can assist them with issues related to an election, a request to terminate, or a reelection.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of this section defines the term “covered savings association.” This definition, consistent with the definition of the term in section 5A(a) of HOLA, refers to a Federal savings association that has made an election that is in effect in accordance with § 101.3(b) of the proposed rule.

    Paragraph (a)(3) of this section defines the term “effective date of the election” as the date on which a Federal savings association's election to operate as a covered savings association takes effect pursuant to § 101.3(b) of the proposed rule.

    Paragraph (a)(4) of this section defines the term “nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity.” When this term is applied to a covered savings association, it means a subsidiary, asset, or activity that is not permissible for a covered savings association or, if permissible, is being operated, held, or conducted in a manner that exceeds the limit applicable to a covered savings association. When applied to a covered savings association, this term includes an investment in a subsidiary or other entity if that investment is not permissible for a covered savings association. When this term is applied to a Federal savings association that has terminated an election to operate as a covered savings association, it means a subsidiary, asset, or activity that is not permissible for a Federal savings association, or if permissible, is being operated, held, or conducted in a manner that exceeds the limit applicable to a Federal savings association. When applied to a Federal savings association that has terminated an election to operate as a covered savings association, this term includes an investment in a subsidiary or other entity if that investment is not permissible for a Federal savings association.

    Section 5A(f) of HOLA uses the term “assets and subsidiaries.” However, under section 5A(c)(2) of HOLA, a covered savings association would be subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations that apply to a similarly located national bank. As a result, a covered savings association's activities would be limited in ways that a Federal savings association's activities would not. For example, under 12 U.S.C. 1464(c)(4)(B) and 12 CFR 5.59, a Federal savings association can invest in a service corporation, but a national bank cannot. Some activities a Federal savings association may conduct in a service corporation (e.g., acquiring real estate for development) are not permissible for a national bank.6 Consistent with section 5A(c)(2) of HOLA, the proposed rule would require covered savings associations to cease those activities that would not be permissible for a national bank. As discussed below, the OCC proposes to establish the same transition process for discontinuing nonconforming activities as it does for divesting nonconforming assets and subsidiaries.

    6 12 CFR 5.59(f)(5).

    Paragraph (a)(5) of this section defines “similarly located national bank” to mean, with respect to a covered savings association, a national bank that has its main office situated in the same location as the home office of the covered savings association. For purposes of the proposed rule, the location of a national bank's main office is the home state of the national bank. The location of a covered savings association's home office is the home state of the covered savings association.

    Paragraph (b) of this section provides that, for purposes of the proposed rule, the OCC will compute time in the same manner as set forth in 12 CFR 5.12. That section provides that, in computing a period of days, the OCC does not include the day of the act (in this case, the date the OCC receives a notice of election or termination) from which the period begins to run. If the last day of the time period is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the time period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday.

    101.3 Procedures and standard of review. Under section 5A(b) of HOLA, a Federal savings association with total consolidated assets of $20 billion or less as of December 31, 2017, may elect to operate as a covered savings association by submitting a notice to the Comptroller. The Federal savings association is deemed approved to operate as a covered savings association beginning 60 days after the Comptroller receives the notice, unless the Comptroller notifies the association that the association is not eligible.7 This section of the proposed rule establishes streamlined standards and procedures that identify required documentation and timelines for an election to operate as a covered savings association. The proposed rule would establish procedures that are as simple and straightforward as possible.

    7 The proposed rule also would allow the OCC to notify a Federal savings association that it is eligible before the full 60-day period has elapsed.

    Section 101.3(a)(1) of the proposed rule allows a Federal savings association that had total consolidated assets of $20 billion or less as of December 31, 2017, to make an election to operate as a covered savings association by submitting a notice to the appropriate OCC supervisory office. The OCC proposes to use the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) submitted for the quarter ending December 31, 2017, to determine if the Federal savings association meets this threshold. Because section 5A of HOLA contemplates that “a Federal savings association” with a certain amount of assets “as of December 31, 2017,” may make an election, under the proposed rule, institutions that were not Federal savings associations as of December 31, 2017, are not eligible to operate as covered savings associations.

    Under this approach, an institution that was a credit union, state savings association, or state bank on December 31, 2017, but that later converted to a Federal savings association charter, would not be eligible to make an election under the proposed rule. Similarly, a de novo Federal savings association chartered after December 31, 2017, would not be eligible to make an election to operate as a covered savings association. A Federal savings association in stock form would retain the option to convert directly to a national bank charter, but for institutions in mutual form, such as credit unions, state savings associations, or state savings banks, a national bank charter is not available without first converting to stock form. The OCC invites comment on whether the option to elect to operate as a covered savings association should be limited to institutions that were Federal savings associations on December 31, 2017.

    Paragraph (a)(1) of this section would require a Federal savings association to submit a notice to the appropriate OCC supervisory office. The appropriate OCC supervisory office has an established relationship with the Federal savings associations it supervises, and it is in regular quarterly contact with management of Federal savings associations. As a result, the supervisory office will be familiar with the condition and operations of a Federal savings association that submits a notice.

    The OCC encourages management of Federal savings associations to contact the appropriate OCC supervisory office to determine whether it would be useful to meet before submitting a notice under this section. The OCC believes such meetings can be beneficial to the management of Federal savings associations considering operating as covered savings associations, particularly Federal savings associations that may operate, hold, or conduct nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, or activities or that are operating under outstanding enforcement actions or matters requiring attention. These informal conversations could help address potential issues before a Federal savings association submits a notice.

    The proposed rule would require that a notice: Be signed by a duly authorized officer of the Federal savings association; identify each branch and agency that the Federal savings association will operate on the effective date of the election that has not been the subject of an application or notice under 12 CFR part 5; and identify and describe each nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity that the Federal savings association operates, holds, or conducts at the time it submits the notice, each of which must be divested, conformed, or discontinued pursuant to § 101.5.

    The requirement for a signature of a duly authorized officer of the Federal savings association is intended to allow the Federal savings association to demonstrate that it has obtained any approval that may be required under its own internal procedures for making strategic decisions of this type.

    The proposed rule would require that the notice identify branches and agencies that the Federal savings association will operate on the date an election takes effect, and that have not been the subject of an application or notice under 12 CFR part 5, in order to determine which branches and agencies are eligible to be grandfathered pursuant to section 5A(e) of HOLA and § 101.4(b) of the proposed rule. Federal savings associations are already required under 12 CFR part 5 to submit applications or notices to the OCC with respect to branches and agencies (for example, when establishing, acquiring, or relocating branches or establishing agencies). The proposed rule would only require a Federal savings association to identify branches or agencies for which the Federal savings association has not already submitted an application or notice. These are likely to be branches or agencies that are newly established at the time of an election under the proposed rule.

    The proposed rule would require Federal savings associations to identify nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities because these are the subsidiaries, assets, and activities the Federal savings association would need to divest, conform, or discontinue pursuant to section 5A(f)(3) of HOLA and § 101.5 of the proposed rule after an election takes effect. Consistent with section 5A(f)(2) of HOLA, the OCC would expect a Federal savings association to identify subsidiaries, assets, and activities operated, held, or conducted at the time it submits a notice of election. The OCC expects that the description of the subsidiaries, assets, and activities would specify whether an asset or activity is held or conducted by the Federal savings association itself or by a subsidiary. The description of these subsidiaries, assets, and activities should be sufficient to allow the OCC to understand the size of the subsidiaries or assets and the scope of the activities relative to the asset size or capital of the Federal savings association. However, given the possibility of fluctuations, the OCC understands that the value of a subsidiary, asset, or activity at any given point in time might not reflect its usual size or scope. The OCC invites comment on whether the proposed rule should specify metrics for determining the size or scope of a subsidiary, asset, or activity, and, if so, whether those metrics should reflect a specific point in time.

    Under § 101.3(b) of the proposed rule, a Federal savings association's election to operate as a covered savings association would automatically take effect 60 days after the OCC receives a notice from the Federal savings association, unless the OCC notifies the Federal savings association that it is not eligible in accordance with paragraph (c). The OCC also could notify a Federal savings association that it is eligible to operate as a covered savings association before 60 days have elapsed. The proposed rule does not include a provision for written notification if an election takes effect by operation of law, but the OCC would expect to provide such notification as a matter of course. The OCC expects that such a notification would state that a Federal savings association is subject to the covered savings association laws, as described in § 101.4 of the proposed rule, once an election takes effect. Such a notification would have no impact on whether or when an election takes effect.

    Section 101.3(c) of the proposed rule permits the OCC to notify a Federal savings association in writing that it is not eligible to make an election to operate as a covered savings association if the Federal savings association is not an “eligible savings association” as that term is defined in 12 CFR 5.3(g). Under the definition in 12 CFR 5.3(g), an eligible savings association is a Federal savings association that (1) is well capitalized as defined in 12 CFR 6.4; (2) has a composite rating of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (CAMELS); (3) has a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of “outstanding” or “satisfactory,” if applicable; (4) has a consumer compliance rating of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Interagency Consumer Compliance Rating System; and (5) is not subject to a cease and desist order, consent order, formal written agreement, or Prompt Corrective Action directive or, if subject to any such order, agreement, or directive, is informed in writing by the OCC that the savings association may be treated as an “eligible savings association” for purposes of 12 CFR part 5. Because the purposes of 12 CFR part 5 and the purposes of the proposed rule are different, the proposed rule specifies that a Federal savings association that is subject to a cease and desist order, consent order, formal written agreement, or Prompt Corrective Act directive would not be eligible to elect to operate as a covered savings association unless the OCC informs it in writing that it is eligible for purposes of part 101 (that is, for purposes of the proposed rule).

    The concept of an “eligible savings association” as described in 12 CFR 5.3(g) is well understood and relatively straightforward to apply. In the licensing context, an “eligible savings association” may receive expedited review of filings because it is generally the type of savings association that can operate safely and soundly. In the context of the proposed rule, a Federal savings association that meets the definition of “eligible savings association” typically does not raise the types of concerns that would suggest it should not operate as a covered savings association.

    The OCC invites comment on whether there are standards other than those in the definition of “eligible savings association” in 12 CFR 5.3(g) that would allow the OCC to determine, without imposing undue burden, whether a Federal savings association is eligible to operate as covered savings association. The OCC also invites comment on whether there are situations in which, or Federal savings associations for which, it would not be appropriate to use the definition of “eligible savings association” to make determinations about the eligibility of a Federal savings association to operate as covered savings associations. Additionally, the OCC invites comment on whether the rule should identify other factors for consideration when determining a Federal savings association's eligibility to operate as a covered savings association.

    The proposed rule would not require a Federal savings association to amend its charter or bylaws or to obtain the approval of shareholders or members before submitting a notice to the OCC. The model Federal savings association charter allows a Federal savings association to pursue any lawful objectives of a Federal savings association chartered under section 5 of HOLA. Section 5A of HOLA permits covered savings associations to engage in activities that would be permissible for a national bank. Covered savings associations will continue to be Federal savings associations chartered under section 5 of HOLA, as neither the proposed rule nor the statute requires a charter conversion.

    Nevertheless, management of a Federal savings association that is interested in submitting a notice to elect to operate as a covered savings association should review the Federal savings association's charter and bylaws, as well as any other applicable law, to determine whether an election will require shareholder or member approval or whether it should amend its charter or bylaws because the documents contain terms that are inconsistent with the rights and duties of a covered savings association.

    101.4 Treatment of covered savings associations. Section 5A(c) of HOLA provides that a covered savings association has the same rights and privileges as a national bank that has the main office of the national bank situated in the same location as the home office of the covered savings association and is subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations that would apply to such a national bank. Section 5A(d) of HOLA also specifies that a covered savings association is treated as a Federal savings association for the purposes of governance of the covered savings association, including incorporation, bylaws, boards of directors, shareholders, and distribution of dividends, as well as for purposes of consolidation, merger, dissolution, conversion (including conversion to a stock bank or to another charter), conservatorship, and receivership. Section 5A(d)(3) gives the OCC the authority to identify by regulation other purposes for which a covered savings association will be treated as a Federal savings association. Within that general framework, section 5A(f)(5) of HOLA directs the OCC to clarify the requirements for the treatment of covered savings associations, including the provisions of law that apply to a covered savings association. Although, for many purposes, the regulations that apply to national banks are identical to the regulations that apply to Federal savings associations, there are provisions of Federal savings association law that are neither identical to national bank laws nor explicitly identified in section 5A(d) as purposes for which Federal savings association laws continue to apply to covered savings associations. For these provisions of law, the OCC seeks to clarify the legal framework that will apply while preserving the OCC's flexibility to address novel situations and unforeseen questions.

    The proposed rule offers two alternatives to explain what it means for a covered savings association to have the rights and privileges of a similarly located national bank while being subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations as a similarly located national bank.

    The first alternative would require a covered savings association to comply with the same provisions of law that would apply to a similarly located national bank and would not require it to comply with the provisions of law that apply to Federal savings associations, except in specific areas identified in § 101.4(a)(2) of the proposed rule, such as governance (including incorporation, bylaws, boards of directors, shareholders, and distribution of dividends), consolidation, merger, dissolution, conversion (including conversion to a stock bank or to another charter), conservatorship, and receivership. In these specific areas, the laws otherwise applicable to a Federal savings association will apply to a covered savings association.8

    8 For convenience, this preamble refers to these areas as “the Federal savings association categories.” They are discussed in greater detail later in this preamble.

    The first alternative would provide a framework for a covered savings association to understand the provisions of law that apply to it: That is, national bank provisions will apply, except where specifically set out in the proposed rule, and Federal savings association laws will not apply, except where specifically set out in the proposed rule. However, there may be circumstances where it would not be appropriate to apply a provision of national bank law to a covered savings association. Under the first alternative, unless that provision of national bank law is included in one of the Federal savings association categories, the OCC may not have the flexibility to decline to apply it to a covered savings association without amending the rule. The OCC invites comment on whether there are situations in which the first alternative would inappropriately apply provisions of national bank law to a covered savings association. The OCC also invites comment on whether the first alternative, if adopted, should include a reservation of authority to allow the OCC to determine that a particular provision of national bank law should not apply to covered savings associations. Would the framework of this alternative give covered savings associations and other interested persons sufficient notice of the provisions of law that do and do not apply to covered savings associations? Would the latitude provided to the OCC under a reservation of authority make this first alternative more workable?

    The second alternative focuses on the activities that would be permissible for a covered savings association. It is based on the requirements for operating subsidiaries of national banks set out in 12 CFR 5.34(e). This alternative would provide that a covered savings association may engage in any activity that is permissible for a national bank to engage in as part of, or incidental to, the business of banking, or explicitly authorized by statute for a national bank, subject to the same authorization, terms, and conditions that would apply to a similarly located national bank, as determined by the OCC for purposes of the proposed rule. Like the first alternative, this second alternative would be subject to an exception for provisions of law in the Federal savings association categories.

    The second alternative provides general guidance about the types of activities in which a covered savings association would be permitted to engage. Covered savings associations would be able to refer to OCC publications such as “Activities Permissible for National Banks and Federal Savings Associations, Cumulative” 9 to find activities that are permissible for national banks. The OCC's permissible activities document includes links to OCC advisory letters, interpretive letters, bulletins, and other resources that would help covered savings associations understand the authorization, terms, and conditions that apply to these permissible activities.

    9 October 2017, available at https://www.occ.treas.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/pub-other-activities-permissible-october-2017.pdf.

    The second alternative is more narrowly tailored than the first alternative, and it preserves the OCC's authority to determine that a particular provision of national bank law does not apply to covered savings associations. However, it may be difficult for a covered savings association to determine whether a particular provision of law is considered an “authorization,” “term,” or “condition” that applies to a covered savings association if that provision is not otherwise discussed in an OCC publication.

    The OCC invites comment on which of these alternatives would best clarify the requirements for the treatment of covered savings associations, including the provisions of law that apply to covered savings associations. Are there provisions of law that would not be clearly addressed by these alternatives? Are there situations in which these alternatives would not lead to an appropriate result?

    Because section 5A(c) provides covered savings associations with the same rights and privileges as a similarly located national bank, subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations that would apply to a similarly located national bank, both alternatives would allow a covered savings association to engage in activities to the same extent as a national bank. Except as provided in the proposed rule, a covered savings association would be permitted to engage in the same activities as a national bank, subject to the restrictions that would apply to a national bank rather than the restrictions that would apply to a Federal savings association.

    Unlike national banks, Federal savings associations are required to comply with the QTL test,10 which limits the majority of their activities and asset mix to those with a housing focus.11 The QTL test is a defining distinction between the rights and privileges of a savings association and a national bank.12 Following an election under section 5A, while it retains its charter, a covered savings association has all the same rights and privileges of, and is subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations that would apply to, a similarly located national bank.13 Although section 5A provides that a covered savings association continues to be treated as a Federal savings association for certain enumerated areas and purposes such as governance and distribution of dividends, none of these enumerated areas or purposes relate to the QTL test, the other limitations in section 5(c), or the lending restrictions of section 11(a). A covered savings association cannot logically exercise the rights and privileges conferred on it under section 5A (and have the activities and asset mix permitted to a national bank) while simultaneously being subject to the limitations of the QTL test, section 5(c), or section 11(a) lending restrictions. Accordingly, a covered savings association under section 5A is not subject to, among other things, the QTL test and the restrictions in 12 U.S.C. 1467a(m)(3)(B) for failing to meet the QTL test.

    10 12 U.S.C. 1467a(m).

    11 12 U.S.C. 1467a(m)(3)(B).

    12See, generally, Statement of Ellen Seidman, Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, February 24, 1999. Other differences are, for example, a bar under section 11(a) of HOLA that prevents Federal savings associations from making loans to affiliates not engaged in activities permissible for a bank holding company under section 4(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act and other constraints on the amount of commercial lending.

    13 12 U.S.C. 1464a(c).

    A similar analysis applies to the limits on aggregate amounts of loans secured by liens on nonresidential real property,14 additional restrictions on loans to a single borrower,15 other borrowing limitations,16 and certain affiliate transaction requirements.17 Because national banks are not subject to the duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, or conditions described in these provisions (and the proposed rule does not require covered savings associations to continue to comply with these provisions, as described later in this preamble), covered savings associations would not be subject to these provisions.

    14 12 U.S.C. 1464(c)(2)(B).

    15 12 U.S.C. 1464(u) and 12 CFR part 32.

    16 12 CFR 163.80.

    17 12 U.S.C. 1468(a) and 12 CFR 223.72.

    In order to clarify the provisions of law that apply to covered savings associations, the OCC also must identify the purposes for which a covered savings association will be treated as a Federal savings association. Section 5A of HOLA sets out specific categories of activities where Federal savings association laws apply. Those categories are governance of the covered savings association (including incorporation, bylaws, boards of directors, shareholders, and distribution of dividends), consolidation, merger, dissolution, conversion (including conversion to a stock bank or to another charter), conservatorship, and receivership. The OCC can exercise its interpretive authority to determine which Federal savings association laws fall into each of those categories. The chart below shows examples of Federal savings association laws with which the OCC proposes to require covered savings associations to comply because these examples fall into the categories specifically created by section 5A. The OCC proposes that the statutory category for provisions relating to “shareholders” be construed to include provisions relating to the members of Federal mutual savings associations.

    Statutory category Provision of law Incorporation 12 CFR 5.20. This section sets out requirements for organizing a national bank or Federal savings association, including for establishment as a legal entity. Although many aspects of this section are identical for national banks and Federal savings associations, where there are differences, the Federal savings association requirements would apply to a covered savings association. Bylaws 12 CFR 5.21. This section sets out the requirements for Federal mutual savings associations when adopting or amending the charters or bylaws. Bylaws 12 CFR 5.22. This section sets out the requirements for stock Federal savings associations when adopting or amending the charters or bylaws. Board of directors; bylaws 12 CFR 145.121. This section requires Federal savings associations to indemnify directors, officers, and employees. Board of directors 12 CFR 163.33. This section sets out requirements for the composition of the board of directors of a Federal savings association. Board of directors 12 CFR 163.47. This section sets out requirements for employee pension plans of Federal savings associations, which may be amended or terminated by the board of directors. Board of directors 12 CFR 163.200. This section sets expectations for the directors, officers, and employees of Federal savings associations, particularly as it relates to conflicts of interest. Board of directors 12 CFR 163.201. This section sets expectations for the directors and officers of Federal savings associations, particularly as it relates to corporate opportunity. Board of directors 12 CFR 163.172(c), (d), and (e). These provisions establish requirements for directors and management of Federal savings associations to oversee and keep records pertaining to derivatives transactions. Board of directors 12 CFR 163.176. This section requires the boards of directors of Federal savings associations to participate in interest rate risk management. Board of directors 12 CFR 160.130. This section prohibits directors and officers from receiving loan procurement fees. Shareholders (members) 12 CFR part 144. This part sets out rules for communications between members of Federal mutual savings associations. The national bank laws relating to shareholder communications do not adequately address the unique needs and rights of Federal mutual savings association members. Shareholders (members) 12 CFR part 169. This part sets out rules for proxies in the mutual context. The national bank laws relating to proxies do not adequately address the unique needs and rights of Federal mutual savings association members. Distribution of dividends 12 CFR 5.55. This section sets out requirements for capital distributions by Federal savings associations, including distributions of dividends. The entire section would apply to a covered savings association. Consolidation 12 CFR 5.33. This section sets out requirements for business combinations involving a national bank or Federal savings association, including consolidation. Although many aspects of this section are identical for national banks and Federal savings associations, where there are differences, the Federal savings association requirements would apply to a covered savings association. Merger 12 CFR 5.33. This section sets out requirements for business combinations involving a national bank or Federal savings association, including mergers. Although many aspects of this section are identical for national banks and Federal savings associations, where there are differences, the Federal savings association requirements would apply to a covered savings association. Dissolution 12 CFR 5.48. This section sets out requirements for voluntary liquidation of a national bank or Federal savings association. Although many aspects of this section are identical for national banks and Federal savings associations, where there are differences, the Federal savings association requirements would apply to a covered savings association. Conversion 12 CFR 5.25. This section sets out requirements for conversion from a national bank or Federal savings association to a state bank or state savings association. Although many aspects of this section are identical for national banks and Federal savings associations, where there are differences, the Federal savings association requirements would apply to a covered savings association. Conversion 12 CFR part 192. This part sets out requirements for savings associations converting from mutual to stock form. Conservatorship 12 U.S.C. 1464(d) and 1821(c). The statutes set forth the authorities for the appointment of a conservator for Federal savings associations. Receivership 12 U.S.C. 1464(d) and 1821(c). The statutes set forth the authorities for the appointment of a receiver for Federal savings associations.

    These are the types of provisions that the OCC would expect to identify in guidance as governance-related provisions but would not expect to include in the text of the rule. The OCC invites comment on whether the particular provisions identified earlier in this preamble should be considered provisions of law that relate to governance (including incorporation, bylaws, boards of directors, shareholders, and distribution of dividends), consolidation, merger, dissolution, conversion (including conversion to a stock bank or to another charter), conservatorship, and receivership and whether there are other provisions of law that the OCC should identify. The OCC also invites comment on whether these provisions should be specifically identified in the rule rather than in guidance.

    Under section 5A(d)(3) of HOLA, the OCC also has the discretion to identify, by rule, additional areas where Federal savings association laws apply to covered savings associations. There are three categories of laws for which this treatment would be appropriate. The first category consists of laws that allow Federal mutual savings associations to conduct business as mutual institutions. For example, 12 CFR 163.74 sets out rules for mutual capital certificates. There is no comparable provision for national banks. Likewise, 12 CFR 163.76 prohibits a Federal savings association from selling equity securities in its offices, unless the sale involves stock sold to convert the savings association from the mutual to stock form. Sale of conversion stock in offices can promote a widespread distribution of conversion stock as required by the stock conversion regulations (see 12 CFR part 192) and help facilitate the success of a stock conversion. Because a similar rule does not exist for national banks, under the proposed rule, the requirements of 12 CFR 163.76 will continue to apply to the operations of a covered savings association in the event the savings association seeks to convert from the mutual to stock form of organization. The OCC proposes to continue to apply these types of Federal savings association requirements to covered savings associations.

    The second area consists of rules that set out procedural and operational requirements for Federal savings associations but that do not result in substantively different outcomes for Federal savings associations and national banks. The OCC proposes to apply Federal savings association rules that set forth procedural and operational requirements to covered savings associations, because Federal savings associations have already developed the policies, procedures, and expertise to comply with the Federal savings association procedures.

    The following chart sets out rules that set forth procedural and operational requirements:

    Applicable Federal savings association rule
  • (applies to covered savings associations)
  • Comparable national bank rule (does not apply to covered savings associations)
    12 CFR parts 108 and 109, adjudicative proceedings 12 CFR part 19. 12 CFR part 112, investigative proceedings 12 CFR part 19. 12 CFR part 151, recordkeeping and confirmation for securities transactions 12 CFR part 12. 12 CFR 5.56, inclusion of subordinated debt securities and mandatorily redeemable preferred stock of Federal savings associations as supplementary capital 12 CFR 5.47. 12 CFR 5.45, increases in permanent capital 12 CFR 5.56. 12 CFR part 168, security procedures 12 CFR part 21, subpart A.

    Finally, the OCC proposes to apply Federal savings association provisions where there is a specific Federal savings association rule with no corresponding specific national bank rule, but the Federal savings association rule sets out requirements that are consistent with supervisory expectations for national banks or is substantially similar to an interagency rule. For example, 12 CFR part 162 implements a statutory requirement in HOLA that requires Federal savings associations to use generally accepted accounting principles. Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act at 12 U.S.C. 1831m and its implementing regulation at 12 CFR 363, all insured depository institutions are required to use generally accepted accounting principles. Similarly, 12 CFR 163.170(c) sets out expectations for maintenance of records with which the OCC also would expect a national bank to comply as a matter of course. The proposed rule also would treat covered savings associations as Federal savings associations for purposes of 12 CFR part 128, which sets out nondiscrimination requirements, and 12 CFR 163.27, which prohibits inaccurate or misrepresentative advertising.

    The OCC invites comment on whether any of the provisions of Federal savings association law proposed earlier in this preamble to be applicable to covered savings associations should not apply to covered savings associations. The OCC also invites comment on whether the OCC should exercise its discretion under section 5A(d)(3) of HOLA to identify in this rule additional areas in which Federal savings association laws, rather than national bank laws, should apply to covered savings associations.

    The OCC recognizes that the areas described earlier in this preamble may not be the only areas where it would be appropriate to apply provisions of Federal savings association laws to covered savings associations. Novel and unforeseen situations may arise in which it would be appropriate to apply a provision of Federal savings association law not identified earlier in this preamble to a covered savings association. The OCC solicits comment on whether it would be helpful to include a mechanism in this rule that would allow the OCC, in the future, to identify additional provisions of Federal savings association law that apply to covered savings associations, without amending this rule. Such a mechanism might consist of publishing an interpretive letter or updating a particular OCC publication.

    In areas not specifically described earlier in this preamble, the proposed rule contemplates that national bank laws would apply to a covered savings association. For example, a covered savings association seeking to establish a de novo branch or close an existing branch would be subject to the statutes and regulations that govern the establishment or closing of a national bank branch.18 Similarly, the requirement for employment agreements is not an area identified earlier in this preamble, so the Federal savings association rules in 12 CFR 163.39 would not apply.

    18 See the discussion of section 5A(e) of HOLA later in this preamble, which allows a covered savings association to continue to operate branches it operated on the date its election is approved.

    The proposed rule also would require a covered savings association to comply with national bank law with respect to subsidiaries. Section 5A(f)(2) of HOLA directs the OCC to issue rules that require Federal savings associations making an election to identify “specific assets and subsidiaries” that do not conform to the requirements for assets and subsidiaries of a national bank. Section 5A(f)(3) requires that the OCC's rules establish a transition process for bringing these assets and subsidiaries into conformance with the requirements for a national bank. This suggests that Congress may have intended to prohibit covered savings associations from retaining assets or subsidiaries, such as service corporations, in which a national bank would not be authorized to hold, operate, or invest. Consequently, the proposed rule would require a covered savings association to comply with national bank laws for purposes of forming new subsidiaries. Under § 101.4(a)(1) of the proposed rule, 12 CFR 5.34, 5.35, and 5.39, which respectively set out requirements for the formation of operating subsidiaries, bank service companies, and financial subsidiaries by national banks, would apply to covered savings associations. Similarly, 12 CFR 5.36, which addresses other equity investments by national banks, would apply to covered savings associations. Because 12 CFR 5.59, addressing Federal savings association service corporations, is not listed in § 101.4(a)(2) as a provision of Federal savings association law that continues to apply to covered savings associations, 12 CFR 5.59 would not apply.

    Service corporations of Federal savings associations have been authorized to engage in a range of activities. Some of those activities are permissible for a national bank and some are not. Under the proposed rule, both subsidiaries and those activities conducted in a subsidiary that are impermissible for a national bank would be impermissible for a covered savings association. However, the OCC recognizes that a prohibition on operating a service corporation could have a significant effect on a covered savings association. The OCC invites comment on whether the rule should allow covered savings associations to continue to operate a service corporation, and under what conditions, if the service corporation is engaged only in activities that would be permissible for a national bank.

    The proposed rule would not apply section 5(i)(4) of HOLA to covered savings associations. Section 5(i)(4) of HOLA provides that Federal savings banks chartered prior to October 15, 1982, may continue to make any investment or engage in any activity not otherwise authorized under section 5 to the degree they were permitted to do so as a Federal savings bank prior to October 15, 1982.19 In addition, any Federal savings bank in existence on August 9, 1989, that had been formerly organized as a mutual savings bank under State law may continue to make any investment or engage in any activity to the degree it was authorized to do so as a mutual savings bank under State law. Some of these investments and activities, although permissible for certain Federal savings associations, would not be permissible for a national bank. The proposed rule would not apply section 5(i)(4) of HOLA (or the implementing regulations at 12 CFR part 143) to a covered savings association, meaning that a Federal savings association with investments and activities grandfathered under that section would be required to divest any of those investments and discontinue any of those activities that would not be permissible for a national bank.

    19 These institutions also receive grandfathered treatment under section 18(m) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(m)).

    The proposed rule would require a covered savings association to comply with the national bank public welfare investment limits rather than the Federal savings association community development limits. National banks are subject to a public welfare investment limit of 15 percent of their capital and surplus, consistent with 12 U.S.C. 24 (Eleventh) and 12 CFR part 24. The community development investment limits for Federal savings associations are set out in 12 CFR 160.36 (less than or equal to the greater of 1 percent of the association's capital or $250,000); section 5(c)(3)(A) of HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1464(c)(3)(A)) and 12 CFR 160.30, as interpreted by the Office of Thrift Supervision's May 10, 1995, Letter Regarding Community Development investments (aggregate community development loans and equity investments may not exceed 5 percent of the association's total assets, and, within that limitation, the association's aggregate equity investments may not exceed 2 percent of its total assets); and 12 CFR 5.59 (allowing the association to invest up to 3 percent of its assets in service corporations but providing that any amount exceeding 2 percent must serve “primarily community, inner-city, or community development purposes”). If a Federal savings association uses all or a portion of the investment limits permitted under the three legal authorities, it is possible that its aggregate community development investments would exceed the investment limits for national banks. As a result, applying national bank limitations to covered savings associations for purposes of public welfare and community development investments could require a Federal savings association that elects to operate as a covered savings association to divest some of its community development investments.20 Divesting community development investments could have a negative impact on a covered savings association's community, and divestment may make it more difficult for the covered savings association to meet its requirements under the CRA. Given these potential consequences, the OCC invites comment on whether covered savings associations should be treated as Federal savings associations for purposes of public welfare and community development investments.

    20 For example, a national bank with total consolidated assets of $250 million would be subject to a public welfare investment limit of $4,500,000 (15 percent of its capital and surplus if capital is 12 percent). A Federal savings association of the same size would be permitted to invest $300,000 under 12 CFR 160.63, $5,000,000 under 12 CFR 160.30, and $2,500,000 under 12 CFR 5.59, for a total of $12,300,000. If that Federal savings association elected to become a covered savings association, it would be required to divest $7,800,000 of its community development investments to comply with the public welfare investment limit for national banks.

    Paragraph (b) of § 101.4 of the proposed rule provides that a covered savings association may continue to operate any branch or agency that the covered savings association operated on the effective date of the election. This provision implements section 5A(e) of HOLA.

    Section 5A(g) of HOLA provides that a covered savings association can continue to operate as a covered savings association, even if its total consolidated assets grow to more than $20 billion. Although this principle is not explicitly set out in the proposed rule, the OCC would apply it when supervising covered savings associations.

    101.5 Nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities. This section establishes a transition process for bringing nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities into conformance with the requirements for national banks.

    Paragraph (a) of § 101.5 would require a covered savings association to divest, conform, or discontinue nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities at the earliest time that prudent judgment dictates but not later than two years after the effective date of an election. This requirement is consistent with paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 5A(f) of HOLA, which set out an expectation that covered savings associations will bring assets and subsidiaries that do not conform to the requirements for national banks into conformance with the requirements for national banks.

    In keeping with the goal of maintaining a level playing field among OCC-supervised institutions, the proposed rule would require a covered savings association to divest, conform, or discontinue nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities at the earliest time prudent judgment dictates. Recognizing that circumstances may occasionally dictate that immediate divestment, conformance, or discontinuance is not prudent, the proposed rule would provide up to two years for such action. The two-year period for divesting, conforming, or discontinuing nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities is the same period that the OCC would generally allow for a Federal savings association converting to a national bank. This period should, in most cases, provide a covered savings association with sufficient lead-time to minimize potential undue financial harm from divesting, conforming, or discontinuing nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities. This period also is intended to be short enough to ensure that covered savings associations are not allowed to gain an advantage by holding or operating assets or subsidiaries or conducting activities that would not be permissible for a national bank. The OCC invites comment on whether a different period, such as the more general “reasonable time” standard set out in the conversion rules at 12 CFR 5.24, should apply.

    Paragraph (a) of this section also provides that the OCC may require a covered savings association to submit a plan to divest, conform, or discontinue a nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity. Such a plan would assist OCC supervisory staff in assessing compliance with the proposed rule.

    Paragraph (b) of this section would allow the OCC to grant a covered savings association extensions of not more than two years each up to a maximum of eight years if the OCC determines that: (1) The covered savings association has made a good faith effort to divest, conform, or discontinue the nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, or activities; (2) divestiture, conformance, or discontinuance would have a material adverse financial effect on the covered savings association; and (3) retention or continuation of the nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, or activities is consistent with the safe and sound operation of the covered savings association. This paragraph is intended to provide the OCC with flexibility where a covered savings association, despite its best efforts, is unable to divest or conform assets or discontinue activities within the two-year period. For example, in cases where a covered savings association has a service corporation that owns nonconforming real estate in a market experiencing a significant and prolonged lack of demand, the OCC could grant an extension to allow market conditions to improve rather than requiring the covered savings association to sell the real estate within two years and take a loss on the property, provided the standards set forth in paragraph (b) are satisfied. The proposed rule limits the number of extensions to ensure that a covered savings association cannot retain or continue a nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity for more than 10 years past the effective date of an election. The 10-year period in the proposed rule is consistent with the 10-year limitation on possession of OREO by national banks under 12 U.S.C. 29. The limitation is intended to ensure that covered savings associations do not have the ability to retain or continue indefinitely subsidiaries, assets, or activities that would not be permissible for a national bank.

    The OCC invites comment on whether there are any situations in which it would be appropriate for a covered savings association to retain a nonconforming subsidiary or asset or continue a nonconforming activity for longer than 10 years. What characteristics do these subsidiaries, assets, or activities have that would make it appropriate for them to be treated differently than other nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, or activities (for example, would conforming result in particularly severe adverse consequences)? If the rule permits a subsidiary, asset, or activity to be retained or continued for longer than 10 years, should the OCC limit the ability of a covered savings association to expand the subsidiary, asset, or activity?

    Paragraph (c) of this section of the proposed rule provides that Federal savings association law would continue to apply to nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities during the period before the covered savings association divests, conforms, or discontinues the subsidiary, asset, or activity. This provision is intended to clarify the treatment of nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities during the transition period.

    101.6 Termination. This section would establish standards and procedures to allow a covered savings association to terminate an election after an appropriate period of time.

    Under § 101.6(a) of the proposed rule, a covered savings association may request to terminate an election after an appropriate period of time, as determined by the OCC. The OCC would generally view an appropriate period of time to be relatively soon after an election takes effect (for example, 60 or 90 days). However, the OCC might determine that a longer period of time is appropriate where there is evidence that a covered savings association is attempting to use a termination to evade the requirements or purposes of section 5A of HOLA, such as the requirement to divest, conform, or discontinue nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities.

    Paragraph (b) of this section establishes procedures for terminating an election that are intended to be the mirror image of the procedures for making an election, with some exceptions noted below. As with an election, a covered savings association that wishes to terminate an election would be required to notify the OCC of the termination in writing. The notice would need to be signed by a duly authorized officer. A covered savings association would also be required to provide the OCC with a list of nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities—that is, subsidiaries, assets, and activities (e.g., investments in excess of HOLA limits) that would not be permissible for a Federal savings association. The same effective date timelines and requirements would apply to a request for termination as apply to a notice of election. The OCC could notify a covered savings association that it is not eligible to terminate an election if the covered savings association is not an “eligible savings association” within the meaning of 12 CFR 5.3(g).

    A savings association terminating an election would have the same period of time after submitting a notice of termination to divest, conform, or discontinue nonconforming subsidiaries, assets and activities. Generally, this period of time would not exceed two years, but a savings association could request extensions of this time in the manner described in § 101.5 of the proposed rule. A Federal savings association that has terminated its election would not be permitted to retain or continue any subsidiaries, assets, or activities that would be permissible for a national bank but not for a Federal savings association. This includes lending activities that would cause the savings association to violate the QTL test.

    Unlike an election, a covered savings association wishing to terminate an election would not be required to identify branches or agencies in operation at the time of termination.

    Paragraph (c) of this section specifies that, once a termination takes effect, a Federal savings association is subject to the same provisions of law that apply to other Federal savings associations that are not covered savings associations.

    101.7 Reelection. This section allows a covered savings association to make a subsequent election after terminating an election.

    Under the proposed rule, a Federal savings association that wishes to make a subsequent election after terminating a previous election would be subject to the same requirements as a Federal savings association making an election for the first time.

    However, a Federal savings association that previously made and terminated an election to operate as a covered savings association would be required to wait five years after the termination before making a subsequent election. The purpose of this cooling-off period is to prevent institutions from taking advantage of a potential overlap between transition periods for divesting nonconforming subsidiaries and assets and discontinuing nonconforming assets. Under the proposed rule, the OCC has the authority to waive the five-year period for good cause.

    101.8 Evasion. This section of the proposed rule provides that the OCC may disapprove a notice of election, termination, or reelection if the OCC has reasonable cause to believe the notice is made for the purpose of evading § 101.5 of the proposed rule, including as that section applies to a termination. For example, the OCC might disapprove a covered savings association's notice of termination if it determined the covered savings association was attempting to terminate to take unfair advantage of an overlap between the period to divest, conform, or discontinue nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities provided for an election and the period to divest, conform, or discontinue nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities provided for a termination.

    III. Request for Comments

    The OCC encourages comment on any aspect of this proposal and especially on those issues noted in this preamble.

    IV. Regulatory Analysis Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., (RFA), requires an agency, in connection with a proposed rule, to prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the rule on small entities (defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for purposes of the RFA to include commercial banks and savings institutions with total assets of $550 million or less and trust companies with total revenue of $38.5 million or less) or to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The OCC currently supervises approximately 886 small entities, of which 258 are Federal savings associations.21 Because the proposed rule does not contain any new recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements, we anticipate that it will not impose costs on OCC-supervised institutions unless they elect to operate as a covered savings association.22 Therefore, the OCC certifies that the proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of OCC-supervised small entities.

    21 We base our estimate of the number of small entities on the SBA's size thresholds for commercial banks and savings institutions, and trust companies, which are $550 million and $38.5 million, respectively. Consistent with the General Principles of Affiliation 13 CFR 121.103(a), we count the assets of affiliated financial institutions when determining if we should classify an OCC-supervised institution a small entity. We use December 31, 2017, to determine size because a “financial institution's assets are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year.” See footnote 8 of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Table of Size Standards.

    22 We believe that costs associated with electing to be treated as a covered savings association will be minimal and that Federal savings associations will only choose to be treated as a covered savings associations if the benefits outweigh the costs.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Consistent with the UMRA, our review considers whether the mandates imposed by the proposed rule may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, in any one year. The proposed rule does not impose new mandates. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed rule will not result in an expenditure of $100 million or more annually by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,23 the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid OMB control number. The OCC has submitted the information collection requirements imposed by this proposed rule to OMB for review.

    23 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    A Federal savings association seeking to operate as a covered savings association would be required under § 101.3(a) to submit a notice making an election to the appropriate OCC supervisory office that: (1) Is signed by a duly authorized officer of the Federal savings association; (2) identifies the branches and agencies that will be in operation on the effective date of the election that have not been the subject of an application or notice under 12 CFR part 5; and (3) identifies and describes any nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, or activities that the Federal savings association holds, operates, or conducts at the time its submits its notice.

    Under § 101.5(a), the OCC may require a covered savings association to submit a plan to divest, conform, or discontinue a nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity.

    A covered savings association may submit a notice to terminate its election to operate as a covered savings association under § 101.6 using similar procedures to those for an election. In addition, after a period of five years, a Federal savings association that has terminated its election to operate as a covered savings association may submit a notice under § 101.7 to reelect using the same procedures used for its original election.

    Title: Covered Savings Association Notice.

    OMB Control No.: To be assigned by OMB.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.

    Election, Termination, Reelection:

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 295.

    Estimated Burden per Respondent: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 590 hours.

    Plan to Divest:

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.

    Estimated Burden per Respondent: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

    Total Annual Burden: 640 hours.

    In addition, the OCC will file a nonmaterial change at the final rule stage to amend its Licensing Manual Collection (OMB Control No. 1557-0014) to increase the respondent count to reflect additional filings from Federal savings associations.

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimates of the burden of the collections of information;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

    Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRI Act),24 in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, the OCC will consider, consistent with the principles of safety and soundness and the public interest: (1) Any administrative burdens that the proposed rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions and customers of depository institutions, and (2) the benefits of the proposed rule. The OCC requests comment on any administrative burdens that the proposed rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and their customers, and the benefits of the proposed rule that the OCC should consider in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for a final rule.

    24 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 101

    Administrative practice and procedure, Assets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

    Authority and Issuance For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a and 5412(b)(2)(B), chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding Part 101 as follows: PART 101—COVERED SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS Secs. 101.1 Authority and purposes. 101.2 Definitions and computation of time. 101.3 Procedures and standard of review. 101.4 Treatment of covered savings associations. 101.5 Nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities. 101.6 Termination. 101.7 Reelection. 101.8 Evasion. Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 93a, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1464a, and 5412(b)(2)(B).

    § 101.1 Authority and purposes.

    (a) Authority. This part is issued pursuant to sections 3, 4, 5, and 5A of the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) (12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, and 1464a), section 5239A of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 93a), and section 312(b)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5412(b)(2)(B)).

    (b) Purposes. This part establishes standards and procedures for a Federal savings association to elect to operate as a covered savings association pursuant to section 5A of the HOLA and clarifies the requirements for the treatment of covered savings associations. It also establishes standards and procedures to terminate an election and to reelect to operate as a covered savings association.

    § 101.2 Definitions and computation of time.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this part:

    (1) Appropriate OCC supervisory office means the OCC office that is responsible for the supervision of a Federal savings association, as described in subpart A of 12 CFR part 4.

    (2) Covered savings association means a Federal savings association that has made an election that is in effect in accordance with § 101.3(b).

    (3) Effective date of the election means, with respect to a Federal savings association, the date on which the Federal savings association's election to operate as a covered savings association takes effect pursuant to § 101.3(b).

    (4) Nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity:

    (i) With respect to a covered savings association:

    (A) Means any subsidiary, asset, or activity that is not permissible for a covered savings association or, if permissible, is being operated, held, or conducted in a manner that exceeds the limit applicable to a covered savings association; and

    (B) Includes an investment in a subsidiary or other entity that is not permissible for a covered savings association; and

    (ii) With respect to a Federal savings association that has terminated an election to operate as a covered savings association:

    (A) Means any subsidiary, asset, or activity that is not permissible for a Federal savings association or, if permissible, is being operated, held, or conducted in a manner that exceeds the limit applicable to a Federal savings association; and

    (B) Includes an investment in a subsidiary or other entity that is not permissible for a Federal savings association.

    (5) Similarly located national bank means, with respect to a covered savings association, a national bank that has its main office situated in the same location as the home office of the covered savings association.

    (b) Computation of time. The OCC will compute a period of days for purposes of this part in accordance with 12 CFR 5.12.

    § 101.3 Procedures and standard of review.

    (a) Notice—(1) Submission. A Federal savings association that had total consolidated assets of $20 billion or less as of December 31, 2017, as reported on the Federal savings association's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for December 31, 2017, may make an election to operate as a covered savings association by submitting a notice to the appropriate OCC supervisory office.

    (2) Contents. The notice shall:

    (i) Be signed by a duly authorized officer of the Federal savings association;

    (ii) Identify each branch or agency that the Federal savings association operates or will operate on the effective date of the election that has not been the subject of an application or notice under 12 CFR part 5; and

    (iii) Identify and describe each nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity that the Federal savings association operates, holds, or conducts at the time it submits the notice, each of which must be divested, conformed, or discontinued pursuant to § 101.5.

    (b) Effective date of the election—(1) In general. An election to operate as a covered savings association shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date on which the OCC receives the notice submitted under paragraph (a) of this section, unless the OCC notifies the Federal savings association that it is not eligible in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.

    (2) Earlier notice. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the OCC may notify a Federal savings association in writing prior to the expiration of 60 days that it is eligible to make an election, and the election shall take effect on the date the OCC so notifies the Federal savings association.

    (c) Federal savings association not eligible. Prior to the expiration of 60 days after the date on which the OCC receives the notice submitted under paragraph (a) of this section, the OCC may notify a Federal savings association in writing that it is not eligible to make an election to operate as a covered savings association pursuant to this part if the Federal savings association is not an eligible savings association as that term is defined in 12 CFR 5.3(g). If the Federal savings association is subject to a cease and desist order, consent order, formal written agreement, or Prompt Corrective Action directive, the Federal savings association is not eligible to make an election to operate as a covered savings association unless the OCC informs the Federal savings association in writing that it may be treated as an eligible savings association for purposes of this part.

    § 101.4 Treatment of covered savings associations.

    (a) In general

    [OPTION A: (1) Treatment as a national bank. Except as provided in this section, a covered savings association shall comply with the same provisions of law that would apply to a similarly located national bank and shall not be required to comply with the provisions of law that apply to Federal savings associations.]

    [OPTION B: (1) National bank activities. Except as provided in this section, a covered savings association may engage in any activity that is permissible for a similarly located national bank to engage in as part of, or incidental to, the business of banking, or explicitly authorized by statute for a national bank, subject to the same authorization, terms, and conditions that would apply to a similarly located national bank, as determined by the OCC for purposes of this part.]

    (2) Treatment as a Federal savings association. A covered savings association shall continue to comply with the provisions of law that apply to Federal savings associations for purposes of:

    (i) Governance (including incorporation, bylaws, boards of directors, shareholders, and distribution of dividends);

    (ii) Consolidation, merger, dissolution, conversion (including conversion to a stock bank or to another charter), conservatorship, and receivership;

    (iii) Provisions of law applicable only to Federal mutual savings associations;

    (iv) Offers and sales of securities at an office of a Federal savings association;

    (v) Inclusion of subordinated debt securities and mandatorily redeemable preferred stock as Federal savings association supplementary (tier 2) capital;

    (vi) Increases in permanent capital of a Federal stock savings association;

    (vii) Rules of practice and procedure in adjudicatory proceedings;

    (viii) Rules for investigative proceedings and formal examination proceedings;

    (ix) Removals, suspensions, and prohibitions where a crime is charged or proven;

    (x) Security procedures;

    (xi) Maintenance of records and recordkeeping and confirmation requirements for securities transactions;

    (xii) Nondiscrimination; and

    (xiii) Advertising.

    (b) Existing branches. A covered savings association may continue to operate any branch or agency that the covered savings association operated on the effective date of the election.

    § 101.5 Nonconforming subsidiaries, assets, and activities.

    (a) Divestiture, conformance, or discontinuation. A covered savings association shall divest, conform, or discontinue a nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity at the earliest time that prudent judgment dictates but not later than two years after the effective date of the election. The OCC may require a covered savings association to submit a plan to divest, conform, or discontinue a nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity.

    (b) Extension. The OCC may grant a covered savings association extensions of not more than two years each up to a maximum of eight years if the OCC determines that:

    (1) The covered savings association has made a good faith effort to divest, conform, or discontinue the nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity;

    (2) Divestiture, conformance, or discontinuation would have a material adverse financial effect on the covered savings association; and

    (3) Retention or continuation of the nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity is consistent with the safe and sound operation of the covered savings association.

    (c) Applicable law. Until a covered savings association divests, conforms, or discontinues a nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity, the nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity shall continue to be subject to the same provisions of law that applied to the nonconforming subsidiary, asset, or activity on the day before the effective date of the election.

    § 101.6 Termination.

    (a) Termination. A covered savings association may terminate its election to operate as a covered savings association, after an appropriate period of time as determined by the OCC, by submitting a notice to the appropriate OCC supervisory office.

    (b) Procedures. A covered savings association wishing to terminate its election shall comply with, and shall be subject to, the provisions of §§ 101.2, 101.3, and 101.5, except that:

    (1) The provisions of §§ 101.3 and 101.5 shall be applied by substituting “covered savings association” for “Federal savings association” and “Federal savings association” for “covered savings association” each place those terms appear in those sections;

    (2) Section 101.3(a)(1) and (2)(ii) shall not apply; and

    (3) Sections 101.3 and 101.5 shall be applied by substituting “effective date of the termination” for “effective date of the election.”

    (c) Applicable law. On and after the effective date of the termination, a Federal savings association that has terminated its election to operate as a covered savings association shall be subject to the same provisions of law as a Federal savings association that has not made an election under this part.

    § 101.7 Reelection.

    (a) Reelection. A Federal savings association that has terminated its election to operate as a covered savings association may submit a notice to reelect to operate as a covered savings association, if at least five years have elapsed since the effective date of the termination. Upon determining that good cause exists, the OCC may permit a Federal savings association to reelect to operate as a covered savings association prior to the expiration of the five-year period.

    (b) Procedures and treatment. A Federal savings association reelecting to operate as a covered savings association shall comply with, and shall be subject to, the provisions of this part as if it were making an election for the first time.

    § 101.8 Evasion.

    The OCC may disapprove any notice submitted pursuant to this part if the OCC has reasonable cause to believe the notice is made for the purpose of evading § 101.5, including as that section applies to a covered savings association terminating an election.

    Dated: September 10, 2018. Joseph M. Otting, Comptroller of the Currency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-19955 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0796; Product Identifier 2018-NM-104-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of drainage holes on the belly fairing forward and middle access panels being obstructed with sealant. This proposed AD would require inspecting for and removing all sealant blocking the drainage holes on the belly fairing forward and middle access panels. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0796; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7323; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0796; Product Identifier 2018-NM-104-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2018-14, dated May 1, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Bombardier Aerospace (BA) has informed Transport Canada that the drainage holes on the belly fairing forward and middle access panels may be obstructed with sealant. The purpose of the drainage holes is to allow for drainage of a limited quantity of fluids due to any leaks, should they occur. This condition, if not corrected, may prevent the timely detection of fluid leakage that could lead to the accumulation of flammable fluids/vapors, beyond the design capacity of the belly fairing venting provisions [which could ignite if an ignition source (i.e., spark, static discharge, heat, etc.) is present].

    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the removal of all sealant blocking the drainage holes on the belly fairing forward and middle access panels.

    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-2018-0796.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued the following service information for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes.

    • Service Bulletin 700-53-051, dated May 17, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin 700-53-6009, dated May 17, 2017.

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued the following service information for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes.

    • Service Bulletin 700-1A11-53-026, dated May 17, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin 700-53-5010, dated May 17, 2017.

    This service information describes procedures for inspecting for and removing sealant blocking the drainage holes on the belly fairing forward and middle access panels. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models and configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 376 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 per airplane $0 $510 $191,760
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0796; Product Identifier 2018-NM-104-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 2, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9001 through 9707 inclusive, 9709 through 9717 inclusive, 9719 through 9726 inclusive, 9728, 9730, 9732 through 9734 inclusive, 9736 through 9740 inclusive, 9742 through 9745 inclusive, 9749, 9751, 9757, and 9998.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of drainage holes on the belly fairing forward and middle access panels being obstructed with sealant. We are issuing this AD to address fluid leakage that could lead to the accumulation of flammable fluids/vapors, beyond the design capacity of the belly fairing venting provisions, which could ignite if an ignition source (i.e., spark, static discharge, heat, etc.) is present.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Sealant Removal

    Within 375 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection for and remove all sealant blocking the drainage holes on the belly fairing forward and middle access panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    EP18SE18.005 (h) 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 ACO Branch, 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 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.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2018-14, dated May 1, 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-2018-0796.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516 228 7323; fax 516 794 5531; email [email protected]

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 7, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20098 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0833; Product Identifier 2018-CE-031-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Weatherly Aircraft Company AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Weatherly Aircraft Company (Weatherly) Models 201, 201A, 201B, 201C, 620, 620A, 620B, 620B-TG, and 620TP airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the center wing and outer wing spar hinge brackets due to corrosion pitting. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the wing hinge brackets, pins, and wing spar structure with repair or replacement of parts as necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Weatherly Aircraft Company, 2034 West Potomac Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60622-3152; telephone: (424) 772-1812; email: [email protected] You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2018-0833; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mike Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Suite 100, Lakewood, California, 90712; phone: (562) 627-5325; fax: (562) 627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0833; Product Identifier 2018-CE-018-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

    Discussion

    In 2015, we were notified of a fatal accident caused by the in-flight structural failure of a wing on a Weatherly Model 620B airplane. The accident investigation found multiple fatigue cracks in the center wing front spar lower hinge bracket. As a result of operator inspections, a cracked hinge bracket in the center wing to outer wing joint was also reported on a different airplane. The hinge bracket from the second report had completely failed, and the airplane was relying on the second failsafe hinge bracket to carry the wing loads. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the wing front spar lower hinge brackets and lead to in-flight separation of the wing with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    To correct this unsafe condition, we issued AD 2016-07-11 (81 FR 18461, March 31, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-11”), which requires a one-time visual inspection of the center and outer wing front spar lower hinge brackets for cracks and corrosion and corrective action as necessary. AD 2016-07-11 also requires sending a report of the inspection results to the FAA.

    Since we issued AD 2016-07-11, Weatherly has developed improved center wing hinge brackets manufactured from corrosion resistant material. Weatherly also issued new service information for repetitive visual and detailed inspections. Since the cause of the fatigue cracks were attributed to corrosion pits on the accident airplane, we propose to issue this new AD to require those repetitive visual and detailed inspection actions.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Weatherly 201/620 Service Bulletin SB-201/620-18001, Revision C, dated May 21, 2018. The service information describes procedures for initial and repetitive inspections of the wing hinge brackets, pins, and wing spar structure for corrosion and/or cracks with repair or replacement as necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require repetitive visual and detailed inspections of the wing hinge brackets, pins, and wing spar structure for corrosion and/or cracks with replacement of parts as necessary.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 94 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Detailed inspection for corrosion and cracks with wing removed 50 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,250 per inspection cycle Not applicable $4,250 per inspection cycle $399,500 per inspection cycle. Visual inspection for corrosion with bolts and pin caps removed 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 per inspection cycle Not applicable $340 per inspection cycle $31,960 per inspection cycle.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements.

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost (includes hardware) Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement of the assembly if all parts are found with corrosion 0 work-hours since part is already removed from airplane $10,500 $10,500

    The on-condition costs reflects the cost to replace the entire assembly. The scope of damage found in the required inspection and which specific parts need replaced could vary significantly from airplane to airplane. We have no way of determining how much damage may be found on each airplane or the cost to repair damaged parts on each airplane or the number of airplanes that may require repair.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Weatherly Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0833; Product Identifier 2018-CE-031-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 2, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Weatherly Aircraft Company (Weatherly) Models 201, 201A, 201B, 201C, 620, 620A, 620B, 620B-TG, and 620TP airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 5740, Wing Attach Hinge Fitting.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found on the center wing front spar lower hinge bracket. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracks on the wing hinge brackets and pin assemblies. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the wing front and rear spar lower hinge brackets and lead to in-flight separation of the wing with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Detailed Inspection

    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5 years, inspect each center and outer wing spar and spar cap, wing hinge bracket, and hardware for corrosion and cracks by following paragraphs 7 through 22 under the Detailed Inspection section in Weatherly 201/620 Service Bulletin SB-201/620-18001, Revision C, dated May 21, 2018 (Weatherly SB-201/620-18001, Revision C), except this AD does not require you to contact Weatherly.

    (2) Serial numbers (S/N) 1155 and 1558 have already had the initial detailed inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD and only the 5-year repetitive detailed inspections are required for these airplanes.

    (3) If any corrosion or cracking is found during any of the inspections required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair or replace any parts with corrosion and cracking as specified in paragraphs 7 through 13 under the Detailed Inspection section in Weatherly SB-201/620-18001, Revision C.

    (h) Visual Inspection

    Within 12 months after the initial detailed inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, visually inspect each forward and rear wing hinge bracket attachment pins, bolts, removed caps, spacers, and hardware for corrosion by following paragraphs 4 through 7 under the Visual Inspection section in Weatherly SB-201/620-18001, Revision C. If any corrosion is found during any of the inspections required by this paragraph, before further flight, inspect further, repair, and/or replace any parts with corrosion as specified in paragraphs 5 and 6 under the Visual Inspection section in Weatherly SB-201/620-18001, Revision C. You may perform a detailed inspection in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD instead of any visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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.

    (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.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Mike Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Suite 100, Lakewood, California, 90712; phone: (562) 627-5325; fax: (562) 627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Weatherly Aircraft Company, 2034 West Potomac Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60622-3152; telephone: (424) 772-1812; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 7, 2018. Melvin J. Johnson, Aircraft Certification Service, Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation Division, AIR-601.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20002 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 172 [Docket No. FDA-2018-F-3230] Oakshire Naturals LP; Filing of Food Additive Petition AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Oakshire Naturals LP, proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of vitamin D2 mushroom powder as a nutrient supplement in specific food categories.

    DATES:

    The food additive petition was filed on July 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For access to the docket to read background documents or 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:

    Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1071.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), we are giving notice that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 8A4821), submitted by Oakshire Naturals LP, 295 Thompson Road, P.O. Box 388, Kennett Square, PA 19348. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in part 172 (21 CFR part 172) Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption to provide for the safe use of vitamin D2 mushroom powder, produced by exposing homogenized edible mushrooms to ultraviolet light, as a nutrient supplement in: (1) Foods to which vitamin D2, vitamin D3, and vitamin D2 bakers yeast are currently allowed to be added under 21 CFR 184.1950, 172.379, 172.380, and 172.381 (excluding cheese and cheese products, foods represented for use as a sole source of nutrition for enteral feeding, infant formula, milk and milk products, and margarine); (2) fruit smoothies; (3) vegetable juices; (4) extruded vegetable snacks; (5) soups and soup mixes (except for those containing meat or poultry that are subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act); and (6) plant protein products as defined in 21 CFR 170.3(n)(33).

    The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because the substance is intended to remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to replace macronutrients in food. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.

    Dated: September 12, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20217 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3035 [Docket No. RM2018-12; Order No. 4822] Market Tests AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is proposing revisions to its rules governing market tests of experimental products. 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 18, 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. Proposed Amendments III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Administrative Actions V. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 503 and 3641, this order establishes a rulemaking docket that proposes amendments to the Commission's regulations governing market tests of experimental products appearing in existing 39 CFR part 3035. The proposed amendments would revise regulations concerning market test revenue limitations and requests to add a non-experimental product or price category based on an experimental product to the market dominant or competitive product list.1 The proposed rules reflect lessons learned through the Commission's experiences with the existing regulations and current practice before the Commission. The proposed rules appear after the signature of this order in Attachment A.

    1 Product lists categorize postal products as either market dominant or competitive. 39 CFR 3020.1(b). Each experimental product during a market test is identified on the applicable product list under the organizational group heading “Market Tests” in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3641(b)(3) and existing §§ 3020.4(b)(2)(ii)(D) and 3020.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) of this chapter. The intent of existing § 3035.18 and the revisions proposed in this order apply only to a request to offer a proposed product or price category in non-experimental status, that is—subject to the applicable requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3622, 3633, or 3642, and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.

    II. Proposed Amendments

    Section 3641 of title 39 of the United States Code authorizes the Postal Service to conduct market tests of experimental products. In accordance with its specific authority to regulate market tests under 39 U.S.C. 3641 and its general authority under 39 U.S.C. 503 to promulgate regulations and establish procedures, the Commission codified existing 39 CFR part 3035 to establish procedures for conducting market tests of experimental products.2 The Commission establishes this proceeding to consider amendments to the existing market test regulations.

    2See Docket No. RM2013-5, Order Adopting Final Rules for Market Tests of Experimental Products, August 28, 2014 (Order No. 2173).

    The proposed amendments are discussed below. The first set of amendments intend to revise the method for calculating applicable revenue limitations for market tests appearing in existing §§ 3035.15 and 3035.16 to be consistent with the current level of precision used in calculating the annual limitation on the percentage change in rates for market dominant products (price cap). The second set of proposed amendments aim to clarify the process under existing § 3035.18 for adding a non-experimental product or price category based on an experimental product to the market dominant or competitive product list and to emphasize the necessity of receiving specific detailed information in those instances.

    A. Market Test Revenue Limitations

    Unless the Commission grants an exemption, total revenues anticipated or in fact received by the Postal Service from an experimental product must not exceed $10 million in any year. 39 U.S.C. 3641(e)(1). Upon written application of the Postal Service, the Commission may exempt the market test from the $10 million revenue limitation if certain requirements are met. 39 U.S.C. 3641(e)(2). If the Commission grants an exemption, total revenues anticipated, or in fact received by, the Postal Service from a market test may not exceed $50 million in any year. Id. These amounts must be adjusted annually by the change in the Consumer Price Index for such year, as determined under the regulations of the Commission. 39 U.S.C. 3641(g). Existing § 3035.15(a) uses the Consumer Price Index—All Urban Customers (CPI-U index), as specified by §§ 3010.21(a) and 3010.22(a) of this chapter, to calculate these amounts.

    Existing § 3035.15(d) explains the method for calculating the $10 million revenue limitation on a fiscal year basis, as adjusted for the change in the CPI-U index ($10 Million Adjusted Limitation). Calculating the $10 Million Adjusted Limitation involves three steps. First, a simple average CPI-U index was calculated for Fiscal Year 2008 by summing the monthly CPI-U values from October 2007 through September 2008 and dividing the sum by 12. 39 CFR 3035.15(d); see 39 U.S.C. 3641(g). The result is a Base Average of 214.5. 39 CFR 3035.15(d). Second, a second simple average CPI-U index is calculated for each subsequent fiscal year by summing the 12 monthly CPI-U values for the previous fiscal year and dividing the sum by 12 to obtain a Recent Average. Id. Third, the revenue limitation for the current fiscal year is calculated by multiplying $10 million by the Recent Average divided by the Base Average of 214.5. Id. The result is the $10 Million Adjusted Limitation, rounded to the nearest dollar. Id. Existing § 3035.16(c) sets forth corresponding steps for calculating the $50 million revenue limitation, as adjusted for the change in the CPI-U index ($50 Million Adjusted Limitation).

    Under existing §§ 3035.15 and 3035.16, the Base Average for both the $10 Million and $50 Million Adjusted Limitations is calculated using one decimal place (214.5). In Order No. 303, the Commission amended the price cap rules appearing in §§ 3010.21 and 3010.22 of this chapter to calculate the CPI-U price cap using three decimal places instead of one.3 The Commission explained that rounding to three decimal places was appropriate for several reasons. The Postal Service previously proposed small rate adjustments that required a greater degree of precision when calculating the price cap. Order No. 246 at 2; Order No. 303 at 1. Available data allowed the price cap to be calculated to three decimal places, which was not possible when the Commission established its regulations governing rates and classes for market dominant and competitive products.4 Calculating the price cap to three decimal places was also consistent with how the Commission calculated the Postal Service's unused rate adjustment authority.5

    3 Docket No. RM2009-8, Order Amending the Cap Calculation in the System of Ratemaking, September 22, 2009, at 1-2 (Order No. 303); see Docket No. RM2009-8, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend the Cap Calculation in the System of Ratemaking, July 10, 2009 (Order No. 246).

    4 Order No. 246 at 2; Order No. 303 at 1-2; see Docket No. RM2007-1, Order Establishing Ratemaking Regulations for Market Dominant and Competitive Products, October 29, 2007 (Order No. 43).

    5 Order No. 246 at 2; Order No. 303 at 1-2; see 39 CFR 3010.26 and 3010.27.

    Consistent with the price cap rules, the proposed amendments would calculate the Base Average for the $10 Million Adjusted Limitation and $50 Million Adjusted Limitation using three decimal places (214.463). The proposed amendments would replace “214.5” with “214.463” in paragraphs (d) and (e) of existing § 3035.15 and in paragraphs (c) and (d) of existing § 3035.16. This change would slightly increase the current $10 Million and $50 Million Adjusted Limitations, which were calculated using one decimal place.6 For FY 2018, the $10 Million Adjusted Limitation would increase from $11,365,967 to $11,367,928, and the $50 Million Adjusted Limitation would increase from $56,829,837 to $56,839,641. Thus, the proposed amendments would have limited substantive effect, but would enhance consistency across the Commission's rules.

    6 The market test revenue limitations for the fiscal year are published on the Commission's website available at http://www.prc.gov; hover over “References” and follow “CPI Figures” hyperlink.

    B. Request To Add a Non-Experimental Product or Price Category Based on an Experimental Product to the Product List 1. Background

    Generally, each product offered by the Postal Service must comply with 39 U.S.C. 3622 (governing market dominant products), 39 U.S.C. 3633 (governing competitive products), or 39 U.S.C. 3642 (governing changes to the lists of market dominant and competitive products), and applicable regulations. Experimental products, however, are not subject to 39 U.S.C. 3622, 3633 or 3642, or the associated regulations. 39 U.S.C. 3641(a)(2).

    The Postal Service may decide to add a non-experimental product or price category to the product list based on its performance or other factors. Accordingly, existing § 3035.18 sets forth procedures for filing a request to add a current or former experimental product to the market dominant or competitive product list in non-experimental status, that is—subject to the applicable requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3622, 3633, or 3642, and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder. See Order No. 2173 at 24. Existing § 3035.18 uses the term “permanent” to describe the non-experimental status of the proposed product or price category. See id. Existing § 3035.18(a) states that if the Postal Service decides to make an experimental product permanent, it must file a request under 39 U.S.C. 3642 and part 3020, subpart B of this chapter to add a new product or price category to the market dominant or competitive product list. Existing § 3035.18(a) requires the Postal Service to file such requests at least 60 days before the market test expires or the market test exceeds any authorized adjusted limitation in any fiscal year, whichever is earlier.

    Under existing § 3035.18(b), requests must quantify the product specific costs associated with developing the market test, which are the costs incurred before the market test was implemented. Under existing § 3035.18(c), the Postal Service must also file a notice of the request in the market test proceeding's docket that includes the applicable docket number(s) for the proceeding evaluating the request.

    Since the market test rules were implemented, the Postal Service has filed requests for the Customized Delivery and Metro Post experimental products.7 Customized Delivery was a package delivery service offering that provided customers with delivery of groceries and other prepackaged goods within a customized delivery window.8 Metro Post was a package delivery service that provided customers with same-day delivery within a defined metropolitan area.9 The Postal Service proposed to add non-experimental products based on both the Customized Delivery and Metro Post experimental products to the competitive product list as NSAs, which are written contracts between the Postal Service and a mailer for customer-specific rates and fees that are effective for a defined period of time. 39 CFR 3001.5(r). The Customized Delivery and Metro Post Requests raised issues about the applicability of existing § 3035.18, as well as the information necessary for the Commission to evaluate such requests. The proposed amendments are intended to address these issues by clarifying when existing § 3035.18 applies and what information a request must include. Each issue is discussed below, along with the proposed amendments to existing § 3035.18.

    7 Docket Nos. MC2018-13 and CP2018-26, USPS Request to Add Parcel Select Contract 24 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal, October 18, 2017 (Customized Delivery Request). The requests to add Metro Post to the competitive product list (Metro Post Requests) were filed as separate proposed negotiated service agreements (NSAs). Docket Nos. MC2016-39 and CP2016-48, Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 165 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, December 15, 2015; Docket Nos. MC2016-40 and CP2016-49, Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 166 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, December 15, 2015; Docket Nos. MC2016-41 and CP2016-50, Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 167 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, December 15, 2015; Docket Nos. MC2016-42 and CP2016-51, Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 168 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, December 15, 2015; Docket Nos. MC2016-43 and CP2016-52, Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 169 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, December 15, 2015; Docket Nos. MC2016-52 and CP2016-67, Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 174 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, December 23, 2015.

    8 Docket No. MT2014-1, Order Authorizing Customized Delivery Market Test, October 23, 2014, at 1 (Order No. 2224).

    9 Docket No. MT2013-1, Order Approving Metro Post Market Test, November 14, 2012, at 1 (Order No. 1539).

    2. Applicability of Existing § 3035.18

    The Customized Delivery and Metro Post Requests raised questions about the applicability of existing § 3035.18. The Postal Service filed both of these requests under regulations applicable to new competitive NSAs 10 rather than under existing § 3035.18. Existing § 3035.18 is ambiguous as to whether it applies to proposed NSAs in light of the fact that it refers to “permanent” products, and NSAs, as defined by existing § 3001.5(r) of this chapter, are not permanent but rather are in effect for a defined period of time.

    10See 39 U.S.C. 3642; 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B; and 39 CFR 3015.5.

    These filings were problematic because the Postal Service did not provide 60 days' notice of the Customized Delivery and Metro Post Requests as required by existing § 3035.18(a). Instead, the Postal Service filed the Metro Post Requests under provisions applicable to new competitive NSAs, which are generally reviewed within 15 days. See 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3). The Postal Service filed the Customized Delivery Request on October 18, 2017, two weeks before the market test expired. Customized Delivery Request at 1. The Postal Service noted that the Customized Delivery market test would expire on October 31, 2017, but asked the Commission to expedite its review and issue a decision before November 1, 2017. Id. The Postal Service acknowledged that “it is seeking the Commission's approval on a shorter timeline than provided for in the statute and the Commission's rules[]” because of the complexity of the contract. Id. at 1 n.1.

    The Commission conditionally approved the Customized Delivery Request.11 However, the Commission expressed concern that the timing of the request “frustrates the purpose of the Commission's rules for making experimental products permanent” and could be interpreted as disregarding the requirements of existing § 3035.18. Order No. 4196 at 7. The Commission stated that it will review the existing market test regulations and revise them as necessary. Id.

    11 Docket Nos. MC2018-13 and CP2018-26, Order Conditionally Adding Parcel Select Contract 24 to the Competitive Product List, October 31, 2017 (Order No. 4196).

    The 60-day notice requirement in existing § 3035.18(a) ensures that both the Commission and interested persons have adequate time to evaluate and respond to a request. See Order No. 2173 at 27. Failing to provide adequate notice frustrates the intent of this rule.

    The Postal Service also failed to file notices of the Customized Delivery and Metro Post Requests in the applicable market test proceeding's docket as required by existing § 3035.18(c). These notices are important for providing transparency into the Commission's review of requests by helping mailers and the general public track a market test's progress from an experimental product to a non-experimental market dominant or competitive product. See id. at 25-26. Failing to file notices in the applicable market test proceeding's docket hinders transparency and the public's ability to comment on the request.

    To address these issues, the proposed amendments would clarify that existing § 3035.18 applies to any non-experimental product or price category based on a former or current experimental product that the Postal Service seeks to add to the market dominant or competitive product list, whether permanent or temporary. The proposed amendments would remove the word “permanent” from existing § 3035.18 and instead refer to a request to add a non-experimental product or price category based on an experimental product to the applicable product list. The proposed amendments would clarify that existing § 3035.18 applies to the addition of all non-experimental products or price categories that were based on an experimental product.

    To ensure that the Postal Service files under the appropriate regulation, the proposed amendments would identify specific instances when the Postal Service must file a request under existing § 3035.18. Proposed § 3035.18(b) would require the Postal Service to file a request if the proposed non-experimental product or price category: offers the same (or similar) service as a former or current experimental product; has the same distinct cost or market characteristic as a former or current experimental product; or uses (or is based on) data or assumptions from a former or current market test proceeding.

    The proposed rules would also require the Postal Service to provide advance notice of requests. If the Postal Service seeks a Commission decision by a certain date, the Postal Service must provide adequate notice to ensure the Commission and interested persons have sufficient time to obtain necessary information and evaluate the request. Proposed § 3035.18(d) would require the Postal Service to file a request at least 60 days before the requested decision date. For example, for the Customized Delivery and Metro Post Requests, the Postal Service asked the Commission to issue its decision before or when the market test ends to ensure continuity between the market test and proposed NSAs. In those cases, proposed § 3035.18(d) would require the Postal Service to file the request at least 60 days before the applicable market test ends.

    The Commission retains the substance of existing § 3035.18(c), but the proposed amendments would move paragraph (c) to proposed § 3035.18(e). Proposed § 3035.18(e) would delete the phrase “to make an experimental product permanent.” This proposed rule works in conjunction with proposed § 3035.18(c)(1), discussed in more detail below, which would require a request to identify the market test and docket number that the proposed non-experimental product or price category is based on.D3>3. Contents of Request

    Existing § 3035.18(a) requires the Postal Service to file a request under 39 U.S.C. 3642 and part 3020, subpart B of this chapter. Because of the unique nature of market tests and experimental products, existing § 3035.18(b) requires the Postal Service to include additional information to help facilitate the Commission's review of requests. As a result of the Commission's review of the Metro Post and Customized Delivery Requests, the Commission has identified additional information that should be provided with a request. The public versions of the Metro Post Requests did not reveal the connection between the proposed NSAs and the Metro Post experimental product. The proposed NSAs offered same-day delivery service just like the Metro Post experimental product. However, the Metro Post Requests redacted information stating that the proposed NSAs allow for same-day delivery of packages and were developed from Metro Post market test data.12 The Commission found that redacting this information delayed the proceeding and the public's ability to prepare comments. Order No. 3069 at 6. The Commission also stated that the redactions hindered transparency because interested persons reviewing the requests lacked important information that would inform their comments: that the NSAs offered the same service as the Metro Post experimental product. Id.

    12See, e.g., Docket Nos. MC2016-39 and CP2016-48, Order Adding Priority Mail Contract 165 to the Competitive Product List, February 12, 2016, at 6 (Order No. 3069).

    To address this issue, proposed § 3035.18(c)(1) would require a request to identify the market test and docket number that the proposed non-experimental product or price category is based on. Proposed § 3035.18(c)(2) would require a request to explain how the proposed non-experimental product or price category relates to a market test or an experimental product. For example, the Customized Delivery Request clearly stated that the proposed NSA “is modeled off the Customized Delivery market test. . . .” Customized Delivery Request at 1. Proposed § 3035.18(c)(2) would require the Postal Service to provide a similar statement in future requests.

    Another issue with the Metro Post and Customized Delivery Requests was that the requests did not include all of the information necessary for the Commission to evaluate them. During a market test, the Postal Service collects and reports information for each quarter in data collection reports. See 39 CFR 3035.20. Data collection reports are intended to form the basis upon which the Postal Service may file a request to add a non-experimental product or price category based on an experimental product to the product list. Essentially, the data generated from the market test should minimize the reliance on proxy data and untested assumptions in the financial model used to support the request. However, the financial models for the Metro Post and Customized Delivery Requests were based on data and assumptions that deviated from the applicable market test data collection reports. This necessitated the issuance of several information requests, which prolonged the proceedings and the Commission's review.

    To address this issue, proposed § 3035.18(c)(3) would require a request to identify any assumptions from the market test that the request uses or is based on. Proposed § 3035.18(c)(4) would require financial models supporting the request to include all data from data collection reports or separately identify and explain any differences between the data collection reports and the data provided in the requests.

    Existing § 3035.18(b) requires the request to quantify the product specific costs associated with developing the market test, which refers to the costs incurred before the market test was implemented. The Commission retains the substance of this rule, but the proposed amendments would make clarifying edits and move it to proposed § 3035.18(c)(5).

    III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Proposed Authority Citation in part 3035. The Commission proposes to add a cross-reference to 39 U.S.C. 503 in the existing authority citation for part 3035. This proposed change aims to clarify the statutory provisions granting the Commission authority to promulgate regulations concerning market tests.

    Proposed § 3035.15(d). Proposed § 3035.15(d) replaces “214.5” with “214.463” in two places.

    Proposed § 3035.15(e). Proposed § 3035.15(e) replaces “214.5” with “214.463.”

    Proposed § 3035.16(c). Proposed § 3035.16(c) replaces “214.5” with “214.463” in two places.

    Proposed § 3035.16(d). Proposed § 3035.16(d) replaces “214.5” with “214.463.”

    Proposed § 3035.18. The Commission proposes to change the heading of existing § 3035.18 to “Request to add a non-experimental product or price category based on an experimental product to the product list.” This change reflects the proposed amendments to the regulatory text.

    Proposed § 3035.18(a). Proposed § 3035.18(a) contains the substance of the first sentence of existing § 3035.18(a), but replaces the word “permanent” with general language about adding a non-experimental product or price category based on an experimental product to the applicable product list.

    Proposed § 3035.18(b). Proposed § 3035.18(b) identifies instances when the Postal Service must file a request compliant with the remaining paragraphs of the section.

    Proposed § 3035.18(c). Proposed § 3035.18(c) lists the information that the Postal Service must include in a request.

    Proposed § 3035.18(d). The second sentence of existing § 3035.18(a) is revised and moved to proposed § 3035.18(d). If the Postal Service seeks a Commission decision by a certain date, proposed § 3035.18(d) requires that the Postal Service file a request at least 60 days before the requested decision date.

    Proposed § 3035.18(e). Existing § 3035.18(c) is moved to proposed § 3035.18(e), but deletes the phrase “to make an experimental product permanent.”

    IV. Administrative Actions

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1980). If the proposed or final rules will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may certify that the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    In the context of this rulemaking, the Commission's primary responsibility is in the regulatory oversight of the United States Postal Service. The rules that are the subject of this rulemaking have a regulatory impact on the Postal Service, but do not impose any regulatory obligation upon any other entity. Based on these findings, the Chairman of the Commission certifies that the rules that are the subject of this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

    Interested persons are invited to provide written comments concerning the proposed amendments to the market test regulations in 39 CFR part 3035. Comments are due no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All comments and suggestions received will be available for review on the Commission's website, http://www.prc.gov.

    Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katharine L. Primosch is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

    V. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. Docket No. RM2018-12 is established for the purpose of receiving comments on the proposed amendments to 39 CFR part 3035, as discussed in this order.

    2. Interested persons may submit comments no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katharine L. Primosch is appointed to serve as Public Representative in this proceeding.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3035

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 39 CFR part 3035 as follows:

    PART 3035—RULES FOR MARKET TESTS OF EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 3035 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 503; 3641.

    2. Amend § 3035.15 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
    § 3035.15 Dollar amount limitation.

    (d) The calculation of the $10 Million Adjusted Limitation involves the following steps. First, a simple average CPI-U index was calculated for fiscal year 2008 by summing the monthly CPI-U values from October 2007 through September 2008 and dividing the sum by 12 (Base Average). The resulting Base Average is 214.463. Then, a second simple average CPI-U index is similarly calculated for each subsequent fiscal year by summing the 12 monthly CPI-U values for the previous fiscal year and dividing the sum by 12 (Recent Average). Finally, the annual limitation for the current fiscal year is calculated by multiplying $10,000,000 by the Recent Average divided by 214.463. The result is expressed as a number, rounded to the nearest dollar.

    (e) The formula for calculating the $10 Million Adjusted Limitation is as follows: $10 Million Adjusted Limitation = $10,000,000 * (Recent Average/214.463).

    3. Amend § 3035.16 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 3035.16 Exemption from dollar amount limitation.

    (c) The calculation of the $50 Million Adjusted Limitation involves the following steps. First, a simple average CPI-U index was calculated for fiscal year 2008 by summing the monthly CPI-U values from October 2007 through September 2008 and dividing the sum by 12 (Base Average). The resulting Base Average is 214.463. Then, a second simple average CPI-U index is similarly calculated for each subsequent fiscal year by summing the 12 monthly CPI-U values for the previous fiscal year and dividing the sum by 12 (Recent Average). Finally, the annual limitation for the current fiscal year is calculated by multiplying $50,000,000 by the Recent Average divided by 214.463. The result is expressed as a number, rounded to the nearest dollar.

    (d) The formula for calculating the $50 Million Adjusted Limitation is as follows: $50 Million Adjusted Limitation = $50,000,000 * (Recent Average/214.463).

    4. Revise § 3035.18 to read as follows:
    § 3035.18 Request to add a non-experimental product or price category based on an experimental product to the product list.

    (a) If the Postal Service seeks to add a non-experimental product or price category based on a former or current experimental product to the market dominant or competitive product list, the Postal Service shall file a request, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and part 3020, subpart B of this chapter, to add a non-experimental product or price category to the applicable product list.

    (b) The Postal Service shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section of this section if the proposed non-experimental product or price category:

    (1) Offers the same (or similar) service as a former or current experimental product;

    (2) Has the same distinct cost or market characteristic as a former or current experimental product; or

    (3) Uses (or is based on) data or assumptions from a former or current market test proceeding.

    (c) A request filed under this section shall:

    (1) Identify the market test and docket number that the proposed non-experimental product or price category is based on;

    (2) Explain the relationship between the proposed non-experimental product or price category and market test or experimental product;

    (3) Identify any assumptions from the market test that the request uses or is based on;

    (4) Include all data from data collection reports in the financial model, or separately identify and explain any differences between the data collection reports and the data used to support the financial model; and

    (5) Quantify the product specific costs associated with the development of the market test; that is, costs incurred before the market test was implemented.

    (d) If the Postal Service seeks a Commission decision by a certain date, the Postal Service shall file a request under this section at least 60 days before the requested decision date.

    (e) The Postal Service shall also file a notice of its request under this section in the market test proceeding's docket. This notice shall include the applicable docket number(s) for the proceeding evaluating the request.

    [FR Doc. 2018-20287 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Part 530 [Petition No. P3-18] Petition of the World Shipping Council for an Exemption From Certain Provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984, as Amended, and for a Rulemaking Proceeding; Notice of Filing and Request for Comments

    Notice is hereby given that the World Shipping Council (“Petitioner”) has petitioned the Commission pursuant to 46 CFR 502.92 “. . . for an exemption from the service contract filing and essential terms publication requirements set forth at 46 U.S.C. 40502(b) and (d), respectively . . .” Petitioner “. . . further petitions the Commission for the initiation of a rulemaking proceeding to amend its service contract regulations set forth at 46 CFR part 530 in a manner consistent with the requested exemption.” Petitioner alleges that “[t]he filing of service contracts and amendments, and the publication of essential terms, represent a substantial administrative and regulatory burden” to its “ocean common carrier members.”

    In order for the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the requested exemption and rulemaking presented in the Petition, pursuant to 46 CFR 502.92, interested parties are requested to submit views or arguments in reply to the Petition no later than November 19, 2018. Replies shall be sent to the Secretary by email to [email protected] or by mail to Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20573-0001, and replies shall be served on Petitioner's counsel, Wayne R. Rhode, Cozen O' Connor, 1200 19th St. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, [email protected]

    Non-confidential filings may be submitted in hard copy to the Secretary at the above address or by email as a PDF attachment to [email protected] and include in the subject line: P3-18 (Commenter/Company). Confidential filings should not be filed by email. A confidential filing must be filed with the Secretary in hard copy only, and be accompanied by a transmittal letter that identifies the filing as “Confidential-Restricted” and describes the nature and extent of the confidential treatment requested. The Commission will provide confidential treatment to the extent allowed by law for confidential submissions, or parts of submissions, for which confidentiality has been requested. When a confidential filing is submitted, there must also be submitted a public version of the filing. Such public filing version shall exclude confidential materials, and shall indicate on the cover page and on each affected page “Confidential materials excluded.” Public versions of confidential filings may be submitted by email. The Petition will be posted on the Commission's website at http://www.fmc.gov/P3-18. Replies filed in response to the Petition will also be posted on the Commission's website at this location.

    Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20167 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    83 181 Tuesday, September 18, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request September 13, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by October 18, 2018. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: United States Warehouse Act (USWA).

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0305.

    Summary of Collection: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is responsible, as required by the USWA, 7 U.S.C. 241 et seq., to license public warehouse operators that are in the business of storing agricultural products; to examine such federally-licensed warehouses and to license qualified persons to sample, inspect, weight, and classify agricultural products. The AMS licenses under the USWA cover approximately half of all commercial grain and cotton warehouse capacities in the United States. The regulations that implement the USWA governs the establishment and maintenance of systems under which documents, including documents of title on shipment, payment, and financing, may be issued, or transferred for agricultural products.

    Need and Use of the Information: AMS will collect information as a basis to (1) determine whether or not the warehouse and the warehouse operator making application for licensing and/or approval meets applicable standards; (2) issue such license or approvals; and (3) determine, once licensed or approved, that the licensee or warehouse operator continues to meet such standards and is conforming to regulatory or contractual obligations. The information collected allows AMS to effectively administer the regulations, licensing, and electronic provider agreements and related reporting and recordkeeping requirements as specified in the USWA.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit. Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 3,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Weekly.

    Total Burden Hours: 40,587.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20281 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service [Docket No. NRCS-2018-0008] Notice of Availability of the Alabama Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan II and Environmental Assessment: Restoration of Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats; Habitat Projects on Federally Managed Lands; Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source); Sea Turtles; Marine Mammals; Birds; and Oysters and Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY:

    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability of the Alabama Trustee Implementation Group Final Restoration Plan II and Environmental Assessment: Restoration of Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats; Habitat Projects on Federally Managed Lands; Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source); Sea Turtles; Marine Mammals; Birds; and Oysters and Finding of No Significant Impact.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Deepwater Horizon Federal and State natural resource trustee agencies for the Alabama Trustee Implementation Group (AL TIG) have prepared a Final Restoration Plan II and Environmental Assessment (Final RP II/EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Final RP II/EA describes the restoration project alternatives considered by the AL TIG to meet the Trustees' goals to restore and conserve habitat, replenish and protect living coastal and marine resources, restore water quality, and provide for monitoring and adaptive management. The AL TIG evaluated these alternatives under criteria set forth in the OPA natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) regulations and evaluated the environmental consequences of the restoration alternatives in accordance with NEPA.

    Monitoring and adaptive management activities to address information gaps necessary to inform future restoration are included in this Final RP II/EA. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the availability of the Final RP II/EA and FONSI.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: You may download the Final RP II/EA and FONSI at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov. Alternatively, you may request a CD of the Final RP II/EA and FONSI (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Also, you may view the document at any of the public facilities listed at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    • USDA—Ronald Howard, [email protected]

    • State of Alabama—Amy Hunter, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for British Petroleum (BP) Exploration and Production Inc. in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-MC252), exploded, caught fire, and subsequently sank in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the seabed. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest oil spill in United States (U.S.) history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. In addition, well over one million gallons of dispersants were applied to the waters of the spill area in an attempt to disperse the spilled oil. Also, an undetermined amount of natural gas was released to the environment as a result of the spill.

    The Deepwater Horizon State and Federal natural resource trustees (DWH Trustees) conducted an NRDA for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). Pursuant to OPA, Federal and State agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. OPA further instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship, including the loss of use and services from those resources from the time of injury until the time of restoration to baseline (the resource quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred) is complete.

    The DWH Trustees are:

    • U.S. Department of the Interior, as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management;

    • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • U.S. Department of Agriculture;

    • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

    • State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Department of Natural Resources;

    • State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;

    • State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;

    • State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and

    • For the State of Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

    Upon completion of NRDA, the DWH Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in a Consent Decree 1 approved by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in Alabama are now chosen and managed by AL TIG. AL TIG is composed of the following Trustees:

    1https://www.justice.gov/enrd/file/838066/download.

    • U.S. Department of the Interior;

    • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • U.S. Department of Agriculture;

    • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

    • State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; and

    • Geological Survey of Alabama.

    This restoration planning activity is proceeding in accordance with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PDARP/PEIS). Restoration types evaluated in the Final RP II/EA include: Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats; Habitat Projects on Federally Managed Lands; Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source); Sea Turtles; Marine Mammals; Birds; and Oysters. Information on the restoration types evaluated in the Final RP II/EA, as well as the OPA criteria against which project ideas are being evaluated, can be viewed in the PDARP/PEIS (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan) and in the Overview of the PDARP/PEIS (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan).

    Background

    In December 2016, as part of its restoration planning efforts, AL TIG asked the public for project ideas that could benefit Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats; Habitat Projects on Federally Managed Lands; Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source); Sea Turtles; Marine Mammals; Birds; and/or Oysters in the Alabama Restoration Area. The project submissions received through this process, along with projects previously submitted during prior restoration planning processes, resulted in the alternatives evaluated in the Draft RP II/EA.

    Notice of availability of the Draft RP II/EA was published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2018 (83 FR 14623). The Draft RP II/EA provided the Alabama TIG's analysis of alternatives that would meet the Trustees' goals to restore and conserve habitat, replenish and protect living coastal and marine resources, restore water quality, and provide for monitoring and adaptive management under OPA and NEPA, and identified the alternatives that were proposed as preferred for implementation. AL TIG provided the public with 30 days to review and comment on the Draft RP II/EA. AL TIG also held a public meeting in Spanish Fort, Alabama to facilitate public understanding of the document and provide opportunity for public comment. AL TIG actively solicited public input through a variety of mechanisms, including convening a public meeting, distributing electronic communications, and using the Trustee-wide public website and database to share information and receive public input. AL TIG considered the public comments received, which informed the AL TIG's analysis of alternatives in the Final RP II/EA. A summary of the public comments received and the Alabama TIG's responses to those comments are addressed in Chapter 16 of the Final RP II/EA, and all correspondence received are provided Appendix A.

    Overview of the Final RP II/EA

    The Final RP II/EA is being released in accordance with the OPA, the NRDA regulations at 15 CFR part 990, and the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    In the Final RP II/EA and FONSI, the AL TIG identified 20 preferred alternatives to be fully funded from restoration type funds, one preferred alternative to be partially funded from restoration type funds and partially funded from the AL TIG's Monitoring and Adaptive Management (MAM) allocation, and one activity to be fully funded using MAM funds. Specifically, the AL TIG selected the following projects as preferred alternatives:

    Five Projects Within the Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats Restoration Type • Magnolia River Land Acquisition (Holmes Tract) • Weeks Bay Land Acquisition East (Gateway Tract) • Weeks Bay Land Acquisition (Harrod Tract) • Lower Perdido Islands Restoration Phase I (Engineering & Design (E&D)) • Southwest Coffee Island Habitat Restoration Project—Phase I (also evaluated and selected for funding under the Birds Restoration Type) (E&D) Two Projects Within the Habitat Projects on Federally Managed Lands Restoration Type • Little Lagoon Living Shorelines • Restoring the Night Sky—Assessment, Training, and Outreach (also evaluated under the Sea Turtles Restoration Type and selected for funding under the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Allocation) (E&D) Three Projects Within the Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source) Restoration Type • Toulmins Springs Branch E&D (E&D) • Fowl River Nutrient Reduction • Weeks Bay Nutrient Reduction Four Projects Within the Sea Turtles Restoration Type • Coastal Alabama Sea Turtle (CAST) Conservation Program—“Share the Beach” • CAST Triage • CAST Habitat Usage and Population Dynamics • CAST Protection: Enhancement and Education Two Projects Within the Marine Mammals Restoration Type • Enhancing Capacity for the Alabama Marine Mammal Stranding Network • Alabama Estuarine Bottlenose Dolphin Protection: Enhancement and Education Two Projects Within the Birds Restoration Type • Southwestern Coffee Island Habitat Restoration Project—Phase I (also evaluated and selected for funding under the Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats Restoration Type) (E&D) • Colonial Nesting Wading Bird Tracking and Habitat Use Assessment—Two Species Four Projects Within the Oysters Restoration Type • Oyster Cultch Relief and Reef Configuration • Side-scan Mapping of Mobile Bay Relic Oyster Reefs (E&D) • Oyster Hatchery at Claude Peteet Mariculture Center—High Spat Production with Study • Oyster Grow-Out and Restoration Reef Placement

    Two activities are proposed for funding, in whole or in part, with AL TIG's Monitoring and Adaptive Management Allocation:

    • Assessment of Alabama Estuarine Bottlenose Dolphin Populations and Health • Restoring the Night Sky—Assessment, Training, and Outreach (also evaluated and selected for funding under the Habitats on Federally Managed Lands Restoration Type) (E&D)

    The Final RP II/EA also evaluates No Action Alternatives for each of the restoration types. AL TIG has determined that the restoration projects and monitoring and adaptive management activities proposed for funding are appropriate to partially compensate for the injuries for these restoration types described in PDARP/PEIS. In the Final RP II/EA, the Alabama TIG presents to the public its plan for providing partial compensation to the public for natural resources and ecological services injured or lost in Alabama as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The projects described in the Final RP II/EA are most appropriate for addressing injuries to: Wetlands, Coastal and Nearshore Habitats; Habitat Projects on Federally Managed Lands; Nutrient Reduction (Nonpoint Source); Sea Turtles; Marine Mammals; Birds; and Oysters. The monitoring and adaptive management activities preferred for funding in the Final RP II/EA will also assist AL TIG in tracking project success and will inform and enhance future restoration planning. In accordance with NEPA, and as part of the Final RP II/EA, the Trustees issued a FONSI. The FONSI is available in Appendix J of the Final RP II/EA.

    Administrative Record

    The DWH Trustees opened a publicly available Administrative Record for the NRDA for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including restoration planning activities, concurrently with publication of the 2011 Notice of Intent to Begin Restoration Scoping and Prepare a Gulf Spill Restoration Planning PEIS (pursuant to 15 CFR 990.45). The Administrative Record includes the relevant administrative records since its date of inception. This Administrative Record is actively maintained and available for public review. The documents included in the Administrative Record can be viewed electronically at the following location: http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord.

    Authority

    The authority of this action is the OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), the implementing NRDA regulations at 15 CFR part 990, and the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2018. Leonard Jordan, Acting Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20168 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization Demonstration Program Under Section 514, Section 515, and Section 516; Correction AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects four items in the initial Notice that published in the Federal Register on September 5, 2017, entitled “Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program Under Section 514, Section 515, and Section 516.” These items revise and clarify the application submission dates, transfer deferral only approval timelines and Agency processing actions.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective September 18, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Greenwalt, [email protected], (314) 457-5933, and/or Abby Boggs, [email protected], (615) 783 1382, Preservation and Direct Loan Division, STOP 0782 (Room 1263-S), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0782. (Please note these telephone numbers are not toll-free numbers.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2017-18753 of September 5, 2017 (82 FR 41914), make the following corrections:

    Corrections

    (1) On page 41915 in the first column, second line, continues the paragraph from the previous page under item (2) of the Date section where the last sentence reads “September 28, 2018”, replace with “April 30, 2019” in its place.

    (2) On page 41917 in the first column, sixth paragraph, delete last sentence “This tool is available only to project owners where all Agency mortgages on the property are maturing on or before December 31, 2023.”

    (3) On page 41925 in the first, column second, paragraph replaced with the following:

    “Complete project information must be submitted as soon as possible, but in no case later than April 30, 2019. MPR transfer applicants must submit a final transfer request as required by 7 CFR 3560.406 (c), no later than May 31, 2019. These deadlines will not be extended, so please plan your transaction's timeline accordingly.”

    (4) On page 41925 in the first column, the third paragraph, is replaced with the following:

    “Any pre-applications that have not received an Agency's Conditional Commitment for MPR funding, other than MPR deferral only transfers, will be considered withdrawn on August 30, 2019. MPR deferral only transfers approved subject to the availability of MPR funding will continue to be processed subject to the respective transfer approval conditions. These deadlines will not be extended, so please plan your transaction's timeline accordingly. Applicants may reapply for funding under future rounds and/or Notices as they may be made available.”

    Dated: September 7, 2018. Joel C. Baxley, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20215 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday October 9, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. CDT for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday October 9, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. CDT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Call Information: Dial: 877-260-1479, Conference ID: 3938523.

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the call in information listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement to the Committee as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 South Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Illinois Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion: Voting Rights Op-Ed Civil Rights Project Proposal: Housing in Illinois Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: September 13, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20229 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12pm CDT Monday October 1, 2018 to discuss civil rights concerns in the State.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday October 1, 2018, at 12 p.m. CDT. For More Information Contact: Carolyn Allen at [email protected] or (312) 353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Call Information: Dial: 877-260-1479; Conference ID: 8636366.

    This meeting is available to the public through the above toll-free call-in number. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Regional Programs Unit, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=256. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links to download. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Approval of Minutes III. Discussion: a. Op-Ed Draft: Policing in Minnesota b. Civil Rights Topics IV. Public Comment V. Next Steps VI. Adjournment Dated: September 13, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20230 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census National Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) gives notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC). The NAC addresses policy, research, and technical issues relating to all Census Bureau programs and activities. These activities include the production and dissemination of detailed demographic and economic statistics across all program areas, including the Decennial Census Program.

    DATES:

    November 1-2, 2018. On Thursday, November 1, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. On Friday, November 2, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 2:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Auditorium, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, at [email protected], Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-5222. For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NAC is scheduled to meet in a plenary session on November 1-2, 2018. Planned topics of discussion include the following:

    • 2020 Census program updates • 2020 Census: Integrated Partnership and Communications Program • 2020 Census: Hard-to-Count Operations • Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Survey • Working Group Updates Please visit the Census Advisory Committees website for the most current meeting agenda at: http://www.census.gov/about/cac.html. The meeting will be available live via webcast at: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/census-live.html.

    The NAC was established in March 2012 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10). The NAC members are appointed by the Director of the Census Bureau and provide recommendations to the Director on statistical and data collection issues on topics such as hard-to-reach populations, race and ethnicity, language, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, populations affected by natural disasters, new immigrant populations, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, rural populations, and population segments with limited access to technology. The Committee also advises on data privacy and confidentiality, among other issues.

    All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on Friday, November 2. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to: [email protected] (subject line “November 2018 NAC Meeting Public Comment”) or by letter submission to Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, October 23, 2018. You may access the online registration from the following link: https://www.eventbrite.com/o/census-bureau-advisory-committees-17696466164?s=87828972. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

    Due to security protocols, for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.

    Dated: September 11, 2018. Ron S. Jarmin, Deputy Director, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20232 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Automated Export System Program AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before November 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Kiesha Downs, Chief, Trade Regulations Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-6700, (301) 763-7079, by fax (301) 763-8835 or by email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Automated Export System (AES) or successor system is the instrument used for collecting export trade information from parties exporting goods from the United States. The U.S. Census Bureau compiles data collected through the AES and these data are the basis for the official U.S. goods export trade statistics. These statistics are used to determine the balance of international trade and are also designated for use as a principal federal economic indicator. Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 9, Section 301 authorizes the U.S. Census Bureau to collect, compile and publish export trade data. Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 30, contains the regulatory provisions for preparing and filing the AES record in accordance to the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR). These data are used in the development of U.S. Government policies that affect the economy. These data also enable U.S. businesses to develop practical export marketing strategies as well as provide a means for the assessment of the impact of exports on the domestic economy. In addition to being used in the development of U.S. government economic and foreign trade policies, these data are also used for export control, to detect and prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties or to unauthorized destinations or end users.

    The FTR was amended on April 19, 2017, through the issuance of a Final Rule, “Clarification on Filing Requirements,” to make changes related to the implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS), in accordance with the Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for American Businesses. The ITDS was established by the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006. The ITDS is an electronic information exchange capability, or “single window,” through which businesses transmit the data required by participating agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo. This rule added the original Internal Transaction Number (ITN) data element in the AES. The Original ITN field is an optional field that may be utilized if the filer has to create an additional AES record for a shipment that was previously filed. The Original ITN field assists the export trade community and enforcement agencies in identifying that a filer completed the mandatory filing requirements for the original shipment. In doing so, this may decrease the issuance of unnecessary penalties for these types of shipments. Overall, these changes did not impact the reporting burden of the export trade community.

    The FTR was also amended on April 24, 2018, through the issuance of a Final Rule, “Clarification on the Collection and Confidentiality of Kimberley Process Certificates,” to clarify that the data collected from the Kimberley Process Certificates (KPCs) are collected in compliance with the Clean Diamond Trade Act. In addition, this Rule clarified the submission requirements and permissible uses of the KPCs. However, these changes did not impact the reporting burden of the export trade community.

    Currently, the Census Bureau is drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to clarify the responsibilities of parties participating in routed and standard export transactions. This rule also proposes to revise and add several key terms used in the regulatory provision of these transactions, including authorized agent, forwarding agent, standard export transaction and written release. While revisions to the FTR are necessary to improve clarity to the filing requirements for the routed export transaction, it is critical for the Census Bureau to ensure that any revisions made to the FTR will allow for the continued collection and compilation of accurate trade statistics. Additionally, it is important that the responsibilities of the U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) and the U.S. authorized agent are clearly defined to ensure that the Electronic Export Information is filed by the appropriate party to prevent receiving duplicate filings or in some cases, no filings. The changes proposed in the NPRM will not have an impact on the reporting burden of the export trade community.

    II. Method of Collection

    Except as noted in Title 15 CFR, Part 30, Section 30.2(a)(1)(iv), an electronic AES record is required for all export shipments valued more than $2,500 per Schedule B number from the United States, including Foreign Trade Zones located therein, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to foreign countries; for exports between the United States and Puerto Rico; and for exports to the U.S. Virgin Islands from the United States or Puerto Rico. Additionally, an AES record is required for the export of rough diamonds, used self-propelled vehicles and all exports requiring an export license from any other government agency or license exemption from the Department of State, regardless of value. An AES record is also required for exports with certain license exceptions from the Bureau of Industry and Security. The AES program is unique among Census Bureau statistical collections since it is not sent to respondents to solicit responses, as is the case with surveys. Filing export information via the AES is a mandatory process under Title 13 U.S.C., Chapter 9, Section 301. The export trade community can access the AES via a free internet-based system, AESDirect, or they can use software that connects directly with the U.S. CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).

    For exports to Canada, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by CBP, Canada Border Services Agency, Statistics Canada, and the U.S. Census Bureau enables the United States to substitute Canadian import statistics for U.S. export statistics. Similarly, in accordance with the MOU, Canada substitutes U.S. import statistics for Canadian exports to the United States. This exchange of data eliminates the requirement for the export trade community to file the Electronic Export Information (EEI) with the U.S. government for the majority of export shipments to Canada, thus resulting in the elimination of over eight million AES records annually. Export shipments to Canada of rough diamonds, used vehicles, or those that require a license must be filed through the AES. In addition, export shipments from the United States through Canada destined to a country other than Canada require an AES record.

    In most instances, the USPPI or authorized agent must file EEI via the AES and annotate the commercial loading documents with the proof of filing citation prior to the export of a shipment. In instances where the AES filing is not required, the proper exemption or exclusion legend must be noted on the commercial loading documents per Section 30.7 of the FTR.

    CBP is currently conducting pilots to test the functionality regarding the filing of export manifests for air, rail, and ocean cargo to the ACE. These pilots will further the ITDS initiatives set forth in the SAFE Port Act of 2006 and Executive Order 13659. It is CBP's intent to move export manifesting from the current paper-based system to an electronic system over the next several years. FTR Sections 30.7 and 30.45, require evidence of the proof of filing, post departure filing citation, AES downtime citation, exemption or exclusion legend on the bill of lading, air waybill, or other commercial loading documents. These annotations also appear in the electronic manifest submitted to CBP. Since filers use many variations to annotate commercial loading documents, the Census Bureau, CBP, and the trade community developed guidance to ensure that a standard format is reported in the electronic manifest. This information was published in FTR Letter #10 titled Annotating the Electronic Manifest for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    The AES enables the U.S. government to significantly improve the quality, timeliness, and coverage of export statistics. Since July 1995, the Census Bureau and the CBP have utilized the AES to improve the reporting of export trade information, customer service, increase compliance with and enforcement of export laws, and to provide paperless reports of export information. The AES also enables the U.S. government to increase its ability to prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties to unauthorized destinations and end users through electronic filing.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0152.

    Form Number(s): Automated Export System (AES) submissions.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Exporters, Forwarding agents, Export Carriers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 287,314 filers who submit 17,315,950 shipments annually through the AES.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3 minutes per AES submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 865,798.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $15,688,260.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 United States Code, Chapter 9, Section 301.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20205 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-32-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 230—Piedmont Triad Area, North Carolina; Authorization of Production Activity; Deere-Hitachi Construction Machinery Corp.; (Forestry Machinery, and Forestry Machinery and Hydraulic Excavator Frames/Booms/Arms); Kernersville, North Carolina

    On May 11, 2018, Deere-Hitachi Construction Machinery Corp. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 230—Sites 30 and 32 in Kernersville, North 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 24084, May 24, 2018). On September 10, 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.

    Dated: September 10, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20255 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-30-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7—Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Authorization of Production Activity; Lilly del Caribe; (Pharmaceutical Products); Carolina, Puerto Rico

    On May 14, 2018, Lilly del Caribe submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 7K, in Carolina, Puerto Rico.

    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 23254, May 18, 2018). On September 11, 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.

    Dated: September 11, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20254 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-57-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 149—Freeport, Texas; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; DSM Nutritional Products, LLC; (Vinylol) Freeport, Texas

    The Port of Freeport, grantee of FTZ 149, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of DSM Nutritional Products, LLC (DSM) (formerly Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.), located in Freeport, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 11, 2018.

    DSM already has authority to produce beta carotene crystalline, C-25 aldehyde and vinyl salt within Subzone 149B. The current request would add a finished product (vinylol-pure and crude) to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific finished product described in the submitted notification and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt DSM from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components in the existing scope of authority used in export production of vinylol-pure and crude. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components in the existing scope of authority (duty rates, 3.7% or 5.5%), DSM would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to vinylol-pure and crude (duty rate 5.5%). DSM would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 29, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: September 12, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20256 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG300 Draft 2018 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments and correction.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS reviewed the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regional marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs) in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. SARs for marine mammals in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions were revised according to new information. NMFS solicits public comments on the draft 2018 SARs. NMFS also announces the availability of revised Atlantic Regional 2016 and 2017 SARs that include technical corrections.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The 2018 draft SARs are available in electronic form via the internet at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports. The revised final Atlantic Regional SAR for 2016 is available at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm241/and the revised 2017 SAR is available at https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm245/.

    Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Marcia Muto, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-6349.

    Copies of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Regional SARs may be requested from Elizabeth Josephson, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543.

    Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0086, by either of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0086, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Send comments or requests for copies of reports to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: Stock Assessments.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Lierheimer, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected]; Marcia Muto, 206-526-4026, [email protected], regarding Alaska regional stock assessments; Elizabeth Josephson, 508-495-2362, [email protected], regarding Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean regional stock assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858-546-7171, [email protected], regarding Pacific regional stock assessments.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the Exclusive Economic Zone. These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

    The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level or PBR (defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population); (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined.

    Prior to public review, the updated SARs under NMFS' jurisdiction are peer-reviewed within NMFS Fisheries Science Centers and by members of three regional independent Scientific Review Groups, which were established under the MMPA to independently advise NMFS on information and uncertainties related to the status of marine mammals.

    The period covered by the 2018 draft SARs is 2012-2016. NMFS reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised a total of 47 reports representing 76 stocks in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information. The 2018 revisions consist primarily of updated or revised M/SI estimates and updated abundance estimates. One stock (Alaska bearded seal) changed in status from non-strategic to strategic, and three stocks (Gulf of Maine humpback whale, and Western North Atlantic short-finned and long-finned pilot whales) changed in status from strategic to non-strategic. Substantive revisions to the SARs are discussed below. NMFS solicits public comments on the draft 2018 SARs.

    Alaska Reports

    In 2018, NMFS reviewed all 45 stocks in the Alaska region, and revised SARs under NMFS jurisdiction for 18 stocks (14 strategic and 4 non-strategic). The Alaska bearded seal stock changed from “non-strategic” to “strategic” status because the stock is now considered depleted under the MMPA (see below). A list of the 18 reports revised in 2018 for stocks in the Alaska region is presented in Table 1. Information on the remaining Alaska region stocks can be found in the final 2017 reports (Muto et al., 2018).

    Table 1—List of Marine Mammal Stocks in the Alaska Region Revised in 2018 Strategic stocks Non-strategic stocks • Steller sea lion, Western U.S. • ribbon seal, Alaska. • northern fur seal, Eastern Pacific. • Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific. • bearded seal, Alaska. • Dall's porpoise, Alaska. • beluga whale, Cook Inlet. • Minke whale, Alaska. • killer whale, AT1 Transient. • harbor porpoise, Southeast Alaska. • harbor porpoise, Gulf of Alaska. • harbor porpoise, Bering Sea. • sperm whale, North Pacific. • humpback whale, Western North Pacific. • humpback whale, Central North Pacific. • fin whale, Northeast Pacific. • North Pacific right whale, Eastern North Pacific. • bowhead whale, Western Arctic.

    Revisions to the Alaska SARs included updates of abundance and/or M/SI estimates, including revised abundance estimates for Western U.S. Steller sea lion; Eastern Pacific northern fur seal; and Cook Inlet beluga whale.

    Alaska Bearded Seal

    In 2012, NMFS listed the Beringia distinct population segment of bearded seal, and thus the Alaska stock of bearded seal, as threatened under the ESA (77 FR 76740, December 28, 2012). The primary concern for this population is the ongoing and projected loss of sea-ice cover stemming from climate change, which is expected to pose a significant threat to the persistence of these seals in the foreseeable future. In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued a decision vacating NMFS' listing in a lawsuit that challenged listing bearded seals under the ESA (Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Pritzker, Case No. 4:13-cv-00018-RPB). Consequently, it was also no longer designated as “depleted” or classified as a strategic stock. In 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision and approved the agency's protection of the seals; and in 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a challenge to NMFS' listing decision. Thus, because of its threatened status under the ESA, this bearded seal stock is considered depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act andis now classified as a “strategic” stock.

    Atlantic Reports

    In 2018, NMFS reviewed all 117 stocks in the Atlantic region (including the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. territories in the Caribbean) under NMFS jurisdiction. This year, NMFS revised 16 reports and created 2 new common bottlenose dolphin reports (West Bay and Terrebonne Bay/Timbalier Bay). These updated reports represent 42 stocks (26 strategic and 16 non-strategic). The Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock and Western North Atlantic (WNA) long-finned and short-finned pilot whale stocks changed from “strategic” to “non-strategic” status because the mean annual human-caused M/SI is below PBR (see below). A list of the 42 stocks in the Atlantic region (contained in 18 reports), is presented in Table 2. Information on the remaining Atlantic region stocks can be found in the final 2017 reports (Hayes et al., 2018).

    Table 2—List of Marine Mammal Stocks in the Atlantic Region Revised in 2018 Strategic stocks Non-strategic stocks • North Atlantic right whale, Western Atlantic. • humpback whale, Gulf of Maine. • fin whale, WNA. • minke whale, Canadian East Coast. • common bottlenose dolphin (24 stocks).* • Risso's dolphin, WNA. ○ Laguna Madre. • pilot whale, long-finned, WNA. ○ Neuces Bay/Corpus Christi Bay. • pilot whale, short-finned, WNA. ○ Copano Bay/Aransas Bay/San Antonio Bay/Redfish Bay/Espiritu Santo Bay. • Atlantic white-sided dolphin, WNA. ○ Matagorda Bay/Tres Palacios Bay/Lavaca Bay. • common dolphin, WNA offshore. ○ Galveson Bay/East Bay/Trinity Bay. • rough-toothed dolphin, WNA. ○ Sabine Lake. • harbor porpoise, Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy. ○ Calcasieu Lake. • harbor seal, WNA. ○ Vermilion Bay/West Cote Blanche Bay/Atchafalaya Bay. • gray seal, WNA. ○ Mississippi River Delta. • harp seal, WNA. ○ Mobile Bay/Bonsecour Bay. • hooded seal, WNA. ○ Perdido Bay. • common bottlenose dolphin (3 stocks). ○ Pensacola Bay/East Bay. ○ West Bay. ○ St. Andrew Bay. ○ Terrebonne Bay/Timbalier Bay. ○ St. Vincent Sound/Apalachicola Bay/St. George Sound. ○ Sarasota Bay/Little Sarasota Bay.* ○ Apalachee Bay. ○ Waccassa Bay/Withlacoochee Bay/Crystal Bay. ○ St. Joseph Sound/Clearwater Harbor. ○ Tampa Bay. ○ Pine Island Sound/Charlotte Harbor/Gasparilla Sound/Lemon Bay. ○ Caloosahatchee River. ○ Estero Bay. ○ Chokoloskee Bay/Ten Thousand Islands/Gullivan Bay. ○ Whitewater Bay. ○ Florida Keys (Bahia Honda to Key West). * Details for these 25 stocks are included in the report: Common bottlenose dolphin, Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary Stocks.

    Revisions to the Atlantic SARs included updates of abundance and/or M/SI estimates. New abundance estimates are available for the North Atlantic right whale, Gulf of Maine humpback whale, WNA short-finned pilot whale, WNA rough-toothed dolphin, and the West Bay and Terrebonne Bay/Timbalier Bay common bottlenose dolphin stocks.

    North Atlantic Right Whale, Western Atlantic

    Although PBR analyses in this 2018 SAR reflect data collected through 2016, it should be noted that an additional 17 North Atlantic right whale mortalities were observed in 2017 (Daoust et al. 2017). This number exceeds the largest estimated mortality rate during the past 25 years. Further, despite the usual extensive survey effort, only 5 and 0 new calves were detected in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Therefore, the decline in the right whale population is expected to continue for at least an additional 2 years. The minimum population size for the Western Atlantic stock of the North Atlantic right whale is 445 and PBR is 0.9.

    Humpback Whale, Gulf of Maine

    The updated abundance estimate for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is 896, based on a recent count of the minimum number alive (MNA). The 2015 humpback whale MNA was produced by counting the number of unique individuals seen in 2015 in the Gulf of Maine stock area as well as seen both before and after 2015. The 2015 humpback whale MNA includes not only cataloged whales but some calves born in 2015 but not yet identifiable. MNA is a rigorous accounting of individuals and has no associated coefficient of variation (CV). It is both more recent and larger than the previous 2011 line transect estimate of 335 and has zero probability of overestimating abundance. Although the abundance appears to increase from 2017 to 2018, these estimates should not be compared as they were derived using different methodologies and data sets. As a result of the higher abundance estimate, the PBR for the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock increased from 3.7 to 14.6 whales. Based on a recovery factor of 0.5, the estimate of human-caused M/SI is now below PBR; thus, the stock has changed from “strategic” to “non-strategic.”

    Long-Finned Pilot Whale, Western North Atlantic

    The PBR for the western North Atlantic long-finned pilot whale is 35 and the estimate of total annual observed average fishery-related of human-caused M/SI is 27. In bottom trawls and mid-water trawls and in the gillnet fisheries, mortalities were more generally observed north of 40° N latitude and in areas expected to have only long-finned pilot whales. Takes in these fisheries were therefore attributed to the long-finned pilot whales. Takes in the pelagic longline fishery were partitioned according to a logistic regression model (Garrison and Rosel 2017). Because the M/SI does not exceed PBR, the stock has changed from “strategic” to “non-strategic.”

    Short-Finned Pilot Whale, Western North Atlantic

    The best available abundance estimate for short-finned pilot whales, based on shipboard surveys conducted during the summer of 2016 in the western North Atlantic, is 28,924. These most recent surveys covered the full range of short-finned pilot whales in U.S. Atlantic waters. Because long-finned and short-finned pilot whales are difficult to distinguish at sea, sightings data are reported as Globicephala sp. These survey data have been combined with an analysis of the spatial distribution of the two pilot whale species based on genetic analyses of biopsy samples to derive separate abundance estimates for each species. Due to changes in survey methodology, previous abundance estimates should not be used to make comparisons with more current estimates. As a result of the higher abundance estimate, the PBR for the western North Atlantic short-finned pilot whale increased from 159 to 236 and the estimate of total annual observed average fishery-related of human-caused M/SI is 27. The estimate of human-caused M/SI is now below PBR; thus, the stock has changed from “strategic” to “non-strategic.”

    Common Bottlenose Dolphins

    NMFS is in the process of writing individual stock assessment reports for each of the 31 bay, sound, and estuary stocks of common bottlenose dolphins in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Two new individual reports, for the West Bay and Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System stocks, were completed for the draft 2018 SARs. Therefore, the reader will not see tracked changes in the draft 2018 reports for these stocks. To date, six bottlenose dolphin stocks have individual reports completed (West Bay, Terrebonne-Timbalier Bay Estuarine System, Barataria Bay Estuarine System, Mississippi Sound/Lake Borgne/Bay Boudreau, Choctawhatchee Bay, and St. Joseph Bay), and the remaining 25 stocks are included in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary Stocks report.

    Pacific Reports

    In 2018, NMFS reviewed all 87 stocks in the Pacific region (waters along the west coast of the United States, within waters surrounding the main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and within waters surrounding U.S. territories in the Western Pacific), and revised SARs for 16 stocks (7 strategic and 9 non-strategic). A list of the reports revised in 2018, representing 16 stocks in the Pacific region, is presented in Table 3. Information on the remaining Pacific region stocks can be found in the final 2017 reports (Carretta et al., 2018).

    Table 3—List of Marine Mammal Stocks in the Pacific Region Revised in 2018 Strategic stocks Non-strategic stocks • Hawaiian monk seal • California sea lion. • killer whale, Eastern N Pacific Southern Resident
  • • humpback whale, CA/OR/WA
  • • blue whale, Eastern N Pacific
  • • fin whale, CA/OR/WA
  • • sei whale, Eastern N Pacific
  • • killer whale, Eastern N Pacific Offshore.
  • • gray whale, Eastern N Pacific.
  • • gray whale, Western N Pacific.
  • • spinner dolphin:
  • ○ Hawaii pelagic.
  • ○ Hawaii Island.
  • ○ O'ahu/4 Islands.
  • ○ Kaua'i/Ni'ihau.
  • ○ Kure/Midway.
  • ○ Pearl and Hermes Reef.
  • New abundance estimates are available for 8 stocks: California sea lions, Hawaiian monk seals, Eastern North Pacific Offshore killer whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Eastern North Pacific gray whales, Western North Pacific gray whales, California/Oregon/Washington humpback whales, and Hawaii Island spinner dolphins.

    New Methodology To Estimate Level of Vessel Strike Mortality: CA/OR/WA Humpback Whale, CA/OR/WA Fin Whale, and the Eastern North Pacific Blue Whales

    New information on serious injury and mortality resulting from estimated vessel strikes based on an analysis by Rockwood et al. (2017) is included for the following stocks of large whales: CA/OR/WA humpback whale, CA/OR/WA fin whale, and the Eastern North Pacific blue whales. Using the moderate level of vessel avoidance, this model estimated the following annual mortality of these stocks of large whales due to ship strikes as follows: 22 humpback whales (representing approximately 0.7 percent of the estimated population size of the stock); 43 fin whales (representing approximately <0.5 percent of the estimated population size of the stock); and 18 blue whales (representing approximately 1 percent of the estimated population size of the stock. Based on this new methodology, estimated levels of vessel strike mortality exceed PBR for both Eastern North Pacific blue and CA/OR/WA humpback whale stocks, although estimated vessel strike levels represent a small fraction of the overall estimated population sizes. Estimated vessel strikes are also compared with recent detected levels of vessel strikes, which indicate that detection rates for vessel strike events are quite low, ranging from approximately 1 percent (for blue whales) to 12 percent (for humpback whales). There is uncertainty regarding the estimated number of ship strike deaths as carcass recovery rates are quite low.

    New Methodology To Assign Cases of Entangled but Unidentified Whales to Stock: CA/OR/WA Humpback Whale, CA/OR/WA Fin Whale, Eastern North Pacific Gray Whale, and Eastern North Pacific Blue Whales

    Unidentified whales represent approximately 15 percent of entanglement cases along the U.S. West Coast. In previous stock assessments, unidentified entanglements were not assigned to stock. For large whale stocks, including gray, humpback, blue, and fin whales, a new methodology based on an assignment model generated from historic known-species entanglements in the region was used to assign previous cases of unidentified whale entanglements to species (Carretta 2018). This has eliminated a negative bias in assessments that occurs when unidentified whale entanglements are not assigned to any species/stock. In the case of CA/OR/WA humpback whales, observed levels of entanglements and vessel strikes combined exceed PBR.

    New Methodology To Calculate the Minimum Population Estimate (Nmin) for California Sea Lion

    The 2018 SAR for California sea lions uses a different methodology for estimating Nmin. The updated minimum population size of the U.S. stock is 233,515 (153,337 in 2014 SAR). This resulted in an increase in PBR from 9,200 (in 2014) to 14,011. The updated best abundance estimate available for California sea lions, based on a 1975-2014 time series of pup counts, combined with mark-recapture estimates of survival rates, is 257,606 sea lions (Laake et al., 2018) (down from 296,750 in 2014 SAR).

    The previous approach to calculate Nmin used two times the annual pup count, which resulted in negatively-biased Nmin values because not all age classes are represented. The Guidelines for preparing Stock Assessment Reports (NMFS 2016) recommends defining Nmin as the 20th percentile of a log-normal distribution based on an estimate of the number of animals in a stock (which is equivalent to the lower limit of a 60% 2-tailed confidence interval). The Guidelines allow for other approaches to be used to estimate Nmin if they provide an adequate level of assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than that estimate. Laake et al. (2018) did not provide a CV for the estimated population size, so the updated Nmin is based on the lower 95 percent confidence limit. The stock is estimated to be approximately 40 percent above its maximum net productivity level (MNPL = 183,481 animals), and it is therefore considered within the range of its optimum sustainable population. The carrying capacity of the population was estimated at 275,298 animals in 2014 (Laake et al. 2018). The total human caused mortality is less than the PBR of 14,011.

    Corrections to the 2016 and 2017 SARs

    Subsequent to announcing the availability of the final 2016 (82 FR 29039, June 27, 2017) and 2017 (83 FR 32093, July 11, 2018) SARs, we were made aware that the SARs contained some technical errors. In the 2016 North Atlantic right whale SAR, the PBR was listed incorrectly as 1. The correct PBR value for 2016 is 0.9. Similarly, in the 2017 North Atlantic right whale SAR, PBR was listed as 1.4, but the correct value is 0.9. In addition, the 2017 SAR for the WNA Central Florida Coastal Stock of common bottlenose dolphins contained a technical error. In the “Population Size” section, the name of the stock was incorrectly listed as the “Northern” Florida Coastal Stock instead of the “Central” Florida Coastal Stock. We have corrected the errors and posted revised versions of the 2016 and 2017 North Atlantic right whale SARs and 2017 WNA Central Florida Coastal Stock common bottlenose dolphin SAR on the NMFS website (see Addresses). With this Federal Register notice, we are notifying the public about the revised versions.

    References Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, E.M. Oleson, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, J. Baker, M.M. Muto, B. Hanson, A.J. Orr, H. Huber, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J.E. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, and R.L. Brownell Jr. 2018. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2017. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-602. 155 pp. Daoust, P.-Y., E.L. Couture, T. Wimmer and L. Bourque. 2017. Incident Report: North Atlantic right whale mortality event in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 2017. Collaborative report produced by: Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Marine Animal Response Society, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 256 pp. Garrison, L.P. and P.E. Rosel. 2017. Partitioning short-finned and long-finned pilot whale bycatch estimates using habitat and genetic information. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Protected Resources and Biodiversity Division, 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, FL 33140. PRBD Contribution # PRBD-2016-17, 24 pp. Hayes, S.A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P.E. Rosel, B. Byrd, S. Chavez-Rosales, T.V.N. Col, L. Engleby, L.P. Garrison, J. Hatch, A. Henry, S.C. Horstman, J. Litz, M.C. Lyssikatos, K.D. Mullin, C. Orphanides, R.M. Pace, D.L. Palka, M. Soldevilla, and F.W. Wenzel. 2018. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments—2017. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE-245; 371 p. Laake, J.L., M.S. Lowry, R.L. DeLong, S.R. Melin, and J.V. Carretta. 2018. Population growth and status of California sea lions. The Journal of Wildlife Management, DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21405. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. Guidelines for preparing Stock Assessment Reports pursuant to the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, NMFS Instruction 02-204-01, February 22, 2016. 24 pp. Rockwood, R.C., J. Calambokidis, and J. Jahncke. 2017. High mortality of blue, humpback and fin whales from modeling of vessel collisions on the U.S. West Coast suggests population impacts and insufficient protection. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0183052. Dated: September 12, 2018. Catherine E. Tortorici, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20185 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG451 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of Letter of Authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) for the take of marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted in the Pacific Ocean, including Puget Sound and the Columbia River.

    DATES:

    The authorization is effective from August 27, 2018, through August 28, 2023.

    ADDRESSES:

    The LOA and supporting documentation is available online: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nwfsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Paragraphs 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A) and (D)) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    Summary of Request

    On August 10, 2015, we received an adequate and complete request from NWFSC for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to fisheries research activities. On June 13, 2016 (81 FR 38516), we published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, requesting comments and information related to the proposed rule for thirty days. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2018 (83 FR 36370). For detailed information on this action, please refer to those documents. The regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during fisheries research activities in the specified geographic region.

    NWFSC conducts fisheries research using trawl gear used at various levels in the water column, longlines with multiple hooks, seine nets, and other gear. If a marine mammal interacts with gear deployed by NWFSC, the outcome could potentially be Level A harassment, serious injury (i.e., any injury that will likely result in mortality), or mortality. We pooled the estimated number of incidents of take resulting from gear interactions and assessed the potential impacts accordingly. NWFSC also uses various active acoustic devices in the conduct of fisheries research, and use of these devices has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals. Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled out on land may also occur as a result of visual disturbance from vessels conducting NWFSC research. NWFSC is authorized to take individuals of sixteen species by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality and of 28 species by Level B harassment.

    Authorization

    We have issued an LOA to NWFSC authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to fishery research activities, as described above. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through implementation of the following mitigation measures: (1) Implementation of a “move-on” rule in certain circumstances that is expected to reduce the potential for physical interaction with marine mammals; (2) use of a marine mammal excluder device in certain trawl nets; and (3) use of acoustic deterrent devices on certain trawl nets. Additionally, the rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate. The NWFSC will submit reports as required.

    Based on these findings and the information discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the activities described under these LOAs will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses.

    Dated: August 27, 2018. Cathryn E. Tortorici, Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20186 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Aleutian Islands Pollock Fishery Requirements.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0513.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Number of Respondents: 1.

    Average Hours per Response: 16.

    Burden Hours: 16.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved collection.

    Amendment 82 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) established a framework for the management of the Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) directed pollock fishery. An AI pollock fishery was allocated to the Aleut Corporation, Adak, Alaska, for the purpose of economic development in Adak, Alaska. The Aleut Corporation is identified in Public Law 108-199 as a business incorporated pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679.

    Each year at least 14 days before harvesting pollock or processing pollock in the AI directed pollock fishery, the Aleut Corporation selects harvesting vessels and processors for participation in this fishery. The Aleut Corporation submits its selected participants to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for approval. On approval, NMFS mails the Aleut Corporation a letter that includes a list of the approved participants. A copy of this letter must be retained on board each participating vessel and on site each shoreside processor at all times.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20212 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Planning, Protection or Restoration AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before November 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Patmarie Nedelka, (301) 713-3155 ext. 127 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. NOAA has, or is given, authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), annual appropriations or other authorities, to issue funds to coastal states, localities or other recipients for planning, conservation, acquisition, protection, restoration, or construction projects. The required information enables NOAA to implement the CELCP, under its current or future authorization, and facilitate the review of similar projects under different, but related, authorities.

    This includes projects funded through:

    • The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CZMA Section 307A) to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion, and procedures for eligible applicants who choose to participate in the program to use when developing state conservation plans, proposing or soliciting projects under this program, applying for funds, and carrying out projects under this program in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of the program pursuant to program guidelines which can be found on NOAA's website at: www.coast.noaa.gov/czm/landconservation/ or may be obtained upon request via the contact information listed above.

    • The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (CZMA Section 315) Land Acquisition and Construction program.

    • The Coastal Zone Management Program's low-cost acquisition and construction program (CZMA Section 306A), or the

    • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

    II. Method of Collection

    Electronic formats are the preferred method for submitting CELCP plans, project applications, performance reports and other required materials. However, respondents may submit materials in electronic or paper formats. Project applications are normally submitted electronically via Grants.gov, but may be submitted by mail in paper form if electronic submittal is not a viable option. Methods of submittal for plans, performance reports or other required materials may include electronic submittal via email or NOAA Grants Online, mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms, or submittal of electronic files on compact disc.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0459.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government; not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

    Estimated Time per Response: CELCP Plans, 120 hours to develop, 35 hours to revise or update; project application and checklist, 20 hours; semi-annual and annual reporting, 5 hours each.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,410.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $205 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20208 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Application for Commercial Fisheries Authorization Under Section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0293.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 600.

    Average Hours per Response: 15 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 150.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires any commercial fisherman operating in Category I and II fisheries to register for a certificate of authorization that will allow the fisherman to take marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Category I and II fisheries are those identified by NOAA as having either frequent or occasional takings of marine mammals. All states have integrated the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) registration process into the existing state fishery registration process and vessel owners do not need to file a separate federal registration. If applicable, vessel owners will be notified of this simplified registration process when they apply for their state or Federal permit or license.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Individuals or households.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20207 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; U.S. Territorial Catch and Fishing Effort Limits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before November 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, (808) 725-5175, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a current information collection.

    The Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP) contains a process under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to specify catch and/or fishing effort limits for management unit species caught by pelagic fisheries in the U.S. participating territories. The process allows NMFS to authorize the government of each U.S. participating territory to allocate a portion of its catch or fishing effort limit to a U.S. fishing vessel permitted under the FEP through specified fishing agreements. These agreements support fisheries development in the U.S. participating territories (see 50 CFR 665.819).

    A specified fishing agreement provides access to an identified portion of a catch or fishing effort limit and may not exceed the amount specified for the territory and made available for allocation. The identified portion of a catch or fishing effort limit in an agreement must account for recent and anticipated harvest on the stock or stock complex or fishing effort, and any other valid agreements with the territory during the same year not to exceed the territory's catch or fishing effort limit or allocation limit. Each participating territory may submit a complete specified fishing agreement for review and approval by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS. The agreement must (a) identify the vessels and document that each fishing vessel has a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 665.801, (b) identify the limit on catch of western Pacific pelagic management unit species, if applicable, (c) identify the limit on fishing effort, if applicable, (d) be signed by an authorized official of the participating territory or designated representative, and (e) be signed by each vessel owner or designated representative.

    II. Method of Collection

    There is no form for an agreement. Agreements may be submitted by mail or fax.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0689.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations; State or Territorial government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9.

    Estimated Time per Response: 6 hours per agreement; 2 hours per appeal.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 56 (estimating one appeal per year)

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $95 ($10 per agreement, $5 per appeal) for copying and mailing or for faxing.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility, (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20227 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; AmeriCorps Child Care Benefit Forms; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled AmeriCorps Child Care Benefit Forms for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by October 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Courtney Russell, at 202-606-6723 or by email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2018 at 83 FR 31531. This comment period ended September 4, 2018. No public comments were received from this Notice.

    Title of Collection: AmeriCorps Child Care Benefit Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 3045-0142. Type of Review: Renewal.

    Respondents/Affected Public: AmeriCorps members and child care providers for AmeriCorps members.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 750 members, 1,500 child care providers.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,313 hours.

    Abstract: CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its Child Care application forms. These forms are submitted by members of AmeriCorps and by the child care providers identified by the member for the purpose of applying for, and receiving payment for, the care of children during the day while the member is in service. Completion of this information is required to be approved and required to receive payment for invoices. CNCS also seeks to continue using the currently approved information collection until the revised information collection is approved by OMB. CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on October 31, 2018.

    Dated: September 12, 2018. E. Dahlin, Deputy Chief of Program Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20175 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    COUNCIL OF THE INSPECTORS GENERAL ON INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Membership AGENCY:

    Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the names and titles of the current membership of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) Performance Review Board as of October 1, 2018.

    DATES:

    This list is current as of October 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Individual Offices of Inspectors General at the telephone numbers listed below.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, created the Offices of Inspectors General as independent and objective units to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to Federal programs and operations. The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, established the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the Offices of Inspectors General. The CIGIE is an interagency council whose executive chair is the Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, and is comprised principally of the 73 Inspectors General (IGs).

    II. CIGIE Performance Review Board

    Under 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1)-(5), and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, each agency is required to establish one or more Senior Executive Service (SES) performance review boards. The purpose of these boards is to review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. The current members of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Performance Review Board, as of October 1, 2018, are as follows:

    Agency for International Development Phone Number: (202) 712-1150 CIGIE Liaison—Justin Brown (202) 712-1150

    Daniel Altman—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Thomas Yatsco—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Jason Carroll—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Nicole Angarella—General Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Alvin A. Brown—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Department of Agriculture Phone Number: (202) 720-8001 CIGIE Liaison—Angel N. Bethea (202) 720-8001

    Christy A. Slamowitz—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Gilroy Harden—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Steven H. Rickrode, Jr.—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Yarisis Rivera Rojas—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Ann M. Coffey—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Peter P. Paradis, Sr.—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Virginia E. B. Rone—Assistant Inspector General for Data Sciences.

    Robert J. Huttenlocker—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Department of Commerce Phone Number: (202) 482-4661 CIGIE Liaison—Clark Reid (202) 482-4661

    Allen Crawley—Deputy Inspector General.

    E. Wade Green—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Richard Bachman—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Carol Rice—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Mark Zabarsky—Principal Assistant Inspector General.

    Department of Defense Phone Number: (703) 604-8324 Acting CIGIE Liaison—Brett Mansfield (703) 604-8300

    Daniel R. Blair—Deputy Chief of Staff.

    Michael S. Child, Sr.—Deputy Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations.

    Carol N. Gorman—Assistant Inspector General for Readiness and Cyber Operations.

    Carolyn R. Hantz—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Policy and Oversight.

    Glenn A. Fine—Principal Deputy Inspector General.

    Janice M. Flores—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Internal Operations.

    Marguerite C. Garrison—Deputy Inspector General for Administrative Investigations.

    Theresa S. Hull—Assistant Inspector General for Acquisition and Sustainment Management.

    Kelly P. Mayo—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Troy M. Meyer—Principal Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Kenneth P. Moorefield—Deputy Inspector General for Special Plans and Operations.

    Dermot F. O'Reilly—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.

    Michael J. Roark—Assistant Inspector General for Contract Management and Payment.

    Steven A. Stebbins—Chief of Staff.

    Randolph R. Stone—Deputy Inspector General for Policy and Oversight.

    Lorin T. Venable—Assistant Inspector General for Financial Management and Reporting.

    Jacqueline L. Wicecarver—Deputy Inspector General for Audit.

    Department of Education Phone Number: (202) 245-6900 CIGIE Liaison—Keith Maddox (202) 748-4339

    David Morris—Assistant Inspector General for Management Services.

    Bryon Gordon—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Aaron Jordan—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Mark Smith—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Department of Energy Phone Number: (202) 586-4393 CIGIE Liaison—Dustin Wright (202) 586-1947

    April Stephenson—Principal Deputy Inspector General.

    Virginia Grebasch—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Michelle Anderson—Deputy Inspector General for Audits and Inspections.

    John Dupuy—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.

    Dustin Wright—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Sarah Nelson—Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Administration.

    Jennifer Quinones—Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Inspections—Eastern.

    Bruce Miller—Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Inspections—Western.

    Jack Rouch—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Debra Solmonson—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Inspections.

    John McCoy II—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Environmental Protection Agency CIGIE Liaison—Jennifer Kaplan (202) 566-0918

    Charles Sheehan—Deputy Inspector General.

    Alan Larsen—Counsel to the Inspector General and Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Public Affairs.

    Kevin Christensen—Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluation.

    Edward Shields—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Federal Labor Relations Authority Phone Number: (202) 218-7744 CIGIE Liaison—Dana Rooney (202) 218-7744

    Dana Rooney—Inspector General.

    Federal Maritime Commission Phone Number: (202) 523-5863 CIGIE Liaison—Jon Hatfield (202) 523-5863

    Jon Hatfield—Inspector General.

    Federal Trade Commission Phone Number: (202) 326-2355 CIGIE Liaison—Andrew Katsaros (202) 326-2355

    Andrew Katsaros—Acting Inspector General.

    General Services Administration Phone Number: (202) 501-0450 CIGIE Liaison—Jennifer Ross (202) 273-3042

    Robert C. Erickson—Deputy Inspector General.

    Larry L. Gregg—Associate Inspector General.

    Edward Martin—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    R. Nicholas Goco—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Barbara Bouldin—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Acquisition Program Audits.

    Brian Gibson—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Real Property Audits.

    James E. Adams—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Patricia D. Sheehan—Assistant Inspector General for Inspections.

    Department of Health and Human Services Phone Number: (202) 619-3148 CIGIE Liaison—Elise Stein (202) 619-2686

    Joanne Chiedi—Principal Deputy Inspector General.

    Christi Grimm—Chief of Staff.

    Robert Owens, Jr.—Deputy Inspector General for Management and Policy.

    Caryl Brzymialkiewicz—Assistant Inspector General/Chief Data Officer.

    Chris Chilbert—Assistant Inspector General/Chief Information Officer.

    Gary Cantrell—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.

    Les Hollie—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Thomas O'Donnell—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Suzanne Murrin—Deputy Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections.

    Erin Bliss—Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections.

    Ann Maxwell—Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections.

    Gregory Demske—Chief Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Robert DeConti—Assistant Inspector General for Legal Affairs.

    Lisa Re—Assistant Inspector General for Legal Affairs.

    Gloria Jarmon—Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services.

    Amy Frontz—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services.

    Carrie Hug—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services.

    Brian Ritchie—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services.

    Department of Homeland Security Phone Number: (202) 981-6000 CIGIE Liaison—Erica Paulson (202) 981-6392

    John Kelly—Acting Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General.

    Jennifer Costello—Chief Operating Officer/Acting Assistant Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluations.

    Diana Shaw—Assistant Inspector General for Legal Affairs.

    Donald Bumgardner—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Maureen Duddy—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Erica Paulson—Assistant Inspector General for External Affairs.

    Sondra McCauley—Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits/Acting Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Michele Kennedy—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Dennis McGunagle—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Thomas Salmon—Assistant Inspector General for Integrity and Quality Oversight.

    Louise M. McGlathery—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Department of Housing and Urban Development Phone Number: (202) 708-0430 CIGIE Liaison—Michael White (202) 402-8410

    Nicholas Padilla—Assistant Inspector General for Investigation.

    Robert Kwalwasser—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigation.

    Frank Rokosz—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    John Buck—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Kimberly Randall—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Laura Farrior—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Christopher Webber—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology.

    Jeremy Kirkland—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Brian Pattison—Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation.

    Department of the Interior Phone Number: (202) 208-5635 CIGIE Liaison—Karen Edwards (202) 208-5635

    Mary Kendall—Deputy Inspector General (Acting).

    Steve Hardgrove—Chief of Staff.

    Kimberly McGovern—Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Inspections and Evaluations.

    Matthew Elliott—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Bruce Delaplaine—General Counsel.

    Roderick Anderson—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Department of Justice Phone Number: (202) 514-3435 CIGIE Liaison—John Lavinsky (202) 514-3435

    William M. Blier—Deputy Inspector General.

    Michael Sean O'Neill—Assistant Inspector General for Oversight and Review.

    Jason R. Malmstrom—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Mark L. Hayes—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Eric A. Johnson—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Margaret Elise Chawaga—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Nina S. Pelletier—Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections.

    Gregory T. Peters—Assistant Inspector General for Management and Planning.

    Cynthia Lowell—Deputy Assistant Inspector for Management and Planning.

    Department of Labor Phone Number: (202) 693-5100 CIGIE Liaison—Luiz A. Santos (202) 693-7062

    Larry D. Turner—Deputy Inspector General.

    Dee Thompson—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Elliot P. Lewis—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Debra D. Pettitt—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Laura B. Nicolosi—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Cheryl Garcia—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations—Labor Racketeering and Fraud.

    Leia Burks—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations—Labor Racketeering and Fraud.

    Thomas D. Williams—Assistant Inspector General for Management and Policy.

    Charles Sabatos—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management and Policy.

    Luiz A. Santos—Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Public Relations.

    Jessica Southwell—Chief Performance and Risk Management Officer.

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Phone Number: (202) 358-1220 CIGIE Liaison—Renee Juhans (202) 358-1712

    George A. Scott—Deputy Inspector General.

    Frank LaRocca—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    James R. Ives—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    James L. Morrison—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Ross W. Weiland—Assistant Inspector General for Management Planning.

    National Archives and Records Administration Phone Number: (301) 837-3000 CIGIE Liaison—John Simms (301) 837-3000

    Jewel Butler—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Jason Metrick—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    National Labor Relations Board Phone Number: (202) 273-1960 CIGIE Liaison—Robert Brennan (202) 273-1960

    David P. Berry—Inspector General.

    National Science Foundation Phone Number: (703) 292-7100 CIGIE Liaison—Lisa Vonder Haar (703) 292-2989

    Megan Wallace—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Mark Bell—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Alan Boehm—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Ken Chason—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone Number: (301) 415-5930 CIGIE Liaison—Judy Gordon (301) 415-5913

    David C. Lee—Deputy Inspector General.

    Rocco J. Pierri—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Brett M. Baker—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Office of Personnel Management Phone Number: (202) 606-1200 CIGIE Liaison—Kevin T. Miller (202) 606-2030

    Norbert E. Vint—Deputy Inspector General/Acting Inspector General.

    Michael R. Esser—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Melissa D. Brown—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Lewis F. Parker, Jr.—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Drew M. Grimm—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Thomas W. South—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    James L. Ropelewski—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Nicholas E. Hoyle—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Gopala Seelamneni—Chief Information Technology Officer.

    Peace Corps Phone Number: (202) 692-2900 CIGIE Liaison—Joaquin Ferrao (202) 692-2921

    Kathy Buller—Inspector General (Foreign Service).

    Joaquin Ferrao—Deputy Inspector General and Legal Counsel (Foreign Service).

    United States Postal Service Phone Number: (703) 248-2100 CIGIE Liaison—Agapi Doulaveris (703) 248-2286

    Elizabeth Martin—General Counsel.

    Gladis Griffith—Deputy General Counsel.

    Mark Duda—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Railroad Retirement Board Phone Number: (312) 751-4690 CIGIE Liaison—Jill Roellig (312) 751-4993

    Patricia A. Marshall—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Heather Dunahoo—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Louis Rossignuolo—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Small Business Administration Phone Number: (202) 205-6586 CIGIE Liaison—Sheldon R. Shoemaker (202) 205-0080

    Mark P. Hines—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Andrea Deadwyler—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Social Security Administration Phone Number: (410) 966-8385 CIGIE Liaison—Walter E. Bayer, Jr. (202) 358-6319

    Gale Stallworth Stone—Deputy Inspector General/Acting Inspector General.

    Steven L. Schaeffer—Chief of Staff.

    Rona Lawson—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Kimberly Byrd—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Joseph Gangloff—Chief Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Michael Robinson—Senior Advisor to the Inspector General for Law Enforcement.

    Jennifer Walker—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations/Acting Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Joscelyn Funnié—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Communications and Resource Management/Acting Assistant Inspector General for Communications and Resource Management.

    Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Phone Number: (202) 622-1419 CIGIE Liaison—Kevin Gerrity (202) 622-8670

    Christopher Bosland—Deputy Chief of Staff.

    Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Phone Number: (571) 348-3804 CIGIE Liaison—Sarah Breen (571) 348-3992

    Emilia DiSanto—Deputy Inspector General.

    Michael H. Mobbs—General Counsel.

    Norman P. Brown—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Sandra J. Lewis—Assistant Inspector General for Inspections.

    Michael T. Ryan—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Cathy D. Alix—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Karen J. Ouzts—Assistant Inspector General for Enterprise Risk Management.

    Kevin S. Donohue—Deputy General Counsel.

    Gayle L. Voshell—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.

    Tinh T. Nguyen—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Middle East Region Operations.

    Lisa R. Rodely—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Inspections.

    Jeffrey D. Johnson—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Inspections.

    Brian Grossman—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Donna J. Butler— Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    Department of Transportation Phone Number: (202) 366-1959 CIGIE Liaison—Nathan P. Richmond: (202) 493-0422

    Mitchell L. Behm—Deputy Inspector General.

    Brian A. Dettelbach—Assistant Inspector General for Legal, Legislative, and External Affairs.

    Dr. Eileen Ennis—Assistant Inspector General for Administration and Management.

    Michelle T. McVicker—Principal Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Max Smith—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Joseph W. Comé—Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluation.

    Charles A. Ward—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Operations and Special Reviews.

    Matthew E. Hampton—Assistant Inspector General for Aviation Audits.

    Barry DeWeese—Assistant Inspector General for Surface Transportation Audits.

    Louis C. King—Assistant Inspector General for Financial and Information Technology Audits.

    Mary Kay Langan-Feirson—Assistant Inspector General for Acquisition and Procurement Audits.

    David Pouliott—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Surface Transportation Audits.

    Anthony Zakel—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Aviation Audits.

    Department of the Treasury Phone Number: (202) 622-1090 CIGIE Liaison—Rich Delmar (202) 927-3973

    Richard K. Delmar—Counsel to the Inspector General.

    Tricia L. Hollis—Assistant Inspector General for Management.

    John L. Phillips—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Jerry S. Marshall—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.

    Deborah L. Harker—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.

    Pauletta Battle—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Financial Management and Transparency Audits.

    Lisa A. Carter—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Financial Sector Audits.

    Donna F. Joseph—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Cyber and Financial Assistance Audits.

    Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration/Department of the Treasury Phone Number: (202) 622-6500 CIGIE Liaison—David Barnes (Acting) (202) 622-3062

    Thomas Carter—Deputy Chief Counsel.

    Gladys Hernandez—Chief Counsel.

    James Jackson—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.

    Gregory Kutz—Acting Deputy Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluations/Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Management Services & Exempt Organizations).

    Nancy LaManna—Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Management, Planning & Workforce Development).

    Russell Martin—Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Returns Processing & Account Services).

    Michael McKenney—Deputy Inspector General for Audit.

    Randy Silvis—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations (Field Divisions).

    George Jakabcin—Chief Information Officer.

    Danny Verneuille—Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Security and Information Technology Services).

    Matthew Weir—Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement Operations).

    Department of Veterans Affairs Phone Number: (202) 461-4720 CIGIE Liaison—Jennifer Geldhof (202) 461-4677

    Roy Fredrikson—Deputy Counselor to the Inspector General.

    Brent Arronte—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations.

    John D. Daigh—Assistant Inspector General for Healthcare Inspections.

    Dated: September 12, 2018. Mark D. Jones, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20243 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-C9-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2018-ICCD-0096] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; High School and Beyond 2020 (HS&B:20) Base-Year Field Test Sampling and Recruitment AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 19, 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-0096. 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: High School and Beyond 2020 (HS&B:20) Base-Year Field Test Sampling and Recruitment.

    OMB Control Number: 1850—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 4,836.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,721.

    Abstract: The High School and Beyond 2020 study (HS&B:20) will be the sixth in a series of longitudinal studies at the high school level conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education. HS&B:20 will follow a nationally-representative sample of ninth grade students from the start of high school in the fall of 2020 to the spring of 2024 when most will be in twelfth grade. The study sample will be freshened in 2024 to create a nationally representative sample of twelfth-graders. A high school transcript collection and additional follow-up data collections beyond high school are also planned. The NCES secondary longitudinal studies examine issues such as students' readiness for high school; the risk factors associated with dropping out of high school; high school completion; the transition into postsecondary education and access/choice of institution; the shift from school to work; and the pipeline into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). They inform education policy by tracking long-term trends and elucidating relationships among student, family, and school characteristics and experiences. HS&B:20 will follow the Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017/18 (MGLS:2017) which followed the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort of 2011 (ECLS-K:2011), thereby allowing for the study of all transitions from elementary school through high school and into higher education and/or the workforce. HS&B:20 will include surveys of students, parents, students' math teachers, counselors, and administrators. Students will also receive assessments in mathematics and reading, and be given a 2-minute vision test and a 10-minute hearing test. This request is to conduct, beginning in January 2019, state, school district, school, and parent recruitment activities, including collection of student rosters and selection of the base-year field test sample in preparation for the HS&B:20 base-year field test, scheduled to take place in the fall of 2019. Approval for the base-year field test data collection and base-year full-scale sampling and recruitment activities will be requested in a separate submission in early 2019.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20216 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2018-ICCD-0073] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Federal Perkins/NDSL Loan Assignment Form AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 18, 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-0073. 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    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: Federal Perkins/NDSL Loan Assignment Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0048.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 37,943.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 18,972.

    Abstract: Institutions participating in the Federal Perkins Loan program use the assignment form to assign loans to the Department for collection without recompense, transferring the authority to collect on the loan. This request is for continued approval off the paper based assignment form and the electronic process. The electronic process will allow for batch processing as well as individual processing. The same information is being requested in both processing methods.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20218 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Coal Council AGENCY:

    Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a virtual meeting of the National Coal Council (NCC) via WebEx. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Monday, October 1, 2018 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. (EST)

    ADDRESSES:

    This will be virtual meeting conducted through WebEx. If you wish to join the meeting you must register by close of business (5:00 p.m. EST) on Wednesday, September 26th by using the form available at the following URL: http://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/page-NCC-Events.html. The email address you provide in the on-line registration form will be used to forward instructions on how to join the meeting using WebEx. WebEx requires a computer, web browser and an installed application (free). Instructions for joining the webcast will be sent to you two days in advance of the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Giove, U.S. Department of Energy, E-136/Germantown Building, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290; Telephone 301-903-4130.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Council: The National Coal Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on general policy matters relating to coal and the coal industry.

    Purpose of Meeting: The National Coal Council (the Council) will hold a virtual meeting via webcast at 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. (EST) on October 1, 2018, for the sole purpose of reviewing and voting on the following two reports: “Advancing U.S. Coal Exports: An Assessment of Opportunities to Enhance Exports of U.S. Coal” and “Power Reset: Optimizing the Existing Coal Fleet to Ensure a Reliable and Resilient Grid.” The Council membership will be asked to accept these reports and forward them to the U.S. Secretary of Energy. The draft reports are available on the National Coal Council website at the following URL: http://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/page-NCC-Studies.html.

    Tentative Agenda

    • Call to order by Joseph Giove, NCC Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Director Coal Business Operations, Office Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.

    • NCC Report Presentation on “Advancing U.S. Coal Exports: An Assessment of Opportunities to Enhance Exports of U.S. Coal” by report co-chairs Justin Burk, Commercial Director, Peabody and David Lawson, Vice President Coal, Norfolk Southern Corporation.

    • NCC Report Presentation on “Power Reset: Optimizing the Existing Coal Fleet to Ensure a Reliable & Resilient Power Grid” by Janet Gellici, CEO, National Coal Council Inc.

    • Public Comment Period & Closing Remarks.

    • Adjourn.

    All attendees are requested to register in advance for the meeting at: http://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/page-NCC-Events.html.

    Exceptional Circumstances: This notice is being published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting on October 1, 2018, due to exceptional circumstances. The previous National Coal Council FACA meeting was announced in the Federal Register to take place on September 13, 2018, in Norfolk, VA. That meeting was postponed as a result of the State of Emergency issued by the Virginia Governor due to Hurricane Florence. The reports that are to be reviewed at this rescheduled meeting on October 1, 2018, have been posted to the NCC website for public review since September 4, 2018.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement to be read during the virtual webcast, you may do so within five calendar days of the event. Please email your written statement to Joseph Giove at [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, September 26th. If you would like to make an oral statement during the call regarding the reports being reviewed, you must both register to attend the webcast and also contact Joseph Giove (301-903-4130 or [email protected]) to state your desire to speak. You must make your request for an oral statement by 5:00 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, September 26th. Reasonable provision will be made to include oral statements at the conclusion of the meeting. However, those who fail to register in advance may not be accommodated. Oral statements are limited to 5-minutes per organization and per person.

    Minutes: A recording of the call will be posted on the FACA Database website: https://facadatabase.gov/committee/historymeetings.aspx?cid=408&fy=2017.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on September 13, 2018. Latanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20276 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge AGENCY:

    Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, October 10, 2018 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melyssa P. Noe, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM), P.O. Box 2001, EM-942, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 241-6932; Email: [email protected] Or visit the website at: https://energy.gov/orem/services/community-engagement/oak-ridge-site-specific-advisory-board.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda • Welcome and Announcements • Comments from the Deputy Designated Federal Officer (DDFO) • Comments from the DOE, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and Environmental Protection Agency Liaisons • Public Comment Period • Presentation: Overview of OREM Program Outreach Efforts • Motions/Approval of September 12, 2018 Meeting Minutes • Status of Outstanding Recommendations • Alternate DDFO Report • Committee Reports • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Melyssa P. Noe at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Melyssa P. Noe at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Melyssa P. Noe at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: https://energy.gov/orem/listings/oak-ridge-site-specific-advisory-board-meetings.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on September 12, 2018. Latanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20234 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection: Security AGENCY:

    Bonneville Power Administration, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), invites public comment on a collection of information that BPA is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before November 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Bonneville Power Administration, Attn: Laura McCarthy, Privacy Program, CGC-7, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621, or by fax Attn: Laura McCarthy, Privacy Program, CGC-7, at (503) 230-4619, or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Attn: Laura McCarthy, Privacy Program, CGC-7, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621, or by fax Attn: Laura McCarthy, Privacy Program, CGC-7 at (503) 230-4619, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 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.

    This information collection request contains:

    (1) OMB No.: New; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Security; (3) Type of Request: Existing collections without OMB Control Number; (4) Purpose: This information collection is associated with BPA's management and oversight of personnel security and physical security of its facilities. Non-employees, contractors, and the general public complete the following forms: BPA F 5632.01, Security Incident Report; BPA F 5632.08, Unclassified Visits and Assignments—Foreign Nationals Registration (Short Form); BPA F 5632.09, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Request: Information Sheet for Sponsorship of DOE Security Badge or LSSO; BPA F 5632.11, BPA Visitor(s) Access Request; BPA F 5632.12, Evidence/Property Custody Document; BPA F 5632.18, Crime Witness Telephone Report; BPA F 5632.27, Badge Replacement Form; BPA F 5632.30, Pin Code Request; and BPA F 5632.32, Card Key Access Request. (5) Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,642; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,642; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,440; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: 0.

    Statutory Authority: The Bonneville Project Act, codified at 16 U.S.C. 832; and the following additional authorities:

    BPA F 5632.01, Security Incident Report: FERC Order No. 706, sec. 343, pg. 98.

    BPA F 5632.08, Unclassified Visits and Assignments—Foreign Nationals Registration (Short Form): E.O. 12333 (December 4, 1981); E.O. 13284 (January 23, 2003); E.O. 13470, (July 30, 2008); FERC Order No. 706 sec. 343, pg. 98.

    BPA F 5632.09, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Request: Information Sheet for Sponsorship of DOE Security Badge or LSSO: E.O. 13467 (April 27, 1953).

    E.O. 13488 (January 16, 2009); E.O. 13764, (January 17, 2017); Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 201-2 (FIPS 201-2) and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12).

    BPA F 5632.11, BPA Visitor(s) Access Request: 42 U.S.C. 2165; FERC Order No. 706 sec. 343, pg. 98.

    BPA F 5632.12, Evidence/Property Custody Document: 42 U.S.C. 2165; FERC Order No. 706 sec. 343, pg. 98.

    BPA F 5632.18, Crime Witness Telephone Report: FERC Order No. 706, sec. 343, pg. 98.

    BPA F 5632.27, Badge Replacement Form: Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 201-2 (FIPS 201-2) and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12).

    BPA F 5632.30, Pin Code Request: Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 201-2 (FIPS 201-2) and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12).

    BPA F 5632.32, Card Key Access Request: 42 U.S.C 2165; FERC Order No. 706 sec. 343, pg. 98.

    Signed in Portland, Oregon, on September 11, 2018. Rachel Lynn Hull, Acting Manager, Information Governance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20242 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1166-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20180911 Miscellaneous Filing to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180911-5038.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1167-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1430: Order No. 849—Request for Extension of Time to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 9/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180911-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/24/18.

    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: September 12, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20202 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-155-000.

    Applicants: Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et al. of Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois.

    Filed Date: 9/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180911-5211.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-124-000.

    Applicants: Birdsboro Power LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of Birdsboro Power LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180912-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2303-001.

    Applicants: Adams Wind Farm, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of Adams Wind Farm, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180912-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2305-001.

    Applicants: Bobilli BSS, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of Bobilli BSS, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180912-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2306-001.

    Applicants: Garwind, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of Garwind, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180912-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2308-001.

    Applicants: K&K Wind Enterprises, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of K&K Wind Enterprises, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180912-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2309-001.

    Applicants: Rose Creek Wind, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of Rose Creek Wind, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180912-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2310-001.

    Applicants: Rose Wind Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MBR Tariff Filing of Rose Wind Holdings, LLC to be effective 10/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180912-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2413-000.

    Applicants: MidAmerican Central California Transco, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to TO Tariff to be effective 9/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180911-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2414-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: BPA NITSA (UIUC) Rev 9 to be effective 8/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/12/18.

    Accession Number: 20180912-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-56-000.

    Applicants: GridLiance High Plains LLC.

    Description: Supplement to August 16, 2018 Application for Authorization under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of GridLiance High Plains LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/7/18.

    Accession Number: 20180907-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/18.

    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: September 12, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20197 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9982-87] Access to Confidential Business Information by General Dynamics Information Technology AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has authorized its contractor, General Dynamics Information Technology of Fairfax, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

    DATES:

    Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than September 25, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8257; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave. Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number HHSN316201200013W, order number EP-G16H-01256, contractor General Dynamics Information Technology of 3211 Jermantown Rd., Fairfax, VA will assist the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in support of Toxics Release Inventory updates; risk assessments for both new and existing industrial chemicals; identifying chemicals of interest in Screening Information Data Set (SIDSs); and support of assessment/prioritization efforts for existing chemicals under the Lautenberg Act and the Chemical Assessment and Management Plan (CHAMP).

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA contract number HHSN316201200013W, order number EP-G16H-01256, General Dynamics Information Technology will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract. General Dynamics Information Technology personnel will be given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA that EPA may provide General Dynamics Information Technology access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and ORD's site located in Duluth, MN, in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.

    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until January 31, 2023. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.

    General Dynamics Information Technology personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: August 30, 2018. Pamela Myrick, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20286 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0678] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before November 19, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0678.

    Title: Part 25 of the Federal Communications Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Commercial Earth Stations and Space Stations.

    Form Nos.: FCC Form 312; Schedule A; Schedule B; Schedule S; FCC Form 312-EZ; FCC Form 312-R.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents: 7,170 respondents; 7,219 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-80 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, one time, and annual reporting requirements; third-party disclosure requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721.

    Total Annual Burden: 42,014 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $12,411,120.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information. Certain information collected regarding international coordination of satellite systems is not routinely available for public inspection pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 47 CFR 0.457(d)(vii).

    Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a revision of the information collection titled “Part 25 of the Federal Communications Commission's Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage By, Commercial Earth Stations and Space Stations” under OMB Control No. 3060-0678, as a result of a recent rulemaking discussed below.

    On July 13, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) released an Order titled, “In the Matter of Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz; Petition for Rulemaking to Amend and Modernize Parts 25 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Authorize and Facilitate the Deployment of Licensed Point-to-Multipoint Fixed Wireless Broadband Service in the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band; Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc., Request for Modified Coordination Procedures in Band Shared Between the Fixed Service and the Fixed Satellite Service,” GN Docket No. 18-122, GN Docket No. 17-183, RM-11791, RM-11778 (FCC 18-91). The Order has been published in the Federal Register. 83 FR 42043 (Aug. 20, 2018).

    In this proceeding, the Commission seeks to identify potential opportunities for additional terrestrial use for wireless broadband services of 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum between 3.7-4.2 GHz. In response to concerns that the Commission's information regarding current use of the band is inaccurate and/or incomplete, the Commission adopted an Order requesting additional information from operators in the fixed-satellite service (FSS). Specifically, for FSS operators in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, the Order (1) requests additional information on the operations of temporary-fixed earth station licensees, and (2) requests additional information on the operations of space stations. This information collection will provide the Commission and the public with additional information about existing FSS operators that will be used to consider potential new terrestrial services in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band while protecting the interests of those FSS operators. The Order also requires certain earth station operators to file certifications that information on file with the Commission remains accurate.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20240 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0188, 3060-0688] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before November 19, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0188.

    Title: Call Sign Reservation and Authorization System, FCC Form 380.

    Form Number: FCC Form 380.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions; and State, local, or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,600 respondents; 1,600 responses.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 0.166-0.25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

    Total Annual Burden: 333 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $162,000.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extend of Confidentiality: There is need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.3550 provide that all requests for new or modified call signs be made via the on-line call sign reservation and authorization. The Commission uses an on-line system, FCC Form 380, for the electronic preparation and submission of requests for the reservation and authorization of new and modified call signs. Access to the call sign reservation and authorization system is made by broadcast licensees and permittees, or by persons acting on their behalf, via the internet's World Wide Web. This on-line, electronic call sign system enables users to determine the availability and licensing status of call signs; to request an initial, or change an existing, call sign; and to determine and submit more easily the appropriate fee, if any. Because all elements necessary to make a valid call sign reservation are encompassed within the on-line system, this system prevents users from filing defective or incomplete call sign requests. The electronic system also provides greater certitude, as a selected call sign is effectively reserved as soon as the user has submitted its call sign request. This electronic call sign reservation and authorization system has significantly improved service to all radio and television broadcast station licensees and permittees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0688.

    Title: Abbreviated Cost-of-Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades, FCC Form 1235.

    Form Number: FCC Form 1235.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; State, local or tribal governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 5 respondents; 5 responses.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 10-20 hours.

    Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: None.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: FCC Form 1235 is an abbreviated cost of service filing for significant network upgrades that allows cable operators to justify rate increases related to capital expenditures used to improve rate-regulated cable services. FCC Form 1235 is filed following the end of the month in which upgraded cable services become available and are providing benefits to subscribers. In addition, FCC Form 1235 can be filed for pre-approval any time prior to the upgrade services becoming available to subscribers using projected upgrade costs. If the pre-approval option is exercised, the operator must file the form again following the end of the month in which upgraded cable services become available and are providing benefits to customers of regulated services, using actual costs where applicable.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20251 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1031] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority 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 FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 19, 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1031.

    Title: Commission's Initiative to Implement Enhanced 911 (E911) Emergency Services.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and State, Local and Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 22 respondents; 23 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2-20 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, one-time reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement, and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 70 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No Impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not required to submit proprietary trade secrets or other confidential information. However, carriers that believe the only way to satisfy the requirements for information is to submit what it considers to be proprietary trade secrets or other confidential information, carriers are free to request that materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection and from the E911 website (see Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking an extension of this information collection from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in order to obtain the full three-year approval. The information collection requirements contained in this collection guarantee continued cooperation between wireless carriers and Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in complying with the Commission's E911 requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20241 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0668] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before November 19, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0668.

    Title: Section 76.936, Written Decisions.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; State or Local, or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 150 respondents; 150 responses.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality required with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contain in 47 CFR 76.936 require that a franchising authority must issue a written decision in a rate-making proceeding whenever it disapproves an initial rate for the basic service tier or associated equipment in whole or in part, disapproves a request for a rate increase in whole or in part, or approves a request for an increase whole or in part over the objection of interested parties. Franchising authorities are required to issue a written decision in rate-making proceedings pursuant to Section 76.936 so that cable operators and the public are made aware of the proceeding.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20252 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0980] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before November 19, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0980.

    Title: Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Local Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues and Retransmission Consent Issues, 47 CFR Section 76.66.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 10,300 respondents; 11,978 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour to 5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Once every three years reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 325, 338, 339 and 340.

    Total Annual Burden: 12,186 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $24,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The following information collection requirements are approved under this collection: 47 CFR 76.66(d)(6) addresses satellite carriage after a market modification is granted by the Commission. The rule states that television broadcast stations that become eligible for mandatory carriage with respect to a satellite carrier (pursuant to § 76.66) due to a change in the market definition (by operation of a market modification pursuant to § 76.59) may, within 30 days of the effective date of the new definition, elect retransmission consent or mandatory carriage with respect to such carrier. A satellite carrier shall commence carriage within 90 days of receiving the carriage election from the television broadcast station. The election must be made in accordance with the requirements of 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1).

    47 CFR 76.66(b)(1) states each satellite carrier providing, under section 122 of title 17, United States Code, secondary transmissions to subscribers located within the local market of a television broadcast station of a primary transmission made by that station, shall carry upon request the signals of all television broadcast stations located within that local market, subject to section 325(b) of title 47, United States Code, and other paragraphs in this section. Satellite carriers are required to carry digital-only stations upon request in markets in which the satellite carrier is providing any local-into-local service pursuant to the statutory copyright license.

    47 CFR 76.66(b)(2) requires a satellite carrier that offers multichannel video programming distribution service in the United States to more than 5,000,000 subscribers shall, no later than December 8, 2005, carry upon request the signal originating as an analog signal of each television broadcast station that is located in a local market in Alaska or Hawaii; and shall, no later than June 8, 2007, carry upon request the signals originating as digital signals of each television broadcast station that is located in a local market in Alaska or Hawaii. Such satellite carrier is not required to carry the signal originating as analog after commencing carriage of digital signals on June 8, 2007. Carriage of signals originating as digital signals of each television broadcast station that is located in a local market in Alaska or Hawaii shall include the entire free over-the-air signal, including multicast and high definition digital signals.

    47 CFR 76.66(c)(3)-(4) requires that a commercial television station notify a satellite carrier in writing whether it elects to be carried pursuant to retransmission consent or mandatory consent in accordance with the established election cycle.

    47 CFR 76.66(c)(5) requires that a noncommercial television station must request carriage by notifying a satellite carrier in writing in accordance with the established election cycle.

    47 CFR 76.66(c)(6) requires a commercial television broadcast station located in a local market in a noncontiguous state to make its retransmission consent-mandatory carriage election by October 1, 2005, for carriage of its signals that originate as analog signals for carriage commencing on December 8, 2005 and ending on December 31, 2008, and by April 1, 2007 for its signals that originate as digital signals for carriage commencing on June 8, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008. For analog and digital signal carriage cycles commencing after December 31, 2008, such stations shall follow the election cycle in 47 CFR 76.66(c)(2) and 47 CFR 76.66(c)(4). A noncommercial television broadcast station located in a local market in Alaska or Hawaii must request carriage by October 1, 2005, for carriage of its signals that originate as an analog signal for carriage commencing on December 8, 2005 and ending on December 31, 2008, and by April 1, 2007 for its signals that originate as digital signals for carriage commencing on June 8, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008. Moreover, Section 76.66(c) requires a commercial television station located in a local market in a noncontiguous state to provide notification to a satellite carrier whether it elects to be carried pursuant to retransmission consent or mandatory consent.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii) states an election request made by a television station must be in writing and sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of business, by certified mail, return receipt requested.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii) states a television station's written notification shall include the: (A) Station's call sign; (B) Name of the appropriate station contact person; (C) Station's address for purposes of receiving official correspondence; (D) Station's community of license; (E) Station's DMA assignment; and (F) For commercial television stations, its election of mandatory carriage or retransmission consent.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iv) Within 30 days of receiving a television station's carriage request, a satellite carrier shall notify in writing: (A) Those local television stations it will not carry, along with the reasons for such a decision; and (B) those local television stations it intends to carry.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(i) states a new satellite carrier or a satellite carrier providing local service in a market for the first time after July 1, 2001, shall inform each television broadcast station licensee within any local market in which a satellite carrier proposes to commence carriage of signals of stations from that market, not later than 60 days prior to the commencement of such carriage (A) Of the carrier's intention to launch local-into-local service under this section in a local market, the identity of that local market, and the location of the carrier's proposed local receive facility for that local market; (B) Of the right of such licensee to elect carriage under this section or grant retransmission consent under section 325(b); (C) That such licensee has 30 days from the date of the receipt of such notice to make such election; and (D) That failure to make such election will result in the loss of the right to demand carriage under this section for the remainder of the 3-year cycle of carriage under section 325.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(ii) states satellite carriers shall transmit the notices required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section via certified mail to the address for such television station licensee listed in the consolidated database system maintained by the Commission.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(iii) requires a satellite carrier with more than five million subscribers to provide a notice as required by 47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(i) and 47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(ii) to each television broadcast station located in a local market in a noncontiguous state, not later than September 1, 2005 with respect to analog signals and a notice not later than April 1, 2007 with respect to digital signals; provided, however, that the notice shall also describe the carriage requirements pursuant to Section 338(a)(4) of Title 47, United States Code, and 47 CFR 76.66(b)(2).

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(iv) requires that a satellite carrier shall commence carriage of a local station by the later of 90 days from receipt of an election of mandatory carriage or upon commencing local-into-local service in the new television market.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(v) states within 30 days of receiving a local television station's election of mandatory carriage in a new television market, a satellite carrier shall notify in writing: Those local television stations it will not carry, along with the reasons for such decision, and those local television stations it intends to carry.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(2)(vi) requires satellite carriers to notify all local stations in a market of their intent to launch HD carry-one, carry-all in that market at least 60 days before commencing such carriage.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(3)(ii) states a new television station shall make its election request, in writing, sent to the satellite carrier's principal place of business by certified mail, return receipt requested, between 60 days prior to commencing broadcasting and 30 days after commencing broadcasting. This written notification shall include the information required by paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(3)(iv) states within 30 days of receiving a new television station's election of mandatory carriage, a satellite carrier shall notify the station in writing that it will not carry the station, along with the reasons for such decision, or that it intends to carry the station.

    47 CFR 76.66(d)(5)(i) states beginning with the election cycle described in § 76.66(c)(2), the retransmission of significantly viewed signals pursuant to § 76.54 by a satellite carrier that provides local-into-local service is subject to providing the notifications to stations in the market pursuant to paragraphs (d)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, unless the satellite carrier was retransmitting such signals as of the date these notifications were due. (A) In any local market in which a satellite carrier provided local-into-local service on December 8, 2004, at least 60 days prior to any date on which a station must make an election under paragraph (c) of this section, identify each affiliate of the same television network that the carrier reserves the right to retransmit into that station's local market during the next election cycle and the communities into which the satellite carrier reserves the right to make such retransmissions; (B) In any local market in which a satellite carrier commences local-into-local service after December 8, 2004, at least 60 days prior to the commencement of service in that market, and thereafter at least 60 days prior to any date on which the station must thereafter make an election under § 76.66(c) or (d)(2), identify each affiliate of the same television network that the carrier reserves the right to retransmit into that station's local market during the next election cycle.

    47 CFR 76.66(f)(3) states except as provided in 76.66(d)(2), a satellite carrier providing local-into-local service must notify local television stations of the location of the receive facility by June 1, 2001 for the first election cycle and at least 120 days prior to the commencement of all election cycles thereafter.

    47 CFR 76.66(f)(4) states a satellite carrier may relocate its local receive facility at the commencement of each election cycle. A satellite carrier is also permitted to relocate its local receive facility during the course of an election cycle, if it bears the signal delivery costs of the television stations affected by such a move. A satellite carrier relocating its local receive facility must provide 60 days notice to all local television stations carried in the affected television market.

    47 CFR 76.66(h)(5) states a satellite carrier shall provide notice to its subscribers, and to the affected television station, whenever it adds or deletes a station's signal in a particular local market pursuant to this paragraph.

    47 CFR 76.66(m)(1) states whenever a local television broadcast station believes that a satellite carrier has failed to meet its obligations under this section, such station shall notify the carrier, in writing, of the alleged failure and identify its reasons for believing that the satellite carrier failed to comply with such obligations.

    47 CFR 76.66(m)(2) states the satellite carrier shall, within 30 days after such written notification, respond in writing to such notification and comply with such obligations or state its reasons for believing that it is in compliance with such obligations.

    47 CFR 76.66(m)(3) states a local television broadcast station that disputes a response by a satellite carrier that it is in compliance with such obligations may obtain review of such denial or response by filing a complaint with the Commission, in accordance with § 76.7 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations. Such complaint shall allege the manner in which such satellite carrier has failed to meet its obligations and the basis for such allegations.

    47 CFR 76.66(m)(4) states the satellite carrier against which a complaint is filed is permitted to present data and arguments to establish that there has been no failure to meet its obligations under this section.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20250 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-XXXX] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 19, 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Intermediate Provider Registry, WC Docket No. 13-39.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: New information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 168 respondents; 168 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure; one-time reporting requirement; on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 202(a), 217, and 262 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 202(a), 217, and 262.

    Total Annual Burden: 168 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    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 Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017 (RCC Act), Public Law 115-129, requires the Commission establish a registry for intermediate providers and requires intermediate providers register with the Commission before offering to transmit covered voice communications. The information collected through this information collection will be used to implement Congress's direction to the Commission to establish an intermediate provider registry.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20270 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements 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. Copies of agreements are 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.: 201260-002.

    Agreement Name: Ocean Network Express Pte. Ltd. (ONE)/NYK Bulk & Projects Carriers Ltd. Slot Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Ocean Network Express Pte. Ltd. and NYK Bulk & Project Carriers Ltd.

    Filing Party: Carrol Hand; Ocean Network Express.

    Synopsis: The amendment extends the geographic scope of the agreement and allows for space allocation on an as needed/as available basis.

    Proposed Effective Date: 10/20/2018.

    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/13191.

    Agreement No.: 201272.

    Agreement Name: KYOWA/CNCo Pacific—Asia Slot Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Kyowa Shipping Co.,, Ltd. and The China Navigation Co. Pte. Ltd.

    Filing Party: Conte Cicala; Clyde & Co. US LLP.

    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes KYOWA to charter space to CNCo on certain vessels KYOWA operates and authorizes CNCo to charter space to KYOWA on certain vessels CNCo operates between and among various foreign ports and Pago Pago, American Samoa.

    Proposed Effective Date: 9/12/2018.

    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/16283.

    Dated: September 13, 2018. Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20219 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 3, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Sanford O. Ilstrup, Trempealeau, Wisconsin, individually and acting in concert with Richard Davig, Viroqua, Wisconsin, Jeffrey Ilstrup, Onalaska, Wisconsin, Rondi Solverson, Viroqua, Wisconsin, Shane Ilstrup, Trempealeau, Wisconsin, Stephanie Sirek, Rochester, Minnesota, Erik Solverson, Hermosa Beach, California, and Ingrid Solverson-Keneipp, Viroqua, Wisconsin; to join the Ilstrup Family Control Group and acquire voting shares of Firsnabanco, Inc. and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Citizens First Bank, both of Viroqua, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 12, 2018. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20159 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 15, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Rhinebeck Bancorp MHC and Rhinebeck Bancorp, Inc.; to become bank holding companies by acquiring voting shares of Rhinebeck Bank, all of Poughkeepsie, New York.

    Rhinebeck Bank proposes to reorganize into a two-tier mutual holding company structure. Rhinebeck MHC will own 55 percent of Rhinebeck Bancorp, which will own 100 percent of the bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 13, 2018. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20253 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 182 3095] Sandpiper of California and PiperGear USA; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write: “Sandpiper of California and PiperGear USA” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftcsandpiperconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Sandpiper of California and PiperGear USA; File No. 1823095” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Solomon Ensor (202-326-2377) or Crystal Ostrum (202-326-3405), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 12, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 12, 2018. Write “Sandpiper of California and PiperGear USA; File No. 1823095” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftcsandpiperconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that website.

    If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Sandpiper of California and PiperGear USA; File No. 1823095” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

    Visit the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before October 12, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Sandpiper of California, Inc. and PiperGear USA, Inc. (“Respondents”).

    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter involves Respondents' marketing, sale, and distribution of bags and wallets with claims that the products are made in the United States.

    According to the FTC's complaint, Respondents represented that all of their products are all or virtually all made in the United States. In fact, more than 95% of Respondent Sandpiper's products are imported as finished goods, and approximately 80% of Respondent PiperGear's products are either imported as finished goods or contain significant imported components. Based on the foregoing, the complaint alleges that Respondents engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Consistent with the FTC's Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, Part I prohibits Respondents from making U.S.-origin claims for their products unless either: (1) The final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States; (2) a clear and conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, and/or processing; or (3) for a claim that a product is assembled in the United States, the product is last substantially transformed in the United States, the product's principal assembly takes place in the United States, and United States assembly operations are substantial.

    Part II prohibits Respondents from making any country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is true, not misleading, and Respondents have a reasonable basis substantiating the representation.

    Parts III through VI are reporting and compliance provisions. Part III requires Respondents to acknowledge receipt of the order, to provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors, and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the order. Part IV requires each Respondent to file a compliance report within one year after the order becomes final and to notify the Commission within 14 days of certain changes that would affect compliance with the order. Part V requires Respondents to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. Part VI requires Respondents to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview respondent's personnel.

    Finally, Part VII is a “sunset” provision, terminating the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Chopra dissenting.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    Concurring Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, in Which Chairman Joe Simons Joins

    When companies falsely claim that their products are made in the U.S.A., they take advantage of consumers who choose to spend their dollars supporting domestic products and the companies who expend resources in order to make the claim proudly and truthfully. Today, the Commission is announcing three enforcement actions 1 targeting companies and an individual who we allege falsely claimed their products were made in the U.S.A. in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In Patriot Puck, respondent George Statler III and his companies marketed hockey pucks imported from China as “Made in America” and “The only American Made Hockey Puck!” The Nectar Sleep respondents included the statement “Designed and Assembled in the USA” in product descriptions for mattresses wholly imported from China. And in Sandpiper/PiperGear, respondents marketed imported backpacks and wallets on websites claiming “Featuring American Made Products” and shipped imported wallets with cards labeled “American Made.” The Commission's complaints allege that these claims were plainly false and the respondents have all agreed to strong administrative consent orders.

    1 To date, the Commission has initiated 25 enforcement actions arising from misleading U.S.-origin claims, targeting entities that engage in intentional deception or refuse to come into prompt compliance. FTC staff also works extensively with companies to achieve compliance in this area, issuing more than 130 closing letters addressing potential U.S.-origin claims. These letters highlight that where companies make errors or potentially deceptive claims to consumers, Commission staff works with them to quickly come into compliance. In addition to enforcement actions and compliance counseling, the Commission's program to protect consumers from deceptive U.S.-origin claims involves significant business education efforts. In 1997, the Commission issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims that explains the types of U.S.-origin claims that can be made and the substantiation needed to support them. Commission staff has also issued comprehensive guidance, press releases and blogs in this area to promote compliance.

    Each of the administrative consent orders prohibits the respondents from making these types of claims in the future 2 and requires the respondents to engage in recordkeeping and reporting that will assist the FTC in monitoring compliance.3 Any violation of these orders can result in a civil penalty of over $40,000 per violation.4 There is evidence that these potential penalties have served as powerful deterrents: To date the FTC has only had cause to initiate one contempt proceeding 5 against the more than twenty prior respondents in cases involving U.S.-origin claims.

    2 Specifically, the orders prohibit respondents from making deceptive unqualified U.S.-origin claims about their products and lay out the type of substantiation required to make truthful claims. The orders also govern the manner and type of qualification needed to make a lawful qualified claim regarding U.S.-origin. The orders further prohibit respondents from making any country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is true, not misleading, and respondents have a reasonable basis substantiating the representation.

    3 Each of the orders requires the respondents to file a compliance report within one year after the order becomes final and to notify the Commission within 14 days of certain changes that would affect compliance with the order. Respondents are also required to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. The orders also require respondents to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview respondents' personnel. The orders remain in effect for 20 years.

    4 Outside of specific rules, the FTC does not have authority to seek civil penalties for violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC does have authority to seek civil penalties for any violations of its administrative orders. See 15 U.S.C. 45(l) and 16 CFR 1.98(d) (2018).

    5See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2006/06/ftc-alleges-stanley-made-false-made-usa-claims-about-its-tools (announcing settlement with Stanley Works that imposed a $205,000 civil penalty for violating prior order regarding U.S.-origin claims).

    In this area, administrative consent orders securing permanent injunctive relief buttressed by the threat of significant civil penalties have been largely successful in keeping former violators on the straight and narrow and have no doubt served as a warning to others that false claims will be identified and pursued. Therefore, we are voting in support of the relief set forth in the final and proposed administrative orders announced today.

    We write separately to highlight the possibility that the FTC can further maximize its enforcement reach, in all areas, through strategic use of additional remedies. For example, in the U.S.-origin claim context, there may be cases in which consumers paid a clear premium for a product marketed as “Made in the U.S.A.” or made their purchasing decision in part based on perceived quality, safety, health or environmental benefits tied to a U.S.-origin claim.6 In such instances, additional remedies such as monetary relief or notice to consumers may be warranted. Requiring law violators to provide notice to consumers identifying the deceptive claim can help mitigate individual consumer injury—an informed consumer would have the option to seek a refund, or, at the very least, stop using the product.

    6 Of the three cases the FTC is announcing today, we note that consideration of additional remedies such as notice could have been of particular value in the Nectar Sleep matter, which involved U.S.-origin claims about mattresses. The fact that purchasers of Nectar Sleep mattresses can seek a refund for any reason for 365 days after their original purchase, https://www.nectarsleep.com/p/returns/, and that purchasers received mattresses with accurate country-of-origin labels, contributed to our decision to vote in favor of the final Nectar Sleep order.

    The Commission has already begun a broad review of whether we are using every available remedy as effectively as possible to fairly and efficiently pursue vigorous enforcement of our consumer protection and competition laws. If we find that there are new or infrequently applied remedies that we should be seeking more often, the Commission will act accordingly—and, where appropriate, signal to the public how we intend to approach enforcement. In our view, a thoughtful review and forward-looking plan is a more effective and efficient use of Commission resources than re-opening and re-litigating the cases before us today.7

    7 It is worth noting that all of the cases announced today began well before the current complement of Commissioners were instated, and therefore before staff could reasonably have been expected to anticipate our particular priorities and views on enforcement. To renegotiate these settlements at this point, after litigation strategy was developed and executed, would require substantial investment of staff time and effort and diversion of resources from other important cases. A forward-looking set of remedy priorities will help staff develop litigation strategy in an efficient way.

    Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra Question Presented

    Are no-money, no-fault settlements adequate to remedy serious violations of the FTC's “Made in USA” standard?

    Summary

    • Sellers gain a competitive advantage when they falsely market a product as Made in USA, especially when this claim is closely tied to the development of the product's brand.

    • Third-party analysis suggests that Americans are often willing to pay significantly more for American-made goods compared to those made in China. Several of the matters under consideration by the Commission involve Made-in-USA fraud relating to products made in China.

    • The Commission should modify its approach to resolving serious Made-in-USA fraud by seeking more tailored remedies that could include restitution, disgorgement, notice, and admissions of wrongdoing, based on the facts and circumstances of each matter.

    Analysis and Discussion The Power of Branding and Made in USA

    While brand identity has historically been a major focus in markets for luxury goods, today it plays a key role in all segments of our economy. As advanced manufacturing and global supply chains challenge firms to find new ways to lower operating costs, consumer goods industries (including everything from apparel to packaged goods) have focused intensely on building and cultivating their brands as a way to drive up margins through price and volume enhancements.

    Branding is distinct from marketing and advertising. A successful brand is one that creates a clear identity that goes beyond specific product attributes. A brand identity connects with a consumer's values, aspirations, and sense of self.

    A Made-in-USA claim can serve as a key element of a product's brand that communicates quality, durability, authenticity, and safety, among other attributes. Not only can it be a signal about specific product attributes but it can also contribute to the development of a brand identity that connotes a set of values, such as fair labor practices, to consumers.

    Made-in-USA branding can also be used to fraudulently conceal countries of origin that may cause concerns for consumers. For example, in recent years, regulators have investigated serious health and safety problems with pet food 1 and drywall 2 imported from China, and the OECD estimates that China is the source of the vast majority of counterfeit goods imported to the U.S.3 Against this backdrop, slapping a “Made-in-USA” label on a good made abroad can be its own form of counterfeiting, replacing an unpopular attribute with one connoting quality, safety, and authenticity.

    1 Food & Drug Admin., Melanine Pet Food Recall of 2007 (May 2007), https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/recallswithdrawals/ucm129575.htm.

    2 Fed. Trade Comm'n, Tests for Defective Drywall (Dec. 2009), https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0124-tests-defective-drywall.

    3Global trade in fake goods worth nearly half a trillion dollars a year, Org. for Econ. Co-Operation and Dev. (Apr. 18, 2016), http://www.oecd.org/industry/global-trade-in-fake-goods-worth-nearly-half-a-trillion-dollars-a-year.htm.

    In many cases, Americans are actually willing to pay a premium for goods that are made in our country, especially compared to those made in China. A 2012 survey by the Boston Consulting Group shows that more than 80% of Americans express a willingness to pay more for made-in-USA products,4 which is consistent with other surveys.5

    4Made in America, Again: Understanding the value of ‘Made in the USA’, The Boston Consulting Group (Nov. 2012) [Hereinafter Made in America, Again].

    5See, e.g. Made in America: Most Americans love the idea of buying a U.S.-made product instead of an import. But sometimes it's hard to tell what's real and what's not, Consumer Reports (May 21, 2015), https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/05/made-in-america/index.htm [hereinafter Made in America] (reporting on a national survey finding that 60%+ of Americans would pay a 10% premium for Made-in-USA goods); Price of patriotism: How much extra are you willing to pay for a product that's made in America?, Reuters (July 18, 2017), http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-BUYAMERICAN-POLL/01005017035/index.html (reporting on a national survey finding that 60%+ of Americans would pay a premium of 5% or more). Of course, surveys reveal only Americans' stated willingness to pay a premium, not their actual buying behavior. But assuming Americans will pay no premium runs contrary to the available evidence, and firms' aggressive Made-in-USA branding shows they clearly see it as advantageous.

    Importantly, however, price premium does not always accurately capture the harm caused by Made-in-USA fraud. Especially in markets for commodity goods where consumers may be particularly price-sensitive, firms may make false claims to distinguish their brand or conceal unpopular countries of origin.

    Whatever its purpose, cheating distorts markets in fundamental ways. It rips off Americans who prefer buying domestic goods. It also punishes firms that may bear higher costs to produce goods here, yet must compete on price or branding with firms that cheat. Finally, widespread deception sows doubt 6 about the veracity of Made-in-USA claims, which may reduce the claim's value and discourage domestic manufacturing.

    6See Made in America, supra note 5 (reporting on a national survey finding that 23% of Americans lack trust in “Made in America” labels).

    Backpacks, Hockey Pucks, and Mattresses

    Today, the Commission is voting on three cases involving Made-in-USA fraud.7 The conduct of each of these companies was brazen and deceitful. In my view, each respondent firm harmed both consumers and honest competitors.

    7 Claiming falsely that a product is Made in USA violates Section 5 of the FTC Act. Although the FTC brought a Made-in-USA case as early as 1940, Congress amended the FTC Act in 1994 to state explicitly that Made-in-USA labeling must be consistent with FTC decisions and orders. See 15 U.S.C. 45a.

    In the Sandpiper and Patriot Puck matters, the evidence suggests that the Made-in-USA claim was a critical component of the companies' brand identities. In the Nectar Sleep matter, the false Made-in-USA claim may have been asserted to convey health or safety benefits.

    Sandpiper/PiperGear USA: Sandpiper/PiperGear USA (“Sandpiper”) built its brand of military-themed backpacks and gear on patriotism. As detailed in the FTC's complaint, the company boasted in its promotional materials about its “US manufacturing,” inserted “American Made” labels into products, and included the hashtag “#madeinusa” alongside social media posts.8 The company sold thousands of backpacks on American military bases overseas.

    8 Compl. at ¶¶ 6-7.

    In reality, Sandpiper imported the vast majority 9 of its products from China or Mexico, a fact the firm actively sought to hide through its aggressive Made-in-USA branding.

    9 According to the Complaint, more than 95% of Sandpiper's products are imported as finished goods, while approximately 80% of PiperGear's products are either imported as finished goods or contain significant imported components. Id. at ¶ 7.

    Patriot Puck: Hockey pucks typically are manufactured to meet certain weight, thickness, and diameter specifications. These are commodity goods. Purchasers largely see competing pucks that boast similar specifications, so brand positioning can be especially salient.

    Patriot Puck positioned its brand as the all-American alternative to imported pucks. The company literally wrapped its pucks in the flag, embossing each one with an image of an American flag. To drive home the point, the firm claimed its pucks were “Proudly Made in the USA,” “MADE IN AMERICA,” “100% Made in the USA!,” and “100% American Made!” The firm even claimed it made “The Only American Made Hockey Puck!” 10

    10 Compl. at ¶ 9.

    In reality, Patriot Puck imported all of its pucks from China.11

    11 The Commission has wisely named George Statler III, who operated the company, in its Complaint.

    That Patriot Puck priced its pucks similarly to other firms illustrates why sticker price premium alone is a poor proxy for the harm caused by Made-in-USA fraud, especially in markets for commodity goods. Hockey is closely associated with international competition, and Patriot Puck's claim to offer the “only” puck made in America was a clear effort to create a brand identity that would distinguish its pucks from the competition. Moreover, by pricing its pucks similarly to its competitors, Patriot Puck led consumers to believe they were getting a great deal on American-made hockey pucks, when in fact they were overpaying for pucks made in China.12

    12 Surveys show that Americans will pay a premium for U.S.-made sporting goods relative to those made in China, meaning they effectively discount goods made in China. Made in America, Again at 1. And Americans may be particularly averse to buying patriotic-themed goods made in China. See, e.g., Matt Brooks, US Olympic uniforms spark fury in Congress, Wash. Post (July 13, 2012), https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2012-heavy-medal-london/post/us-olympic-uniforms-spark-fury-in-congress/2012/07/13/gJQABvJmhW_blog.html?utm_term=.3d96e391f1dd.

    Nectar Sleep: Nectar Sleep is a direct-to-consumer online mattress firm founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. According to a CNBC profile of the company, Nectar competes with more than 200 firms to capture a slice of the $15 billion mattress market.

    Nectar mattresses are made in China, which may be a negative attribute for consumers who have health or safety concerns about Chinese-made mattresses.13 Perhaps for this reason, the company falsely represented to consumers that its mattresses were assembled in the U.S.

    13 Such concerns may be tied to recent recalls of Chinese-made mattresses and bedding, and may be partially reflected in the premium Americans are willing to pay for U.S.-made furniture over furniture made in China. See Made in America, Again at 6. In fact, numerous consumer reviews specifically focus on comparing U.S.-made mattresses.

    Nectar's conduct had clear consequences. Competitors who actually made mattresses domestically were undercut, and consumers looking for U.S.-made mattresses—possibly for health or safety reasons—got ripped off. Further, Nectar may continue to profit from the lingering misperception that its mattresses are made in the U.S.

    Addressing Made-in-USA Fraud Going Forward

    Most FTC resolutions of Made-in-USA violations have resulted in voluntary compliance measures 14 or cease-and-desist orders. Indeed, none of the three settlements approved today includes monetary relief, notice to consumers, or any admission of wrongdoing.

    14 Of course, when the violation is unintentional or technical in nature, less formal actions can be helpful, especially if the misstatement is quickly corrected. My comments are limited to matters where the violation was egregious.

    Going forward, in cases involving egregious and undisputed Made-in-USA fraud, I believe there should be a strong presumption against simple cease-and-desist orders. Instead, the Commission should consider remedies tailored to the individual circumstances of the fraud, including redress and notice for consumers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, opt-in return programs, or admissions of wrongdoing.

    Some general principles can inform our approach to tailoring remedies. For firms that built their core brand identity on a lie, full redress or the opportunity for opt-in refunds may be appropriate, given the centrality of the false claim and its widespread dissemination.15 When refunds are difficult to administer or the firm lacks ability to pay, the Commission should at least seek notification to consumers or corrective advertising 16 —especially in markets where country of origin bears on health or safety. Finally, if firms' misrepresentations are undisputed and clear, the Commission should strongly consider seeking admissions—a form of accountability that is explicitly contemplated by our rules of practice.17

    15 Particularly for misbranded products, the FTC could likely show that a firm's Made-in-USA misrepresentations were widely disseminated, that they were of the kind usually relied on by reasonable persons, and that consumers purchased the product, thus making gross sales an appropriate starting point for calculating restitution. See FTC v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745, 764 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding, in a contempt action, that after the Commission establishes a presumption of reliance, “the district court may use the Defendants' gross receipts as a starting point”). Importantly, if there was deception in the sale, defendants generally do not receive credit for the value of the product sold. See FTC v. Figgie Int'l, Inc., 994 F.2d 595, 606-07 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The fraud in the selling, not the value of the thing sold, is what entitles consumers” to full redress.).

    16 Corrective advertising can be important to preventing firms from continuing to profit from deception. As explained by then-Chairman Pitofsky after a corrective advertising order was upheld by the D.C. Circuit, “It is important for advertisers to know that it is not enough just to discontinue a deceptive ad, and that they can be held responsible for the lingering misimpressions created by deceptive advertising.” See Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Appeals Court Upholds FTC Ruling; Doan's Must Include Corrective Message in Future Advertising and Labeling (Aug. 21, 2000), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2000/08/appeals-court-upholds-ftc-ruling-doans-must-include-corrective.

    17See 16 CFR 2.32.

    Admissions may have particular value in cases involving Made-in-USA fraud. In these cases, clear and undisputed facts may give the agency a strong basis to demand an admission from a firm. And if that firm lacks funds or records for consumer redress or disgorgement, admissions can be a powerful tool to give consumers, competitors, and counterparties tools to remedy harm, even when we cannot.18 Moreover, because the Commission is generally limited to seeking equitable rather than punitive remedies for first-time offenses, seeking admissions is among the most effective ways we can deter lawbreaking and change the cost-benefit calculus of deception.

    18 For example, a factual admission may have a preclusive effect in a Lanham Act claim by a competitor.

    I hope that the Commission will reexamine its approach to tackling Made-in-USA fraud. I believe we should seek more tailored remedies that vindicate the important goals of the program and send the message that Made-in-USA fraud will not be tolerated.

    Conclusion

    Nectar Sleep, Sandpiper, and Patriot Puck clearly violated the law, allowing them to enrich themselves and harm their customers and competitors. Especially given widespread interest in buying American products, we should do more to protect the authenticity of Made-in-USA claims. I am concerned that no-money, no-fault settlements send an ambiguous message about our commitment to protecting consumers and domestic manufacturers from Made-in-USA fraud.

    Going forward, I hope the Commission can better protect against harms to competition and consumers by seeking monetary relief, notice, admissions, and other tailored remedies. Every firm needs to understand that products labeled “Made in USA” should be made in the USA, and that fake branding will come with real consequences.

    [FR Doc. 2018-20271 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register.

    The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.

    Early Terminations Granted July 1, 2018 Through July 31, 2018 07/02/2018 20181318 G Contura Energy, Inc.; ANR, Inc.; Contura Energy, Inc. 20181442 G Paddy Power Betfair plc; FanDuel Ltd.; Paddy Power Betfair plc. 20181443 G Fastball Holdings LLC; Paddy Power Betfair plc; Fastball Holdings LLC. 20181476 G Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.; S.R.I.F. NV; Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. 20181482 G Sanofi; Translate Bio, Inc.; Sanofi. 20181500 G Michael Alexander Cannon-Brookes; Zoox, Inc.; Michael Alexander Cannon-Brookes. 20181501 G JSW Energy Interests LP; FirstEnergy Corp.; JSW Energy Interests LP. 20181508 G Fortive Corporation; Johnson & Johnson; Fortive Corporation. 07/03/2018 20181496 G Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.; Vincent DiBenedetto; Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 20181517 G Nidec Corporation; Whirlpool Corporation; Nidec Corporation. 20181533 G Ergon, Inc.; Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P.; Ergon, Inc. 07/05/2018 20181485 G Ashtead Group plc; Blagrave No. 2 Limited; Ashtead Group plc. 07/09/2018 20181478 G Webster Capital III, L.P.; Clark H. & Pamela A. Gustafson; Webster Capital III, L.P. 20181479 G Webster Capital III, L.P.; James D. and Janet A. Clary; Webster Capital III, L.P. 07/10/2018 20181506 G CJ CheilJedang Corporation; Ann M. Drake; CJ CheilJedang Corporation. 20181529 G CMS Energy Corporation; Starwood Energy Infrastructure Fund II Investor, LLC; CMS Energy Corporation. 20181534 G Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P.; Hercules Achievement Holdings, Inc.; Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P. 20181535 G Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P.; Hercules VB Holdings, Inc.; Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P. 20181537 G Ourhome Ltd.; Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction H; Ourhome Ltd. 20181539 G Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund X, L.P.; Cardinal Health Inc.; Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund X, L.P. 20181540 G IIF US Holding 2 LP; American Midstream Partners, LP; IIF US Holding 2 LP. 20181541 G Ken Garff Enterprises, LLC; Jefferies Financial Group Inc.; Ken Garff Enterprises, LLC. 20181545 G Tiger Global Private Investment Partners VIII, L.P.; InVisionapp Inc.; Tiger Global Private Investment Partners VIII, L.P. 20181547 G Tiger Global Private Investment Partners VII, L.P.; InVisionapp Inc.; Tiger Global Private Investment Partners VII, L.P. 20181550 G George Feldenkreis; Perry Ellis International, Inc.; George Feldenkreis. 20181553 G Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-A, L.P.; Audax Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.; Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-A, L.P. 20181556 G Blackstone Capital Partners VII L.P.; PSAV Holdings LLC; Blackstone Capital Partners VII L.P. 20181577 G Telapex, Inc.; Pamlico Capital II, L.P.; Telapex, Inc. 07/11/2018 20181585 G Gebr. Knauf KG; USG Corporation; Gebr. Knauf KG. 07/12/2018 20181532 G TA XII-A L.P.; Eric M. Peyrot; TA XII-A L.P. 07/13/2018 20181561 G CDH Fund V, L.P.; Sirtex Medical Limited; CDH Fund V, L.P. 20181563 G ONCAP IV LP; Peak Rock Capital Fund LP; ONCAP IV LP. 20181578 G West Street Capital Partners VII, L.P.; Genstar Capital Partners VI, L.P.; West Street Capital Partners VII, L.P. 20181579 G Carlyle Power CPP II Nautilus, LLC; Old Dominion Electric Cooperative; Carlyle Power CPP II Nautilus, LLC. 20181581 G The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P.; Cotiviti Holdings, Inc.; The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P. 20181584 G The Veritas Capital Fund VI, L.P.; The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P.; The Veritas Capital Fund VI, L.P. 20181591 G Alpine Investors VI, LP; Gregory Garvey; Alpine Investors VI, LP. 20181593 G Warburg Pincus Private Equity X, L.P.; BP Aero Holdings LLC; Warburg Pincus Private Equity X, L.P. 20181597 G Hellman & Friedman Capital Partners VIII, L.P.; Charles Laurans; Hellman & Friedman Capital Partners VIII, L.P. 20181603 G Roquette Freres S.A.; Sethness Products Company; Roquette Freres S.A. 07/16/2018 20181544 G Amber Holdings, L.P.; Vista Equity Partners Fund V, L.P.; Amber Holdings, L.P. 20181602 G Lyft, Inc.; Bikeshare Holdings LLC; Lyft, Inc. 20181619 G Aptiv PLC; Snow Phipps III, L.P.; Aptiv PLC. 07/17/2018 20181530 G David A. Duffield; Adaptive Insights, Inc.; David A. Duffield. 20181567 G Canyon Value Realization Fund, L.P.; Berry Global Group, Inc.; Canyon Value Realization Fund, L.P. 20181569 G The CVRF Trust; Berry Global Group, Inc.; The CVRF Trust. 20181570 G The CBEF Master Trust; Berry Global Group, Inc.; The CBEF Master Trust. 07/18/2018 20181576 G Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-B, L.P.; Navigant Consulting, Inc.; Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-B, L.P. 20181598 G Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P.; VEPF IV AIV III, L.P.; Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P. 20181599 G Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P.; Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P. 20181600 G Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P.; Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20181601 G Vista Equity Partners Fund VI-A, L.P.; Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P.; Vista Equity Partners Fund VI-A, L.P. 07/19/2018 20181560 G KKR Americas Fund XII, L.P.; Envision Healthcare Corporation; KKR Americas Fund XII, L.P. 20181588 G Atlantia S.p.A.; Actividades de Construccion y Servicios, S.A.; Atlantia S.p.A. 07/20/2018 20181612 G Platinum Equity Capital Spray Partners, L.P.; Ball Corporation; Platinum Equity Capital Spray Partners, L.P. 20181613 G KLR Seawolf Fund, LP; Zane Kiehne; KLR Seawolf Fund, LP. 20181614 G Cerberus Institutional Partners VI, L.P.; Vita Holding S.a.r.l; Cerberus Institutional Partners VI, L.P. 20181617 G AT&T Inc.; AppNexus Inc.; AT&T Inc. 20181620 G Brynwood Partners VIII L.P.; The J.M. Smucker Company; Brynwood Partners VIII L.P. 20181621 G ORIX Corporation; NXT Voting SPV, LLC; ORIX Corporation. 20181622 G TSG7 A L.P.; KB Wines Holdings, LLC; TSG7 A L.P. 20181624 G Gores Holding II, Inc.; Platinum Equity Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Gores Holding II, Inc. 20181625 G Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc.; Lauren International Ltd.; Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. 20181627 G Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. III; JFL AIV Investors III-JA, L.P.; Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. III. 20181629 G Cerner Corporation; L. John Doerr; Cerner Corporation. 20181633 G Parker Private Investments, LLC; Web.com Group, Inc.; Parker Private Investments, LLC. 20181635 G Uzabase, Inc.; David Bradley; Uzabase, Inc. 20181641 G Olympus Growth Fund VI, L.P.; Arbor Investments III, L.P.; Olympus Growth Fund VI, L.P. 20181642 G Next Level Acquisition Company LLC; Yosef Simsoly and Alisa Simsolo; Next Level Acquisition Company LLC. 20181645 G Accel Leaders Fund L.P.; Warburg Pincus Private Equity X, L.P.; Accel Leaders Fund L.P. 20181647 G Bain Capital Europe Fund IV, L.P.; AXA LBO Fund V Core FPCI; Bain Capital Europe Fund IV, L.P. 07/23/2018 20181623 G Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.; John L. Wortham & Son, L.P.; Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. 20181648 G Alex Dillard; W.D. Company, Inc.; Alex Dillard. 20181649 G William Dillard, II; W.D. Company, Inc.; William Dillard, II. 07/24/2018 20181549 G Warburg Pincus Private Equity XI, L.P.; F.N.B. Corporation; Warburg Pincus Private Equity XI, L.P. 20181571 G Canyon Value Realization Fund, L.P.; MGM Resorts International; Canyon Value Realization Fund, L.P. 20181572 G The CVRF Trust; MGM Resorts International; The CVRF Trust. 20181573 G The CBEF Master Trust; MGM Resorts International; The CBEF Master Trust. 20181616 G Fortive Corporation; Warburg Pincus Private Equity X, L.P.; Fortive Corporation. 07/26/2018 20181370 G Cohu, Inc.; Xcerra Corp.; Cohu, Inc. 20181583 G PayPal Holdings, Inc.; Primus Capital Fund VII, L.P.; PayPal Holdings, Inc. 20181604 G Ribbon Communications Inc.; Edgewater Networks, Inc.; Ribbon Communications Inc. 20181637 G Goldman Sachs Renewable Power LLC; South Jersey Industries, Inc.; Goldman Sachs Renewable Power LLC. 20181638 G PGGM Cooperatie U.A.; Electricite de France S.A.; PGGM Cooperatie U.A. 07/27/2018 20181632 G Accor S.A.; Sam Nazarian; Accor S.A. 20181636 G The Williams Companies, Inc.; TPG Growth III DE AIV II, L.P.; The Williams Companies, Inc. 20181654 G KKR Americas Fund XII, L.P.; AppLovin Corporation; KKR Americas Fund XII, L.P. 20181656 G Partners Group Access 967 L.P.; FPCI Astorg V; Partners Group Access 967 L.P. 20181658 G Andritz AG; Xerium Technologies, Inc.; Andritz AG. 20181660 G AIS Investment, LLC; Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.; AIS Investment, LLC. 20181663 G Intertape Polymer Group Inc.; Piper Ridge Trust; Intertape Polymer Group Inc. 20181666 G Green Equity Investors Side VII, L.P.; Letterone Investment Holdings S.A.; Green Equity Investors Side VII, L.P. 20181667 G Mann Familienbeteiligungsgesellschaft mbH_Co. KG; Tri-Dim Filter Corporation; Mann Familienbeteiligungsgesellschaft mbH_Co. KG. 07/30/2018 20181595 G Green Plains Inc.; Marilyn and James Hebenstreit; Green Plains Inc. 20181662 G Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd.; Butterfly Network, Inc.; Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd. 20181668 G Synnex Corporation; Convergys Corporation; Synnex Corporation. 20181669 G RoundTable Healthcare Partners IV, L.P.; Bovie Medical Corporation; RoundTable Healthcare Partners IV, L.P. 20181672 G Spectrum Equity VII, L.P.; Lucid Software Inc.; Spectrum Equity VII, L.P. 20181673 G The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; MDC Partners Inc.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 20181676 G Insight Venture Partners IX, L.P.; ezCater, Inc.; Insight Venture Partners IX, L.P. 20181677 G Crestview Partners III, L.P.; Advanced Marketing & Processing, Inc.; Crestview Partners III, L.P. 20181680 G AI Global Investments & Cy S.C.A.; General Electric Company; AI Global Investments & Cy S.C.A. 20181681 G Omnicom Group; Credera Holdings; Omnicom Group. 07/31/2018 20180590 G Grifols, S.A.; The Biotest Divestiture Trust; Grifols, S.A. 20181457 G Myriad Genetics, Inc.; Counsyl, Inc.; Myriad Genetics, Inc. 20181646 G Alphabet Inc.; Warburg Pincus Private Equity X, L.P.; Alphabet Inc. 20181683 G NuVision Federal Credit Union; Denali Federal Credit Union; NuVision Federal Credit Union. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-20275 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 182 3113] Patriot Puck; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write: “Patriot Puck” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/patriotpuckconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Patriot Puck; File No. 1823113” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Solomon Ensor (202-326-2377) or Crystal Ostrum (202-326-3405), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 12, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 12, 2018. Write “Patriot Puck; File No. 1823113” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/patriotpuckconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that website.

    If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Patriot Puck; File No. 1823113” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

    Visit the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before October 12, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Underground Sports Inc., d/b/a Patriot Puck; Hockey Underground Inc., d/b/a Patriot Puck; Ipuck Inc., d/b/a Patriot Puck; IPuck Hockey Inc., d/b/a Patriot Puck; and George Statler III (“Respondents”).

    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter involves Respondents' marketing, sale, and distribution of hockey pucks with claims that the pucks are made in the United States.

    According to the FTC's complaint, Respondents represented that all of their hockey pucks are all or virtually all made in the United States. In fact, Respondents' hockey pucks are wholly imported from China. Specifically, since January of 2016, Respondents have imported 74,411 kilograms of hockey pucks, which is the equivalent of more than 400,000 standard-weight pucks. Based on the foregoing, the complaint alleges that Respondents engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Consistent with the FTC's Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, Part I prohibits Respondents from making U.S.-origin claims for their products unless either: (1) The final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States; (2) a clear and conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, and/or processing; or (3) for a claim that a product is assembled in the United States, the product is last substantially transformed in the United States, the product's principal assembly takes place in the United States, and United States assembly operations are substantial.

    Part II prohibits Respondents from making any country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is true, not misleading, and Respondents have a reasonable basis substantiating the representation.

    Parts III through VI are reporting and compliance provisions. Part III requires Respondents to acknowledge receipt of the order, to provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors, and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the order. Part IV requires each Respondent to file a compliance report within one year after the order becomes final and to notify the Commission within 14 days of certain changes that would affect compliance with the order. Part V requires Respondents to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. Part VI requires Respondents to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview respondent's personnel.

    Finally, Part VII is a “sunset” provision, terminating the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Chopra dissenting.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    Concurring Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, in Which Chairman Joe Simons Joins

    When companies falsely claim that their products are made in the U.S.A., they take advantage of consumers who choose to spend their dollars supporting domestic products and the companies who expend resources in order to make the claim proudly and truthfully. Today, the Commission is announcing three enforcement actions 1 targeting companies and an individual who we allege falsely claimed their products were made in the U.S.A. in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In Patriot Puck, respondent George Statler III and his companies marketed hockey pucks imported from China as “Made in America” and “The only American Made Hockey Puck!” The Nectar Sleep respondents included the statement “Designed and Assembled in the USA” in product descriptions for mattresses wholly imported from China. And in Sandpiper/PiperGear, respondents marketed imported backpacks and wallets on websites claiming “Featuring American Made Products” and shipped imported wallets with cards labeled “American Made.” The Commission's complaints allege that these claims were plainly false and the respondents have all agreed to strong administrative consent orders.

    1 To date, the Commission has initiated 25 enforcement actions arising from misleading U.S.-origin claims, targeting entities that engage in intentional deception or refuse to come into prompt compliance. FTC staff also works extensively with companies to achieve compliance in this area, issuing more than 130 closing letters addressing potential U.S.-origin claims. These letters highlight that where companies make errors or potentially deceptive claims to consumers, Commission staff works with them to quickly come into compliance. In addition to enforcement actions and compliance counseling, the Commission's program to protect consumers from deceptive U.S.-origin claims involves significant business education efforts. In 1997, the Commission issued an Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims that explains the types of U.S.-origin claims that can be made and the substantiation needed to support them. Commission staff has also issued comprehensive guidance, press releases and blogs in this area to promote compliance.

    Each of the administrative consent orders prohibits the respondents from making these types of claims in the future 2 and requires the respondents to engage in recordkeeping and reporting that will assist the FTC in monitoring compliance.3 Any violation of these orders can result in a civil penalty of over $40,000 per violation. 4 There is evidence that these potential penalties have served as powerful deterrents: to date the FTC has only had cause to initiate one contempt proceeding 5 against the more than twenty prior respondents in cases involving U.S.-origin claims.

    2 Specifically, the orders prohibit respondents from making deceptive unqualified U.S.-origin claims about their products and lay out the type of substantiation required to make truthful claims. The orders also govern the manner and type of qualification needed to make a lawful qualified claim regarding U.S.-origin. The orders further prohibit respondents from making any country-of-origin claim about a product or service unless the claim is true, not misleading, and respondents have a reasonable basis substantiating the representation.

    3 Each of the orders requires the respondents to file a compliance report within one year after the order becomes final and to notify the Commission within 14 days of certain changes that would affect compliance with the order. Respondents are also required to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. The orders also require respondents to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview respondents' personnel. The orders remain in effect for 20 years.

    4 Outside of specific rules, the FTC does not have authority to seek civil penalties for violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC does have authority to seek civil penalties for any violations of its administrative orders. See 15 U.S.C. 45(l) and 16 CFR 1.98(d) (2018).

    5See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2006/06/ftc-alleges-stanley-made-false-made-usa-claims-about-its-tools (announcing settlement with Stanley Works that imposed a $205,000 civil penalty for violating prior order regarding U.S.-origin claims).

    In this area, administrative consent orders securing permanent injunctive relief buttressed by the threat of significant civil penalties have been largely successful in keeping former violators on the straight and narrow and have no doubt served as a warning to others that false claims will be identified and pursued. Therefore, we are voting in support of the relief set forth in the final and proposed administrative orders announced today.

    We write separately to highlight the possibility that the FTC can further maximize its enforcement reach, in all areas, through strategic use of additional remedies. For example, in the U.S.-origin claim context, there may be cases in which consumers paid a clear premium for a product marketed as “Made in the U.S.A.” or made their purchasing decision in part based on perceived quality, safety, health or environmental benefits tied to a U.S.-origin claim.6 In such instances, additional remedies such as monetary relief or notice to consumers may be warranted. Requiring law violators to provide notice to consumers identifying the deceptive claim can help mitigate individual consumer injury—an informed consumer would have the option to seek a refund, or, at the very least, stop using the product.

    6 Of the three cases the FTC is announcing today, we note that consideration of additional remedies such as notice could have been of particular value in the Nectar Sleep matter, which involved U.S.-origin claims about mattresses. The fact that purchasers of Nectar Sleep mattresses can seek a refund for any reason for 365 days after their original purchase, https://www.nectarsleep.com/p/returns/, and that purchasers received mattresses with accurate country-of-origin labels, contributed to our decision to vote in favor of the final Nectar Sleep order.

    The Commission has already begun a broad review of whether we are using every available remedy as effectively as possible to fairly and efficiently pursue vigorous enforcement of our consumer protection and competition laws. If we find that there are new or infrequently applied remedies that we should be seeking more often, the Commission will act accordingly—and, where appropriate, signal to the public how we intend to approach enforcement. In our view, a thoughtful review and forward-looking plan is a more effective and efficient use of Commission resources than re-opening and re-litigating the cases before us today.7

    7 It is worth noting that all of the cases announced today began well before the current complement of Commissioners were instated, and therefore before staff could reasonably have been expected to anticipate our particular priorities and views on enforcement. To renegotiate these settlements at this point, after litigation strategy was developed and executed, would require substantial investment of staff time and effort and diversion of resources from other important cases. A forward-looking set of remedy priorities will help staff develop litigation strategy in an efficient way.

    Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra Question Presented

    Are no-money, no-fault settlements adequate to remedy serious violations of the FTC's “Made in USA” standard?

    Summary

    • Sellers gain a competitive advantage when they falsely market a product as Made in USA, especially when this claim is closely tied to the development of the product's brand.

    • Third-party analysis suggests that Americans are often willing to pay significantly more for American-made goods compared to those made in China. Several of the matters under consideration by the Commission involve Made-in-USA fraud relating to products made in China.

    • The Commission should modify its approach to resolving serious Made-in-USA fraud by seeking more tailored remedies that could include restitution, disgorgement, notice, and admissions of wrongdoing, based on the facts and circumstances of each matter.

    Analysis and Discussion The Power of Branding and Made in USA

    While brand identity has historically been a major focus in markets for luxury goods, today it plays a key role in all segments of our economy. As advanced manufacturing and global supply chains challenge firms to find new ways to lower operating costs, consumer goods industries (including everything from apparel to packaged goods) have focused intensely on building and cultivating their brands as a way to drive up margins through price and volume enhancements.

    Branding is distinct from marketing and advertising. A successful brand is one that creates a clear identity that goes beyond specific product attributes. A brand identity connects with a consumer's values, aspirations, and sense of self.

    A Made-in-USA claim can serve as a key element of a product's brand that communicates quality, durability, authenticity, and safety, among other attributes. Not only can it be a signal about specific product attributes but it can also contribute to the development of a brand identity that connotes a set of values, such as fair labor practices, to consumers.

    Made-in-USA branding can also be used to fraudulently conceal countries of origin that may cause concerns for consumers. For example, in recent years, regulators have investigated serious health and safety problems with pet food 1 and drywall 2 imported from China, and the OECD estimates that China is the source of the vast majority of counterfeit goods imported to the U.S.3 Against this backdrop, slapping a “Made-in-USA” label on a good made abroad can be its own form of counterfeiting, replacing an unpopular attribute with one connoting quality, safety, and authenticity.

    1 Food & Drug Admin., Melanine Pet Food Recall of 2007 (May 2007), https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/recallswithdrawals/ucm129575.htm.

    2 Fed. Trade Comm'n, Tests for Defective Drywall (Dec. 2009), https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0124-tests-defective-drywall.

    3Global trade in fake goods worth nearly half a trillion dollars a year, Org. for Econ. Co-Operation and Dev. (Apr. 18, 2016), http://www.oecd.org/industry/global-trade-in-fake-goods-worth-nearly-half-a-trillion-dollars-a-year.htm.

    In many cases, Americans are actually willing to pay a premium for goods that are made in our country, especially compared to those made in China. A 2012 survey by the Boston Consulting Group shows that more than 80% of Americans express a willingness to pay more for made-in-USA products,4 which is consistent with other surveys.5

    4Made in America, Again: Understanding the value of 'Made in the USA', The Boston Consulting Group (Nov. 2012) [Hereinafter Made in America, Again].

    5See, e.g., Made in America: Most Americans love the idea of buying a U.S.-made product instead of an import. But sometimes it's hard to tell what's real and what's not, Consumer Reports (May 21, 2015), https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/05/made-in-america/index.htm [hereinafter Made in America] (reporting on a national survey finding that 60%+ of Americans would pay a 10% premium for Made-in-USA goods); Price of patriotism: How much extra are you willing to pay for a product that's made in America?, Reuters (July 18, 2017), http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-BUYAMERICAN-POLL/01005017035/index.html (reporting on a national survey finding that 60%+ of Americans would pay a premium of 5% or more). Of course, surveys reveal only Americans' stated willingness to pay a premium, not their actual buying behavior. But assuming Americans will pay no premium runs contrary to the available evidence, and firms' aggressive Made-in-USA branding shows they clearly see it as advantageous.

    Importantly, however, price premium does not always accurately capture the harm caused by Made-in-USA fraud. Especially in markets for commodity goods where consumers may be particularly price-sensitive, firms may make false claims to distinguish their brand or conceal unpopular countries of origin.

    Whatever its purpose, cheating distorts markets in fundamental ways. It rips off Americans who prefer buying domestic goods. It also punishes firms that may bear higher costs to produce goods here, yet must compete on price or branding with firms that cheat. Finally, widespread deception sows doubt 6 about the veracity of Made-in-USA claims, which may reduce the claim's value and discourage domestic manufacturing.

    6See Made in America, supra note 5 (reporting on a national survey finding that 23% of Americans lack trust in “Made in America” labels).

    Backpacks, Hockey Pucks, and Mattresses

    Today, the Commission is voting on three cases involving Made-in-USA fraud.7 The conduct of each of these companies was brazen and deceitful. In my view, each respondent firm harmed both consumers and honest competitors.

    7 Claiming falsely that a product is Made in USA violates Section 5 of the FTC Act. Although the FTC brought a Made-in-USA case as early as 1940, Congress amended the FTC Act in 1994 to state explicitly that Made-in-USA labeling must be consistent with FTC decisions and orders. See 15 U.S.C. 45a.

    In the Sandpiper and Patriot Puck matters, the evidence suggests that the Made-in-USA claim was a critical component of the companies' brand identities. In the Nectar Sleep matter, the false Made-in-USA claim may have been asserted to convey health or safety benefits.

    Sandpiper/PiperGear USA: Sandpiper/PiperGear USA (“Sandpiper”) built its brand of military-themed backpacks and gear on patriotism. As detailed in the FTC's complaint, the company boasted in its promotional materials about its “US manufacturing,” inserted “American Made” labels into products, and included the hashtag “#madeinusa” alongside social media posts.8 The company sold thousands of backpacks on American military bases overseas.

    8 Compl. at ¶¶ 6-7.

    In reality, Sandpiper imported the vast majority 9 of its products from China or Mexico, a fact the firm actively sought to hide through its aggressive Made-in-USA branding.

    9 According to the Complaint, more than 95% of Sandpiper's products are imported as finished goods, while approximately 80% of PiperGear's products are either imported as finished goods or contain significant imported components. Id. at ¶ 7.

    Patriot Puck: Hockey pucks typically are manufactured to meet certain weight, thickness, and diameter specifications. These are commodity goods. Purchasers largely see competing pucks that boast similar specifications, so brand positioning can be especially salient.

    Patriot Puck positioned its brand as the all-American alternative to imported pucks. The company literally wrapped its pucks in the flag, embossing each one with an image of an American flag. To drive home the point, the firm claimed its pucks were “Proudly Made in the USA,” “MADE IN AMERICA,” “100% Made in the USA!,” and “100% American Made!” The firm even claimed it made “The Only American Made Hockey Puck!” 10

    10 Compl. at ¶ 9.

    In reality, Patriot Puck imported all of its pucks from China.11

    11 The Commission has wisely named George Statler III, who operated the company, in its Complaint.

    That Patriot Puck priced its pucks similarly to other firms illustrates why sticker price premium alone is a poor proxy for the harm caused by Made-in-USA fraud, especially in markets for commodity goods. Hockey is closely associated with international competition, and Patriot Puck's claim to offer the “only” puck made in America was a clear effort to create a brand identity that would distinguish its pucks from the competition. Moreover, by pricing its pucks similarly to its competitors, Patriot Puck led consumers to believe they were getting a great deal on American-made hockey pucks, when in fact they were overpaying for pucks made in China.12

    12 Surveys show that Americans will pay a premium for U.S.-made sporting goods relative to those made in China, meaning they effectively discount goods made in China. Made in America, Again at 1. And Americans may be particularly averse to buying patriotic-themed goods made in China. See, e.g., Matt Brooks, US Olympic uniforms spark fury in Congress, Wash. Post (July 13, 2012), https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2012-heavy-medal-london/post/us-olympic-uniforms-spark-fury-in-congress/2012/07/13/gJQABvJmhW_blog.html?utm_term=.3d96e391f1dd.

    Nectar Sleep: Nectar Sleep is a direct-to-consumer online mattress firm founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. According to a CNBC profile of the company, Nectar competes with more than 200 firms to capture a slice of the $15 billion mattress market.

    Nectar mattresses are made in China, which may be a negative attribute for consumers who have health or safety concerns about Chinese-made mattresses.13 Perhaps for this reason, the company falsely represented to consumers that its mattresses were assembled in the U.S.

    13 Such concerns may be tied to recent recalls of Chinese-made mattresses and bedding, and may be partially reflected in the premium Americans are willing to pay for U.S.-made furniture over furniture made in China. See Made in America, Again at 6. In fact, numerous consumer reviews specifically focus on comparing U.S.-made mattresses.

    Nectar's conduct had clear consequences. Competitors who actually made mattresses domestically were undercut, and consumers looking for U.S.-made mattresses—possibly for health or safety reasons—got ripped off. Further, Nectar may continue to profit from the lingering misperception that its mattresses are made in the U.S.

    Addressing Made-in-USA Fraud Going Forward

    Most FTC resolutions of Made-in-USA violations have resulted in voluntary compliance measures 14 or cease-and-desist orders. Indeed, none of the three settlements approved today includes monetary relief, notice to consumers, or any admission of wrongdoing.

    14 Of course, when the violation is unintentional or technical in nature, less formal actions can be helpful, especially if the misstatement is quickly corrected. My comments are limited to matters where the violation was egregious.

    Going forward, in cases involving egregious and undisputed Made-in-USA fraud, I believe there should be a strong presumption against simple cease-and-desist orders. Instead, the Commission should consider remedies tailored to the individual circumstances of the fraud, including redress and notice for consumers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, opt-in return programs, or admissions of wrongdoing.

    Some general principles can inform our approach to tailoring remedies. For firms that built their core brand identity on a lie, full redress or the opportunity for opt-in refunds may be appropriate, given the centrality of the false claim and its widespread dissemination.15 When refunds are difficult to administer or the firm lacks ability to pay, the Commission should at least seek notification to consumers or corrective advertising 16 —especially in markets where country of origin bears on health or safety. Finally, if firms' misrepresentations are undisputed and clear, the Commission should strongly consider seeking admissions—a form of accountability that is explicitly contemplated by our rules of practice.17

    15 Particularly for misbranded products, the FTC could likely show that a firm's Made-in-USA misrepresentations were widely disseminated, that they were of the kind usually relied on by reasonable persons, and that consumers purchased the product, thus making gross sales an appropriate starting point for calculating restitution. See FTC v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745, 764 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding, in a contempt action, that after the Commission establishes a presumption of reliance, “the district court may use the Defendants' gross receipts as a starting point”). Importantly, if there was deception in the sale, defendants generally do not receive credit for the value of the product sold. See FTC v. Figgie Int'l, Inc., 994 F.2d 595, 606-07 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The fraud in the selling, not the value of the thing sold, is what entitles consumers” to full redress.).

    16 Corrective advertising can be important to preventing firms from continuing to profit from deception. As explained by then-Chairman Pitofsky after a corrective advertising order was upheld by the D.C. Circuit, “It is important for advertisers to know that it is not enough just to discontinue a deceptive ad, and that they can be held responsible for the lingering misimpressions created by deceptive advertising.” See Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Appeals Court Upholds FTC Ruling; Doan's Must Include Corrective Message in Future Advertising and Labeling (Aug. 21, 2000), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2000/08/appeals-court-upholds-ftc-ruling-doans-must-include-corrective.

    17See 16 CFR 2.32.

    Admissions may have particular value in cases involving Made-in-USA fraud. In these cases, clear and undisputed facts may give the agency a strong basis to demand an admission from a firm. And if that firm lacks funds or records for consumer redress or disgorgement, admissions can be a powerful tool to give consumers, competitors, and counterparties tools to remedy harm, even when we cannot.18 Moreover, because the Commission is generally limited to seeking equitable rather than punitive remedies for first-time offenses, seeking admissions is among the most effective ways we can deter lawbreaking and change the cost-benefit calculus of deception.

    18 For example, a factual admission may have a preclusive effect in a Lanham Act claim by a competitor.

    I hope that the Commission will reexamine its approach to tackling Made-in-USA fraud. I believe we should seek more tailored remedies that vindicate the important goals of the program and send the message that Made-in-USA fraud will not be tolerated.

    Conclusion

    Nectar Sleep, Sandpiper, and Patriot Puck clearly violated the law, allowing them to enrich themselves and harm their customers and competitors. Especially given widespread interest in buying American products, we should do more to protect the authenticity of Made-in-USA claims. I am concerned that no-money, no-fault settlements send an ambiguous message about our commitment to protecting consumers and domestic manufacturers from Made-in-USA fraud.

    Going forward, I hope the Commission can better protect against harms to competition and consumers by seeking monetary relief, notice, admissions, and other tailored remedies. Every firm needs to understand that products labeled “Made in USA” should be made in the USA, and that fake branding will come with real consequences.

    [FR Doc. 2018-20272 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register.

    The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.

    Early Terminations Granted August 1, 2018 Thru August 31, 2018 08/02/2018 20181399 G Tyson Family 2009 Trust; Thomas N. Bagwell; Tyson Family 2009 Trust. 08/03/2018 20181417 G UnitedHealth Group Incorporated; PH Holdings, L.L.C.; UnitedHealth Group Incorporated. 20181626 G Churchill Downs Incorporated; Eldorado Resorts, Inc.; Churchill Downs Incorporated. 20181653 G Oakland County Credit Union; Vibe Credit Union; Oakland County Credit Union. 20181689 G Atos SE; Syntel, Inc.; Atos SE. 20181697 G The Timken Company; Clyde Blowers Capital Fund III LP; The Timken Company. 20181698 G The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.; Acxiom Corporation; The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. 20181700 G PSP Public Credit I Inc.; Permira V L.P. 2; PSP Public Credit I Inc. 20181702 G Salesforce.com, Inc.; Datorama Inc.; Salesforce.com, Inc. 20181703 G Ashtead Group plc; Matthew Lange and Karen Lange; Ashtead Group plc. 20181707 G KKR Americas Fund XII, L.P.; Shamrock RB Co-Invest, LLC; KKR Americas Fund XII, L.P. 20181709 G Francisco Partners V, L.P.; Permira V L.P.2; Francisco Partners V, L.P. 20181716 G Kao Corporation; Gryphon Partners 3.5, L.P.; Kao Corporation. 20181718 G Cambrex Corporation; SKCP III Angel AIV L.P.; Cambrex Corporation. 20181721 G Asahi Kasei Corporation; Clearlake Capital Partners III, L.P.; Asahi Kasei Corporation. 08/06/2018 20181671 G CACI International Inc.; General Dynamics Corporation; CACI International Inc. 20181711 G The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P.; Sharon B. Martin and Sydney F. Martin; The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P. 08/07/2018 20181726 G Michael S. Dell; Independence Contract Drilling, Inc.; Michael S. Dell. 20181727 G Independence Contract Drilling, Inc.; Michael S. Dell; Independence Contract Drilling, Inc. 08/08/2018 20181701 G Future plc; ABS Capital Partners VI, L.P.; Future plc. 08/10/2018 20181644 G Alphabet Inc.; Neutron Holdings, Inc.; Alphabet Inc. 20181661 G Perceptive Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd.; Paul B. Manning; Perceptive Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd. 20181722 G CVC Capital Partners VII (A) L.P.; FIMEI S.p.A.; CVC Capital Partners VII (A) L.P. 20181734 G EQT VIII (No. 1) SCSp; Apax VIII-B L.P.; EQT VIII (No. 1) SCSp. 20181743 G GSO CSF III Holdco LP; Differential Brands Group Inc.; GSO CSF III Holdco LP. 20181744 G GSO Capital Opportunities Fund III LP; Differential Brands Group Inc.; GSO Capital Opportunities Fund III LP. 20181745 G Differential Brands Group Inc.; Global Brands Group Holding Limited; Differential Brands Group Inc. 20181746 G Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe XII, L.P.; NEW Asurion Corporation; Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe XII, L.P. 20181759 G PGGM Cooperatie U.A.; SUEZ S.A.; PGGM Cooperatie U.A. 20181760 G The Procter & Gamble Company; Lilli Gordon; The Procter & Gamble Company. 20181762 G New Jersey Resources Corporation; Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund V (FT), L.P.; New Jersey Resources Corporation. 20181764 G Accel Growth Fund II L.P.; Freshworks Inc.; Accel Growth Fund II L.P. 20181768 G Pfizer Inc.; AT Impf GmbH; Pfizer Inc. 20181785 G Providence Equity Partners VIII L.P.; NEW Asurion Corporation; Providence Equity Partners VIII L.P. 20181786 G Providence Equity Partners VIII-A L.P.; NEW Asurion Corporation; Providence Equity Partners VIII-A L.P. 20181787 G PEP VIII Antares Co-Investment L.P.; NEW Asurion Corporation; PEP VIII Antares Co-Investment L.P. 20181803 G Odyssey Investment Partners Fund V, LP; AEA Investors Small Business Fund II LP; Odyssey Investment Partners Fund V, LP. 08/13/2018 20181705 G Hitachi Ltd.; Nirupama Vasireddy; Hitachi Ltd. 20181765 G Archer-Daniels-Midland Company; Joseph H. Basta; Archer-Daniels-Midland Company. 20181767 G Archer-Daniels-Midland Company; Daniel L. Berlin; Archer-Daniels-Midland Company. 20181773 G Matlin & Partners Acquisition Corp.; USWS Holdings LLC; Matlin & Partners Acquisition Corp. 20181775 G Intertek Group plc; Riverside Micro-Cap Fund II, L.P.; Intertek Group plc. 20181780 G Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.; Quantum Global Technologies, LLC; Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. 08/14/2018 20181682 G Trident VII, L.P.; Sabal Capital Partners, LLC; Trident VII, L.P. 20181733 G Agnaten SE; Compagnie Industrielle et Financiere des Produits Amyla; Agnaten SE. 20181752 G Summit Partners Growth Equity Fund IX-A, L.P.; Warburg Pincus Private Equity XI, L.P.; Summit Partners Growth Equity Fund IX-A, L.P. 20181795 G Invengo Information Technology Co., Ltd.; OEP VI Feeder (Cayman), L.P.; Invengo Information Technology Co., Ltd. 08/15/2018 20181728 G MDCP VII Auxillary SPV, L.P.; New Asurion Corporation; MDCP VII Auxillary SPV, L.P. 08/16/2018 20181664 G DXC Technology Company; Molina Healthcare, Inc.; DXC Technology Company. 20181712 G New Mountain Partners V, L.P.; GTCR Fund IX/A, L.P.; New Mountain Partners V, L.P. 20181776 G Logitech International S.A.; Riverside Micro-Cap Fund II, L.P.; Logitech International S.A. 08/17/2018 20181790 G GUO GUANGCHANG; Dr. Lutz M. Helmig and Dagmar Helmig; GUO GUANGCHANG. 20181794 G Christopher Grassi; Trivest Partners IV, L.P.; Christopher Grassi. 20181801 G KKR Core Holding Company LLC; BC Ventures Investor, LLC; KKR Core Holding Company LLC. 20181802 G Berkshire Fund IX, L.P.; New Asurion Corporation; Berkshire Fund IX, L.P. 20181811 G Gryphon Partners V, L.P.; REP TI Holdings, LLC; Gryphon Partners V, L.P. 20181814 G State Street Corporation; Peter K. Lambertus; State Street Corporation. 20181816 G BP p.l.c.; BHP Billiton Limited; BP p.l.c. 20181821 G Tenex Capital Partners II, L.P.; Leon Howard Holdings, Inc.; Tenex Capital Partners II, L.P. 20181822 G Green Equity Investors Side VII, L.P.; Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP; Green Equity Investors Side VII, L.P. 20181825 G AptarGroup Inc.; Wendel SE; AptarGroup Inc. 20181837 G Lydall, Inc.; Wind Point Partners VII-A, L.P.; Lydall, Inc. 20181838 G Roark Capital Partners, LP; Jamba, Inc.; Roark Capital Partners, LP. 08/20/2018 20181750 G Mylan N.V.; Novartis AG; Mylan N.V. 20181805 G Jeffrey Broin; Sioux River Ethanol, LLC; Jeffrey Broin. 20181806 G Jeffrey Broin; Northern Growers, LLC; Jeffrey Broin. 20181809 G Jeffrey Broin; Great Plains Ethanol, LLC; Jeffrey Broin. 20181810 G Jeffrey Broin; Voyager Ethanol, LLC; Jeffrey Broin. 20181828 G Canada Pension Plan Investment Board; Chesapeake Energy Corporation; Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. 20181829 G EQT VIII (No. 1) SCSp; Micro Focus International plc; EQT VIII (No. 1) SCSp. 20181835 G TCV IX, L.P.; Peloton Interactive, Inc.; TCV IX, L.P. 20181836 G Jeffery D. Hildebrand; The Williams Companies, Inc; Jeffery D. Hildebrand. 20181839 G Agnaten SE; Insomnia Cookies Holdings, LLC; Agnaten SE. 08/21/2018