Federal Register Vol. 83, No.194,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 194 (October 5, 2018)

Page Range50255-50473
FR Document

83_FR_194
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 50332 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 50436 - Funding Opportunity for the Department of Transportation's Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program for Fiscal Year 2018PDF
83 FR 50259 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Wicomico River, Salisbury, MDPDF
83 FR 50326 - National Association of Reversionary Property Owners-Petition for Rulemaking; Limiting Extensions of Trail Use Negotiating PeriodsPDF
83 FR 50260 - Safety Zone; Willamette River, Portland, ORPDF
83 FR 50289 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
83 FR 50407 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAPDF
83 FR 50406 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Albuquerque Museum, Albuquerque, NM; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 50381 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 50379 - Medicare Program; Town Hall Meeting on the FY 2020 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On PaymentsPDF
83 FR 50366 - Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of North CarolinaPDF
83 FR 50361 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for Contaminant Occurrence Data in Support of EPA's Fourth Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; EPA ICR No. 2574.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEWPDF
83 FR 50363 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Implementation of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries ActPDF
83 FR 50372 - A & O Enterprises Inc and Aaron K. Roberts; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
83 FR 50364 - Request for Nominations of Drinking Water Contaminants for the Fifth Contaminant Candidate ListPDF
83 FR 50366 - A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 50284 - Flumioxazin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 50359 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 50357 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
83 FR 50357 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Black Hills Electric Generation, LLCPDF
83 FR 50358 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 50355 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 50356 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Willow Springs Solar, LLCPDF
83 FR 50356 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: FTS Master Tenant 2, LLCPDF
83 FR 50440 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
83 FR 50404 - Notice of Realty Action: Direct Sale of Public Land to the City of Henderson, NVPDF
83 FR 50347 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
83 FR 50350 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
83 FR 50342 - Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
83 FR 50336 - Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
83 FR 50344 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
83 FR 50338 - Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
83 FR 50339 - Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 50345 - Forged Steel Fittings From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 50410 - New Information Collection Requirements; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 50355 - Understanding Catalyst Production and Development Needs at National LaboratoriesPDF
83 FR 50354 - Availability of the Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI) and Bonneville Financial Assistance Instructions (BFAI)PDF
83 FR 50335 - Foreign-Trade Zone 29-Louisville, Kentucky; Application for Subzone, United Parcel Service, Inc., Louisville, KentuckyPDF
83 FR 50387 - Operations Notice for the Expansion of the Moving to Work Demonstration ProgramPDF
83 FR 50413 - Notice of Workshop on the Convergence of High Performance Computing, Big Data, and Machine LearningPDF
83 FR 50312 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan, Oklahoma; Supplemental Notice of Proposed RulemakingPDF
83 FR 50262 - Safety Zone; APA Convention Fireworks; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OHPDF
83 FR 50386 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under Emergency Review by the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
83 FR 50410 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate ProcedurePDF
83 FR 50406 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
83 FR 50371 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 50430 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of HawaiiPDF
83 FR 50387 - North Carolina; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 50387 - Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency DeclarationPDF
83 FR 50430 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana IslandsPDF
83 FR 50431 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana IslandsPDF
83 FR 50430 - The Entire United States and U.S. Territories; Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (MREIDL)PDF
83 FR 50369 - Request for Information on FDIC Communication and TransparencyPDF
83 FR 50374 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, (BSC, OPHPR)PDF
83 FR 50378 - Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)PDF
83 FR 50377 - Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 50332 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 50335 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 50334 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Chemical Weapons Convention Provisions of the Export Administration RegulationsPDF
83 FR 50336 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Procedures for Submitting Rebuttals and Surrebuttals Requests for Exclusions From and Objections to the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Steel and AluminumPDF
83 FR 50408 - Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico; Notice of Commission To Schedule and Determination To Conduct a Full Five-Year ReviewPDF
83 FR 50432 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 50378 - Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 50431 - Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the State of OregonPDF
83 FR 50257 - Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: Announcement of Fee to Cover Credit Subsidy CostsPDF
83 FR 50362 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 50433 - Notice of Department of State Sanctions Actions Pursuant To Section 231(a) of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) and Executive Order 13849 of September 20, 2018, and Notice of Additions To the CAATSA Section 231(d) GuidancePDF
83 FR 50422 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Revise Certain Qualification Thresholds and Fees in Sections I.B.1, Primary Improvement Order, and I.B.2, BOX Volume RebatePDF
83 FR 50382 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Electronic User Fee Payment Request FormsPDF
83 FR 50414 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Pricing Schedule RulesPDF
83 FR 50416 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Order Type Called the MidPoint Discretionary Order (“MDO”) Under Paragraph (g) of Exchange Rule 11.8 and To Amend the Definition of the Super Aggressive Instruction Under Paragraph (n)(2) of Exchange Rule 11.6PDF
83 FR 50425 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to the Minimum Quantity Order AttributePDF
83 FR 50427 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 67 To Specify That D-Quote Functionality Under Rule 67(f)(5) Will Continue To Be in Effect Until Six Months After the End of the Pilot PeriodPDF
83 FR 50382 - Policy Regarding Quantitative Labeling of Dietary Supplements Containing Live Microbials; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 50371 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate ReceivershipPDF
83 FR 50370 - Notice of Termination of ReceivershipsPDF
83 FR 50259 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WAPDF
83 FR 50258 - Section 707 Regarding Disguised Sales, Generally; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 50379 - Delegation of AuthorityPDF
83 FR 50290 - Update of Existing User FeesPDF
83 FR 50374 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
83 FR 50264 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
83 FR 50314 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Beaver, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
83 FR 50271 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; 2018 Amendments to West Virginia's Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
83 FR 50256 - Amendment of Class D Airspace; Lewiston, IDPDF
83 FR 50295 - Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2018-2019 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for King Mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico Western ZonePDF
83 FR 50371 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 50255 - Amendment of Class E Airspace, Belfast, MEPDF
83 FR 50435 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing CompanyPDF
83 FR 50352 - Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 50384 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 50385 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 50385 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 50383 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 50413 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
83 FR 50372 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 50409 - Certain Microfluidic Devices; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 50402 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Juan Islands National Monument, WashingtonPDF
83 FR 50310 - Safety Zone; Tumon Bay, Tumon, GUPDF
83 FR 50331 - Idaho (Boise, Caribou-Targhee, Salmon-Challis, and Sawtooth National Forests and Curlew National Grassland); Nevada (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest); Utah (Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests); Wyoming (Bridger-Teton National Forest); and Wyoming/Colorado (Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland) Amendments to Land Management Plans for Greater Sage-Grouse ConservationPDF
83 FR 50352 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Foreign Patent Rights AvailablePDF
83 FR 50351 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Foreign Patent Rights AvailablePDF
83 FR 50411 - Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Forced or Indentured Child Labor in the Production of Goods in Foreign Countries and Efforts by Certain Foreign Countries To Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child LaborPDF
83 FR 50274 - Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Lane County Permitting and General Rule RevisionsPDF
83 FR 50266 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Minor New Source Review PermittingPDF
83 FR 50434 - Minnesota Northern Railroad, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Norman and Polk Counties, MNPDF
83 FR 50353 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Ralph Hall Regional Water Supply Reservoir Project, Fannin County, TXPDF
83 FR 50297 - Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating OrganizationsPDF
83 FR 50444 - Response to Clean Air Act Section 126(b) Petitions From Delaware and MarylandPDF

Issue

83 194 Friday, October 5, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 50351-50352 2018-21603 2018-21604 2018-21606 Bonneville Bonneville Power Administration NOTICES Bonneville Purchasing Instructions and Bonneville Financial Assistance Instructions, 50354 2018-21725 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50332-50334 2018-21698 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Delegations of Authority, 50379 2018-21672 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, 50374 2018-21702 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 50377-50379 2018-21688 2018-21700 Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 50378 2018-21701 Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 50374-50377 2018-21670 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50381-50382 2018-21754 Meetings: Medicare Program; Town Hall on the FY 2020 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On Payments, 50379-50381 2018-21753 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 50332 2018-21910 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA, 50259 2018-21674 Wicomico River, Salisbury, MD, 50259-50260 2018-21771 Safety Zones: APA Convention Fireworks, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH, 50262-50264 2018-21717 Willamette River, Portland, OR, 50260-50262 2018-21759 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Tumon Bay, Tumon, GU, 50310-50312 2018-21621 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50335 2018-21697 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Chemical Weapons Convention Provisions of the Export Administration Regulations, 50334-50335 2018-21696
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 50347-50351 2018-21735 2018-21736 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Meetings: Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces, 50352-50353 2018-21655
Energy Department Energy Department See

Bonneville Power Administration

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Understanding Catalyst Production and Development Needs at National Laboratories, 50355 2018-21726
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Lake Ralph Hall Regional Water Supply Reservoir Project, Fannin County, TX, 50353-50354 2018-21538 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oregon; Lane County Permitting and General Rule Revisions, 50274-50284 2018-21558 West Virginia; 2018 Amendments to West Virginia's Ambient Air Quality Standards, 50271-50274 2018-21664 West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 50264-50266 2018-21668 West Virginia; Minor New Source Review Permitting, 50266-50271 2018-21557 Pesticide Tolerances: Flumioxazin, 50284-50288 2018-21746 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oklahoma; Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 50312-50314 2018-21718 Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Beaver, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 50314-50326 2018-21667 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Implementation of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 50363-50364 2018-21750 Request for Contaminant Occurrence Data in Support of Fourth Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 50361-50362 2018-21751 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 50362-50363 2018-21685 Guidance: A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization, 50366-50369 2018-21747 Public Water System Supervision Program Revisions: North Carolina, 50366 2018-21752 Requests for Nominations: Drinking Water Contaminants for the Fifth Contaminant Candidate List, 50364-50366 2018-21748 Response to Clean Air Act Section 126(b) Petitions from Delaware and Maryland, 50444-50473 2018-20854 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class D Airspace: Lewiston, ID, 50256-50257 2018-21660 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Belfast, ME, 50255-50256 2018-21657 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: The Boeing Company, 50435-50436 2018-21656 Federal Contract Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50410-50411 2018-21727 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Requests for Information: Communication and Transparency, 50369-50370 2018-21704 Terminations of Receiverships: Georgia Trust Bank, 50371 2018-21676 Peoples First Community Bank, et al., 50370-50371 2018-21675 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 50289-50290 2018-21758 NOTICES Emergency Declarations: Virginia; Amendment No. 1, 50387 2018-21708 Major Disaster Declarations: North Carolina; Amendment No. 3, 50387 2018-21709 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 50355-50361 2018-21741 2018-21742 2018-21744 2018-21745 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Black Hills Electric Generation, LLC, 50357 2018-21743 FTS Master Tenant 2, LLC, 50356 2018-21739 Willow Springs Solar, LLC, 50356-50357 2018-21740 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Funding Opportunity: Department of Transportation's Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program for Fiscal Year 2018, 50436-50440 2018-21826 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission RULES Update of Existing User Fees, 50290-50295 2018-21671 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 50372 2018-21643 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 50371 2018-21712 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 50371-50372 2018-21658 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: A and O Enterprises Inc and Aaron K. Roberts, 50372-50374 2018-21749 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Electronic User Fee Payment Request Forms, 50382-50383 2018-21682 Guidance: Policy Regarding Quantitative Labeling of Dietary Supplements Containing Live Microbials, 50382 2018-21677 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 50440-50442 2018-21738 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Subzone Applications: United Parcel Service, Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 29; Louisville, KY, 50335-50336 2018-21724 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Land Management Plans: Idaho (Boise, Caribou-Targhee, Salmon-Challis, and Sawtooth National Forests and Curlew National Grassland); Nevada (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest); Utah (Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests); Wyoming (Bridger-Teton National Forest); and Wyoming/Colorado (Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland), 50331-50332 2018-21619 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: Announcement of Fee to Cover Credit Subsidy Costs, 50257-50258 2018-21686 NOTICES Operations Notice for the Expansion of the Moving to Work Demonstration Program, 50387-50402 2018-21723 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Procedures for Submitting Rebuttals and Surrebuttals Requests for Exclusions from and Objections to the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Steel and Aluminum, 50336 2018-21695 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Section 707 Regarding Disguised Sales, Generally; Correction, 50258-50259 2018-21673 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 50342-50344 2018-21734 Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China, 50338-50339 2018-21730 Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 50336-50338 2018-21732 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, 50344-50345 2018-21731 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Forged Steel Fittings from Italy, 50345-50347 2018-21728 Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 50339-50341 2018-21729 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Microfluidic Devices, 50409-50410 2018-21637 Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, 50408-50409 2018-21692 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 50410 2018-21715 Labor Department Labor Department See

Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office

NOTICES Requests for Information: Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Forced or Indentured Child Labor in the Production of Goods in Foreign Countries and Efforts by Certain Foreign Countries to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor, 50411-50413 2018-21559
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: San Juan Islands National Monument, Washington, 50402-50404 2018-21629 Realty Action: Direct Sale of Public Land to the City of Henderson, NV, 50404-50406 2018-21737 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 50413 2018-21644 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 50383-50386 2018-21645 2018-21646 2018-21648 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 50385 2018-21647 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region: 2018-2019 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for King Mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico Western Zone, 50295-50296 2018-21659 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Albuquerque Museum, Albuquerque, NM; Correction, 50406-50407 2018-21756 Office of the State Archeologist Bioarcheology Program, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 50407-50408 2018-21757 National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 50406 2018-21713 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: The Convergence of High Performance Computing, Big Data, and Machine Learning; Workshop, 50413-50414 2018-21720 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, 50297-50310 2018-21295 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Exchange, LLC, 50422-50425 2018-21683 Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., 50416-50422 2018-21680 Nasdaq BX, Inc., 50414-50416 2018-21681 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 50427-50430 2018-21678 The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 50425-50427 2018-21679 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster: Oregon, 50431-50432 2018-21687 Major Disaster Declarations: Hawaii, 50430-50431 2018-21711 Northern Mariana Islands, 50430-50431 2018-21706 2018-21707 Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program: United States and U.S. Territories, 50430 2018-21705 State Department State Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 50432-50433 2018-21689 Sanctions Against Chinese Entity: Equipment Development Department of the Central Military Commission, 50433-50434 2018-21684 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50386 2018-21716 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Limiting Extensions of Trail Use Negotiating Periods: National Assn. of Reversionary Property Owners; Petition for Rulemaking, 50326-50330 2018-21760 NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Minnesota Northern Railroad, Inc. in Norman and Polk Counties, MN, 50434-50435 2018-21545 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 50444-50473 2018-20854 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.

83 194 Friday, October 5, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0199; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-3] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class E Airspace, Belfast, ME AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Belfast non-directional radio beacon and cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of this airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, January 3, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach procedures at this airport.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 33163, July 17, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0199 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 9.4-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME, due to the decommissioning of the Belfast NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at this airport. The geographic coordinates also are updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANE ME E5 Belfast, ME [Amended] Belfast Municipal Airport, ME (Lat. 44°24′34″ N, long. 69°00′43″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.4-mile radius of Belfast Municipal Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 27, 2018. Christopher Cox, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-21657 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0896; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANM-14] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class D Airspace; Lewiston, ID AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID, by increasing the upward extension of Class D airspace from 2,700 feet MSL to 3,900 feet MSL. The upward extension was incorrectly lowered in the final rule published March 15, 2018.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Clark, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone (206) 231-2253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID to support IFR operations at the airport.

History

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 11411; March 15, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0986 amending Class D airspace, and Class E surface airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID.

Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered the upward extension of Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport Class D airspace was incorrectly reduced from 3,900 feet MSL to 2,700 feet MSL. This rule corrects that error and restores the upward extension of Class D airspace to 3,900 feet MSL.

Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace legal description for Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID. The Class D airspace is retained up to 3,900 feet MSL, not 2,750 feet MSL, as stated in a final rule published in the Federal Register of March 15, 2018 (83 FR 11411).

Accordingly, action taken herein to amend the upward extension of Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID, is in the interest of flight safety. Therefore, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ANM ID D Lewiston, ID [Amended] Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, ID (Lat. 46°22′28″ N, long. 117°00′55″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,900 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius from Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport clockwise from the airport 290° bearing to the 066° bearing, and within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport from the 066° bearing to the airport 115° bearing and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 115° bearing to the airport 164° bearing, and within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport from the airport 164° bearing to the airport 230° bearing, and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 230° bearing to the airport 290° bearing. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 28, 2018. Stephanie Harris, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-21660 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 570 [Docket No. FR-6116-N-01] RIN 2506-AC35 Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: Announcement of Fee to Cover Credit Subsidy Costs AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

ACTION:

Notification of fees.

SUMMARY:

This document announces the fee that HUD will collect from borrowers of loans guaranteed under HUD's Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108 Program) to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant to commitments awarded in Fiscal Year 2019.

DATES:

Applicability date: November 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Webster, Director, Financial Management Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7160, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-4563 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. FAX inquiries (but not comments) may be sent to Mr. Webster at 202-708-1798 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (division K of Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014) (2015 Appropriations Act) provided that “the Secretary shall collect fees from borrowers . . . to result in a credit subsidy cost of zero for guaranteeing” Section 108 loans. Identical language was continued or included in the Department's continuing resolutions and appropriations acts authorizing HUD to issue Section 108 loan guarantees during Fiscal Years (FYs) 2016, 2017, and 2018. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 HUD appropriations bills under consideration in the House of Representatives (H.R. 6072) and the Senate (S. 3023), also have identical language regarding the fees and credit subsidy cost for the Section 108 Program, and the 2018 provision is carried forward in the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (Pub. L. 115-952, approved September 28, 2018).

On November 3, 2015, HUD published a final rule (80 FR 67626) that amended the Section 108 Program regulations at 24 CFR part 570 to establish additional procedures, including procedures for announcing the amount of the fee each fiscal year when HUD is required to offset the credit subsidy costs to the Federal Government to guarantee Section 108 loans. For FYs 2016, 2017, and 2018, HUD issued documents to set the fees.1

1 80 FR 67634 (November 3, 2015), 81 FR 68297 (October 4, 2016), and 82 FR 44518 (September 25, 2017) respectively.

II. FY 2019 Fee: 2.23 Percent of the Principal Amount of the Loan

This document sets the fee for Section 108 loan disbursements under loan guarantee commitments awarded for FY 2019 at 2.23 percent of the principal amount of the loan. HUD will collect this fee from borrowers of loans guaranteed under the Section 108 Program to offset the credit subsidy costs of the guaranteed loans pursuant to commitments awarded in FY 2019. For this fee document, HUD is not changing the underlying assumptions or creating new considerations for borrowers. The calculation of the FY 2019 fee uses a similar calculation model as the FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018 final documents, but incorporates updated information regarding the composition of the Section 108 portfolio and the timing of the estimated future cash flows for defaults and recoveries. The calculation of the fee is also affected by the discount rates required to be used by HUD when calculating the present value of the future cash flows as part of the Federal budget process.

As described in 24 CFR 570.712(b), HUD's credit subsidy calculation is based on the amount required to reduce the credit subsidy cost to the Federal Government associated with making a Section 108 loan guarantee to the amount established by applicable appropriation acts. As a result, HUD's credit subsidy cost calculations incorporated assumptions based on: (1) Data on default frequency for municipal debt where such debt is comparable to loans in the Section 108 loan portfolio; (2) data on recovery rates on collateral security for comparable municipal debt; (3) the expected composition of the Section 108 portfolio by end users of the guaranteed loan funds (e.g., third-party borrowers and public entities); and (4) other factors that HUD determined were relevant to this calculation (e.g., assumptions as to loan disbursement and repayment patterns).

Taking these factors into consideration, HUD determined that the fee for disbursements made under loan guarantee commitments awarded in FY 2019 will be 2.23 percent, which will be applied only at the time of loan disbursements. Note that future documents may provide for a combination of upfront and periodic fees for loan guarantee commitments awarded in future fiscal years but, if so, will provide the public an opportunity to comment if appropriate under 24 CFR 570.712(b)(2).

The expected cost of a Section 108 loan guarantee is difficult to estimate using historical program data because there have been no defaults in the history of the program that required HUD to invoke its full faith and credit guarantee or use the credit subsidy reserved each year for future losses.2 This is due to a variety of factors, including the availability of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as security for HUD's guarantee as provided in 24 CFR 570.705(b). As authorized by Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5308), borrowers may make payments on Section 108 loans using CDBG grant funds. Borrowers may also make Section 108 loan payments from other anticipated sources but continue to have CDBG funds available should they encounter shortfalls in the anticipated repayment source. Despite the program's history of no defaults, Federal credit budgeting principles require that the availability of CDBG funds to repay the guaranteed loans cannot be assumed in the development of the credit subsidy cost estimate (see 80 FR 67629, November 3, 2015). Thus, the estimate must incorporate the risk that alternative sources are used to repay the guaranteed loan in lieu of CDBG funds, and that those sources may be insufficient. Based on the rate that CDBG funds are used annually for repayment of loan guarantees, HUD's calculation of the credit subsidy cost must acknowledge the possibility of future defaults if those CDBG funds were not available. The fee of 2.23 percent of the principal amount of the loan will offset the expected cost to the Federal Government due to default, financing costs, and other relevant factors. To arrive at this measure, HUD analyzed data on comparable municipal debt over an extended period. The estimated rate is based on the default and recovery rates for general purpose municipal debt and industrial development bonds. The cumulative default rates on industrial development bonds were higher than the default rates on general purpose municipal debt during the period from which the data were taken. These two subsectors of municipal debt were chosen because their purposes and loan terms most closely resemble those of Section 108 guaranteed loans.

2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Study of HUD's Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, (prepared by Econometrica, Inc. and The Urban Institute), September 2012, at pages 73-74. This fact has not changed since the issuance of this report.

In this regard, Section 108 guaranteed loans can be broken down into two categories: (1) Loans that finance public infrastructure and activities to support subsidized housing (other than financing new construction) and (2) other development projects (e.g., retail, commercial, industrial). The 2.23 percent fee was derived by weighting the default and recovery data for general purpose municipal debt and the data for industrial development bonds according to the expected composition of the Section 108 portfolio by corresponding project type. Based on the dollar amount of Section 108 loan guarantee commitments awarded from FY 2013 through FY 2017, HUD expects that 35 percent of the Section 108 portfolio will be similar to general purpose municipal debt and 65 percent of the portfolio will be similar to industrial development bonds. In setting the fee at 2.23 percent of the principal amount of the guaranteed loan, HUD expects that the amount generated will fully offset the cost to the Federal Government associated with making guarantee commitments awarded in FY 2019. Note that the FY 2019 fee represents a 0.135 percent decrease from the FY 2018 fee of 2.365 percent.

This document establishes a rate that does not constitute a development decision that affects the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this document is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Dated: September 14, 2018. Neal Rackleff, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 2018-21686 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9787] RIN 1545-BK29 Section 707 Regarding Disguised Sales, Generally; Correction AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY:

This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9787) that were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, October 5, 2016. The final regulations are under sections 707 and 752 of the Internal Revenue Code.

DATES:

This correction is effective October 5, 2018 and is applicable on and after October 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deane M. Burke or Caroline E. Hay at (202) 317-5279 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The final regulations (TD 9787), published October 5, 2016 (81 FR 69291), that are the subject of this correction are under sections 707 and 752 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations (TD 9787) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

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

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

§ 1.707-9 [Amended]
Par. 2. Section 1.707-9 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 1.707-9 Effective dates and transitional rules.

(a) * * *

(1) * * * For any transaction with respect to which all transfers that are part of a sale of an item of property occur after April 24, 1991, and any of such transfers occurs before October 5, 2016, §§ 1.707-3 through 1.707-6 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2016, apply.

Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2018-21673 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0919] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the South Park highway bridge (South Park Bridge), across the Duwamish Waterway mile 3.8, at Seattle, WA. The deviation allows the bridge owner to remove the drawtender during the late evening and early morning hours. This deviation authorizes the subject bridge to open during nighttime hours after receiving a 12 hour advance notice.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from without actual notice from October 5, 2018 to 7 a.m. on January 17, 2019. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. on September 17, 2018, to October 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0919 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

King County, WA, owns the South Park Bridge that spans across the Duwamish Waterway at mile 3.8, at Seattle, WA. King County requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule, due to infrequent opening requests, while a rule change is being processed. This deviation will allow King County to operate without a drawtender during evening hours until an opening request has been received. The South Park Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1041(a)(2).

This deviation authorizes the drawtender to open the South Park Bridge after receiving a 12 hour notice from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. including all Federal holidays, starting at 6 a.m. on September 17, 2018, through 7 a.m. on January 17, 2019. Vessels engaged in sea-trials or waterway dredging activities may request a standby drawtender to open the bridge, on demand, during sea-trials and/or dredging operations, if at least a 24 hour notice is given to the drawtender. The South Park Bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 20 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. Vessels operating on the Duwamish Waterway range from small recreational vessels, sailboats, tribal fishing boats, large yachts and commercial towing vessels.

Vessels able to pass through the South Park Bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. However, in the event of an emergency requiring a bridge opening between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., the Seattle Department of Transportation has agreed that the bridge operator at the Fremont Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal will open the South Park Bridge within 45 minutes from initial notification. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Dated: October 1, 2018. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-21674 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0931] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Wicomico River, Salisbury, MD AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Main Street Bridge across the Wicomico River (North Prong), mile 22.4, at Salisbury, MD. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the cleaning and painting of the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.

DATES:

The deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on October 5, 2018, through 6 a.m. on December 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0931] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6422, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration, who owns and operates the Main Street Bridge across the Wicomico River (North Prong), mile 22.4, at Salisbury, MD, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation. This temporary deviation is necessary to accommodate cleaning and painting of the bridge. The bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 1 foot above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.579. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on October 5, 2018, through 6 a.m. on December 31, 2018. The Wicomico River is used by tug and barge, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Dated: October 2, 2018. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-21771 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0901] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Willamette River, Portland, OR AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Willamette River between the Tilikum Crossing and Marquam bridges in Portland, OR. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during a fireworks display on October 27, 2018. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 6:40 p.m. to 9 p.m. on October 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0901 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Dixon Whitley, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email [email protected].

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

The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society will be conducting a fireworks display from 7:40 p.m. to 8 p.m. on October 27, 2018. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Willamette River between the Tilikum Crossing and Marquam bridges in Portland, OR. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of the barge.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable to complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking by the date of the fireworks display, October 27, 2018.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because an enforcement regulation is needed on October 27, 2018, to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on October 27, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters from these potential hazards within the safety zone before, during and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 6:40 p.m. until 9 p.m. on October 27, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 450 yards of the barge being used to launch the fireworks display from position 45°30′23.00″ N, 122°40′4.71″ W, on the Willamette River in Portland, OR. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7:40 p.m. to 8 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Willamette River for less than 2.5 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 2.5 hours that will prohibit entry within 450 yards of a fireworks barge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T13-0901 to read as follows:
§ 165.T13-0901 Safety Zone; Willamette River, Portland, OR.

(a) Safety zone. The following area is a safety zone: Waters of the Willamette River between the Tilikum and Marquam bridges, within a 450-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at 45°30′23.00″ N, 122°40′4.71″ W in Portland, OR.

(b) Regulations. Under § 165.23, no person may enter or remain in the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or his designated representative. Also, under § 165.23, no person may bring into, or allow to remain in this safety zone any vehicle, vessel, or object unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Columbia River or his designated representative.

(c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6:40 p.m. to 9 p.m. on October 27, 2018.

Dated: September 19, 2018. D.F. Berliner, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2018-21759 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0893] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; APA Convention Fireworks; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of the launch site at 101 Erieside Avenue, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the APA 70th Anniversary Convention fireworks displays. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from 9 a.m. on October 5, 2018 until 10:45 p.m. on October 5, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 9:15 p.m. October 3, 2018, until 9 a.m. on October 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0893 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email [email protected].

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause find that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels near the maritime fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:15 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on October 3, 2018, and 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on October 5, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of: 41°30′33.4″ N, 081°41′58.0″ W at 101 Erieside Avenue, Cleveland, OH.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on our anticipation that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within 420 feet of the launch area for the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0893 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0893 Safety Zone; APA Convention Fireworks; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH contained within a 420-foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°30′33. 4″ N, 081°41′58.0″ W.

(b) Effective and enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m., October 3, 2018, and from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on October 5, 2018.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

Dated: October 2, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2018-21717 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373; FRL-9984-96-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373. 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., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through 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:

Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

On November 17, 2015, the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted a SIP revision addressing all required infrastructure elements under CAA section 110(a) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 3, 2018, EPA has previously taken action on other portions of the November 17, 2015 submittal addressing requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA is taking rulemaking action herein on only the portion of the November 12, 2015 submittal addressing requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2). See 83 FR 38112. In addition, EPA stated in the NPRM that the Agency had proposed separate action on the portion of the November 12, 2015 submittal addressing requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4). See 83 FR 27734 (June 14, 2018) (proposing approval of the November 12, 2015 submittal for prong 4). EPA is not at this time taking final action on the 2015 SIP submittal addressing prong 4. For more information on particulate pollution, EPA's infrastructure requirements, and interstate transport requirements, see Section I of the August 3, 2018 NPRM.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

West Virginia's November 17, 2015 SIP submittal stated that the current West Virginia SIP contains adequate measures to ensure that the State will not cause significant contribution to nonattainment in, or interfere with the maintenance of, any other State with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. West Virginia refers to the measures detailed in the section pertaining to requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which included numerous SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable measures, under the CAA, that apply to sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within West Virginia.

In evaluating whether the measures identified by West Virginia addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA used the information in the memorandum dated March 17, 2016, entitled, “Information on the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf (the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum). This 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum is included in the docket for this rulemaking action. After considering the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum and additional information, EPA came to the same conclusion as West Virginia and proposed in the NPRM that West Virginia's emissions do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another State with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

A detailed summary of West Virginia's submittal, EPA's review, and the rationale for EPA's conclusion approving the November 17, 2015 submittal as addressing requirements of prongs 1 and 2 are explained in the NPRM and the technical support document (TSD) that accompanied the NPRM and will not be restated here. The TSD is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373.

III. Response to Comments

EPA received a total of three comments on the August 3, 2018 NPRM. Two comments generally discussed matters irrelevant to this rulemaking. As these two comments did not concern any of the specific issues raised in the NPRM or address EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of West Virginia's submittal, EPA provides no response to these comments. EPA did receive one relevant comment; that comment, and EPA's response is discussed in this Section of this rulemaking action.

Comment: The commenter first stated that EPA did not need to analyze interstate transport of PM2.5 emissions from West Virginia to California, Idaho, or Florida, and further questioned the likelihood of West Virginia's PM2.5 emissions impacting those three States. The commenter then stated that EPA's time and limited resources would be better spent on other more meaningful issues, especially since it took three years to develop the analysis EPA presented.

Response: First, with respect to the period of time for EPA's analysis, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires all States to submit a SIP addressing the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) on interstate transport, within three years of EPA promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Further, CAA section 110(k)(2) and (3) requires EPA action on the SIP submission within twelve months of EPA finding the SIP submission complete. Therefore, the submission of a SIP addressing interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is required by the CAA as is EPA's action on such SIP submittal. In addition, the requirement for a new infrastructure SIP submission provides an opportunity for the air agency, the public, and EPA to review the basics of the air quality management program in light of each new or revised NAAQS. In the case of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), this review is specifically focused on whether a State's SIP will prevent interference with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in a nearby State, and meets requirements for prevention of significant deterioration and visibility in another State, as well as international pollution.

Second, with regards to EPA's analysis of West Virginia's impact on California, Idaho, or Florida, EPA disagrees that such an analysis is not necessary. As discussed in the TSD and in EPA's 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum, most of the potential areas of concern with nonattainment or maintenance issues for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS were located in California, Shoshone County, Idaho, and in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In addition, the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum noted air quality monitoring data quality problems in all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee, and Kentucky. Subsequent to the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum's release, data quality problems were resolved for Idaho (outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee, Kentucky, and portions of Florida. Therefore, the remaining potential receptors of interest included 17 receptors in California, one receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, one receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, four counties in Florida, and all of Illinois.1 Based on this information from the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum and the resolution of the monitoring quality issues, EPA narrowed the scope of analysis down to these remaining potential receptors and did not evaluate the entire continental United States for potential contribution to downwind PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors. While EPA agrees that the likelihood of West Virginia's sources of PM2.5 emissions contributing to attainment or maintenance air quality issues in geographically distant areas in California, Florida, and Idaho is unlikely, EPA and the State are still obligated to analyze whether the State's sources will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere in the maintenance of, the NAAQS at those receptors and at receptors in other States. In addressing this obligation, EPA relied upon the information in the TSD and on the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum to conclude West Virginia's SIP was adequate to prevent West Virginia sources from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in other States.

1 A receptor is a monitor within the photochemical modeling domain that is modeled as “receiving” emissions.

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving the November 17, 2015 SIP revision as it addresses the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 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, addressing West Virginia's interstate transport obligations with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 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, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: September 25, 2018. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

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 XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by: a. Revising the entry for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS”; and b. Adding a second entry entitled “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS” at the end of the table.

The revision and addition read as follows:

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable
  • geographic
  • area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 11/17/15 5/12/17, 82 FR 22078 Docket #2016-0373. This action addresses the following CAA elements of section 110(a)(2): A, B, C, D(i)(II) (prong 3), D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K, L, and M, or portions thereof. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Statewide 11/17/15 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2016-0373. This action addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2).
    [FR Doc. 2018-21668 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0503; FRL-9984-95-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Minor New Source Review Permitting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision pertains to changes to West Virginia's minor New Source Review (NSR) permit program. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0503. 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., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through 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:

    Mr. David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On June 18, 2018 (83 FR 28179), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of revisions to West Virginia's minor NSR regulations, “45CSR13—Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation and Operation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, Notification Requirements, Administrative Updates, Temporary Permits, General Permits, Permissions to Commence Construction, and Procedures for Evaluation,” as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on behalf of the State of West Virginia on June 6, 2017.

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires SIPs to include a preconstruction permit program for both major and minor sources. More specifically, SIPs must include the permit programs required under subpart C of title I and must have minor preconstruction programs that assure that the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are maintained. Additionally, 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.163 outline the federal requirements which apply to minor permit issuance, including the required administrative and federally enforceable procedures, and the procedures for public participation. Under the minor source permitting rules under the Code of State Rules (CSR) at 45CSR13, West Virginia implements minor preconstruction program requirements by issuing permits to: (1) Construct and operate new stationary sources which are not major sources, (2) modify non-major stationary sources, (3) make non-major modifications to existing major stationary sources, and (4) relocate non-major stationary sources. These rules also establish requirements for obtaining a temporary permit and Class I and Class II general permit registration. EPA last approved a revision to 45CSR13 on July 21, 2014. See 79 FR 42211.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis A. Summary of SIP Revision

    WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal contains a number of revisions to 45CRSR13, many of them administrative or clarifying in nature. The non-administrative changes include: (1) Revisions to the definitions of modification and stationary source; (2) Revisions to and clarifications of the provisions allowing applicants to store equipment onsite prior to receiving a permit; and (3) Revisions to the applicability criteria for Class I and Class II administrative updates.

    B. EPA Analysis 1. “Modification” and “Stationary Source” Definition Changes

    WVDEP added language excluding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the definitions of “Modification” and “Stationary Source” at 45CSR13 sections 45-13-2.17.a and 45-13-2.24.b, respectively. The specific language added to both definitions is as follows, “ . . . other than emissions of any one or the aggregate of all GHGs, the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.” The addition of this language to both definitions clarifies that GHG emissions are not subject to the minor NSR permitting requirements of 45CSR13. In accordance with West Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations at 45CSR14, preconstruction permitting requirements for GHG sources are only triggered for major sources or major modifications, and only when such source/modification is already “major” for another pollutant (i.e., a source cannot be “major” for GHGs alone). This is consistent with the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. Additionally, these revisions are appropriate and meet the federal requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). Further, GHGs are not a criteria pollutant, and there are no GHG nonattainment areas. Therefore, the revisions are in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

    2. “Store-on-Site” Clarifications

    WVDEP's previously approved regulations allow sources to “(r)eceive or store on-site or off-site any equipment or supplies which make up in part or in whole an emission unit or any support equipment, facilities, building or structure,” prior to receiving a permit under 45CSR13.1 See 45CSR13 section 45-13-5.1.i. WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included a revision to 45-13-5.1.i which clarifies permissible on-site activities that do not constitute commencement of construction and clarifies that such supplies etc. may be stored on-site “ . . . on its permanent pad or foundation or at any other location at the stationary source.” In addition, section 45-13-2 has been revised to add a definition of “store on-site” which clarifies that any equipment stored on-site must be kept in the same condition as it was received, and not “. . . modified, erected or installed.” See 45CSR13 subsection 45-13-2.26. As discussed in the NPRM in more detail, there are no corresponding federal minor NSR regulations for the definition of “commencement of construction,” “begin actual construction,” or corresponding federal minor NSR regulations laying out what on-site activities are allowable in the absence of a permit. Because the revisions do not allow for the construction or operation of an actual emissions unit prior to issuance of a permit, there are no increased emissions associated with any of the activities allowed by WVDEP's “store onsite” provisions. Further, because a permit is required prior to erecting and operating any emissions units being stored on site, West Virginia's program has legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction of a minor source or the minor modification of a existing source if it would violate SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(b). Therefore, EPA finds these revisions approvable because they meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for a program for regulation of modification and construction of stationary sources in areas to assure the national ambient air quality standards are achieved and are consistent with 40 CFR 51.160-51.163 for review of new minor sources and minor modifications including required procedures and public availability of information. In addition, the revisions to 45 CSR13 are essentially adding conditions to an already SIP approved regulation for what on-site activities may occur before commencement of construction. Additionally, they are consistent with CAA section 110(l) because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

    1 WVDEP's “store on-site” provisions do not apply to major PSD or nonattainment NSR permits issued in accordance with 45CSR14 or 45CSR19.

    3. Class I and Class II Administrative Updates

    WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal also revised the applicability criteria for sources seeking Class I and Class II administrative updates to minor NSR permits issued under 45CSR13.

    The primary difference between Class I and II updates is that, pursuant to 45-13-4.1.d, public notice is not required for Class I updates. For Class II updates, WVDEP provides a 30-day public notice period, in accordance with 45-13-8.3. Additionally, sources requesting Class I amendments may make the change upon submitting the request, prior to receiving a revised permit from WVDEP. In WVDEP's currently approved SIP, only changes to permit conditions which result in a decrease in emissions can be approved under a Class I update. Class II updates must be used for changes which result in an increase or no change in emissions. See 45CSR13 sections 45-13-4.2.a.8 and 45-13-4.2.b. WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal revised those provisions so that rather than applying only to permit revisions which result in an emissions decrease, a Class I update can be used for a permit revision resulting in no emissions increase. A Class II update now must be used in instances where the revision would result in an emissions increase. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach to streamlining WVDEP's administrative burden, and is approving them as a revision to the West Virginia SIP because they meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160-51.163 and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for permit programs regulating modification and construction of sources not subject to major new source review. Additionally, they are consistent with CAA section 110(l) because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement as all modifications resulting in an emissions increase are still subject to public notice and the change only affects notice on actions where there is no effect on emissions (and thus no affect likely on attainment or reasonable further progress).

    4. Non-Substantive Changes

    In addition to the revisions previously discussed, WVDEP's June 6, 2017 submittal included a number of non-substantive, clarifying and/or administrative changes. Some examples include the deletion of 45CSR13 section 45-13-1.5, which referenced the former version of 45CSR13, re-codifications required by insertions or deletions, (e.g., 45CSR13 sections 45-13-2.26 through 45-13-28), and the deletion of 45CSR13 section 45-13-5.8, which was an antiquated reference to operating permits (permits issued under 45CSR13 include authorization to construct and operate). WVDEP's submittal included an underline/strikeout version of the submittal so that all revisions to 45CSR13 can been seen. This is included in the docket for this action and online at www.regulations.gov.

    These changes to 45CSR13 have been made in order to clarify and streamline the minor NSR program, and are appropriate and meet the federal requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.163, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). Additionally, the revisions are in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

    III. Public Comments and EPA Response

    EPA received two sets of comments on the June 18, 2018 NPR. These comments are included in the docket for this action. However, one of the sets of comments did not concern any of the specific issues raised in the NPR, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of WVDEP's submittal. Therefore, EPA is not addressing them here. EPA did receive one set of relevant comments. Those comments, and EPA's response, are discussed below.

    Comment 1: The commenter takes issue with the revision to 45-13-5.1.i, specifically the addition of the language relating to “permanent pad(s)” or “foundation(s)” to the existing provision that allows sources to store materials onsite prior to receiving a preconstruction permit from WVDEP. The commenter asserts that the addition of the reference to pads and foundations imparts implicit approval for the construction of such facilities in the absence of a permit, and therefore conflicts with the definition of “begin actual construction” at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xv) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(11),2 and also conflicts with 40 CFR 51.160 (which requires SIPs to preclude the construction or modification of sources which would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS). In support of this assertion, the commenter submitted a letter from EPA Region IX, commenting on regulations that were submitted to the Region by Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) as an official SIP revision request.3 In this letter, EPA identified MCAQD's definition of “begin actual construction” relating to minor NSR as deficient because it “ . . . allow[ed] various activities, such as the installation of underground pipework, and building and equipment supports . . . ” contrary to the federal requirements and long standing agency policy regarding major NSR.4 Commenter cited the EPA letter as stating such construction of building and equipment supports is not allowed without first obtaining a preconstruction permit.

    2 Under both sets of regulations, and under 40 CFR 51.166, sources subject to those regulations may not “begin actual construction” without first obtaining the proper major source preconstruction permit.

    3 The Region IX letter is included in the docket as an attachment to the comment letter.

    4See Region IX comment letter at 4.

    EPA Response 1: In contrast to the considerable requirements prescribed for major NSR in 40 CFR 51.165, the CAA contains minimal requirements for minor NSR. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) simply requires that each SIP include a program that provides for “ . . . regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are achieved . . . ” The implementing regulations for minor NSR at 40 CFR 51.160-51.163 are similarly non-prescriptive. As a result, states have considerable discretion with regard to the implementation of their minor NSR programs as long as the program assures the national ambient air quality standards are attained. Therefore, as discussed in more detail below, EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that a disapproval is warranted.

    First, EPA does not interpret the inclusion of the reference to “permanent pad(s) or foundation(s)” in WVDEP's revised definition of “store onsite” relating to allowable activities that occur before the commencement of construction to impart any permission for construction activities to occur prior to permit issuance that did not already exist in WVDEP's regulations. Indeed, section 45-13-5.1.d allows sources to “Dig and construct foundations and/or caissons and grade beams.” While such activities would conflict with the federal definition of “begin actual construction” as it relates to major NSR, EPA believes it is within West Virginia's discretion to allow such activities in the context of a minor NSR program as no definition of “begin actual construction” constrains minor NSR programs in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) or in 40 CFR 51.160-51.163. WVDEP's regulations are very clear that these permissions do not extend to major sources or major modifications which are subject to WVDEP's major nonattainment PSD and NSR regulations at 45CSR14 and 45CSR19, respectively (subsection 5.1). Further, they do not allow for the installation, erection, or operation of the emissions unit (subsection 5.2), and are undertaken at the sole risk of the operator (subsection 5.3). Any source operator who wishes to store equipment on a pad or foundation must still obtain a permit before erecting an emissions unit or any of the specialized appurtenances associated with the unit. Additionally, if a source operator undertakes any of the activities allowed under these minor NSR rules, and the construction or modification ends up having a potential to emit greater than major source thresholds, they are subject to major NSR liability. Any source that intends to take synthetic minor restrictions to avoid major source permitting requirements remains subject to 45CSR14 or 45CSR19 until such time as a permit with enforceable limits is issued, and is therefore not eligible for the flexibilities provided by subsections 45-13-5 and 45-13-16.5

    5 Subsection 45-13-16.2.b expressly excludes sources seeking synthetic minor limits.

    EPA believes that granting the permission to store equipment on a foundation or pad prior to permit issuance of a minor NSR permit is within West Virginia's discretion and does not compromise WVDEP's ability to implement their minor NSR program in such a way to assure compliance with the NAAQS in accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.160. With regard to Region IX's letter to MCAQD, the comment does not undertake any analysis of the similarities or differences between MCAQD's SIP submittal and West Virginia's proposed regulatory revisions, nor compared to WVDEP's program. Therefore, any similarities or differences between MCAQD's regulations and WVDEP's program are not relevant to the main issue in this rulemaking which is whether WVDEP's regulations may be approved for the SIP as being consistent with CAA requirements. EPA has explained in the NPR and in this rulemaking why WVDEP's revisions meet CAA requirements in both CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and in 40 CFR 51.160-51.163. Notably, there is no federal regulatory requirement of “begin actual construction” for minor NSR in CAA or in 40 CFR 51.161-51.163. Further, EPA notes that in an August 17, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve for the South Carolina SIP minor NSR program similar provisions to West Virginia's relating to permissible on-site activities allowable pre-permit. In that rulemaking proposal, EPA found that provisions allowing sources to pour concrete foundations prior to issuance of a minor NSR permit were “ . . . not inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations, and are therefore approvable as part of the SIP.” See 82 FR 39085. EPA made similar determinations in final rulemaking actions for Mississippi 6 and Wisconsin 7 . Thus, despite the EPA comment letter cited by commenter, EPA disagrees with commenter that EPA's action to approve the West Virginia revision contradicts EPA regulations or policy. Accordingly, EPA is approving WVDEP's June 6, 2018 submittal as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.

    6See 71 FR 38773 (July 10, 2006).

    7See 73 FR 12893 (March 11, 2008).

    Comment 2: The commenter asserts that “To allow a whole or even part of an emission unit to be stored on site before issuance of a permit to construct violates the intent of new source review permitting requirements,” and that because West Virginia “ . . . has resubmitted Rule 45-13-5.1.i for approval into the SIP, the entire subsection is subject to review for approvability,” and EPA should disapprove the entire subsection. Commenter also states that EPA is incorrect in finding the SIP revision will not interfere with any other applicable CAA requirement per CAA section 110(l) because the West Virginia revision is inconsistent with CAA and longstanding EPA policy.

    EPA Response 2: EPA does not disagree with the commenter's assertion that the entire subsection of 45 CSR13 is subject to review for approvability. However, other than the language on revise “on-site” activities, commenter does not site to other inconsistencies in West Virginia's regulations. As stated above in response to the first comment, EPA disagrees that West Virginia's “store onsite” provisions violate the intent of NSR. The PSD provisions of the CAA prohibit commencement of construction without first obtaining the required permit authorizing construction; however, the requirement only applies to major sources, and no such restriction is specified under the minor NSR program requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.160. In addition, EPA has made determinations which further support that limited construction may begin before a permit is issued for minor sources. For example, EPA's October 10, 1978, memorandum from Edward E. Reich to Thomas W. Devine in Region 1 discusses limited preconstruction activities allowed at a site with both PSD and non-PSD sources. This memo states that construction may begin on PSD-exempt projects before the permit is issued. EPA has established its position that such limited waivers are acceptable for true minor sources in previous rulemaking. (See 68 FR 2217 and 73 FR 12893.) In addition, in a December 18, 1978 memo entitled “Interpretation of `Constructed' as it Applies to Activities Undertaken Prior to Issuance of a PSD Permit,” 8 EPA attempted to clarify activities which would, in all cases, require a source operator to obtain a major NSR permit before undertaking, as well as activities which in all cases would not: “The new policy is that certain limited activities will be allowed in all cases. These allowable activities are planning, ordering of equipment and materials, site-clearing, grading, and on-site storage of equipment and materials (emphasis added).” Clearly, if such activities are acceptable prior to issuance in the context of the considerably more prescriptive major NSR program, West Virginia is well within its discretion to allow similar on-site activities under its minor NSR program for which the CAA and federal regulations provide less regulatory requirements. Accordingly, EPA is approving WVDEP's June 6, 2018 submittal as a revision to the West Virginia SIP as nothing in the minor NSR requirements in the CAA or in 40 CFR part 51 prohibit West Virginia from allowing certain on-site activities such as those West Virginia has added prior to issuance of a construction permit.

    8 The commenter cites this memo as well as three others in defense of their claims. See fn5 of comment letter. None of these memos speak directly to the issue of activities allowed pre-permit in the context of minor NSR.

    Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter's general assertion that EPA is incorrect in finding the SIP revision will not interfere with any other applicable CAA requirement per CAA section 110(l). As EPA has explained in response to first and second comment, there are no federal requirements in the CAA or federal regulations that address allowable on-site activities prior to issuance of a permit. As EPA has found West Virginia's regulations reasonable and within the scope of CAA requirements for minor NSR programs, EPA is approving the revisions as in accord with CAA section 110. Our approval is consistent with similar SIP revision approvals for South Carolina and Mississippi as discussed above.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving WVDEP's June 6, 2017 SIP submittal as a revision to the West Virginia SIP because the revisions meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160-51.163 and CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). Additionally, they are consistent with CAA section 110(l) because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the WVDEP rules regarding minor source permitting requirements discussed in section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.9

    9 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 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 related to West Virginia's minor NSR program 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 24, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator Region III.

    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 XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph (c) entitled “EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP” is amended by revising the entries for sections 45-13-1 through 45-1-16, 45-13A, and 45-13B to read as follows:
    § 52.2520 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP State citation
  • [chapter 16-20 or 45 CSR ]
  • Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/
  • citation at 40 CFR 52.2565
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * [45 CSR] Series 13 Permits for Construction, Modification, Relocation and Operation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, Notification Requirements, Administrative Updates, Temporary Permits, General Permits, Permission to Commence Construction and Procedures for Evaluation Section 45-13-1 General 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Administrative changes. Section 45-13-2 Definitions 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revised definitions of “modification,” “stationary source,” and “store on-site.” Section 45-13-3 Reporting Requirements for Stationary Sources 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] New state effective date. Section 45-13-4 Administrative Updates to Existing Permits and General Permit Registrations 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revised sections 4.1.d, 4.2, 4.2.a.8, and 4.2.b.1. Section 45-13-5 Permit Application and Reporting Requirements for Construction of and Modifications to Stationary Sources 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revised section 5.1.e, 5.1.i; deleted existing section 5.8; renumbered following sections. Section 45-13-6 Determination of Compliance of Stationary Sources 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] New state effective date. Section 45-13-7 Modeling 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] New state effective date. Section 45-13-8 Public Review Procedures 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revised section 8.1. Section 45-13-9 Public Meetings 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] New state effective date Section 45-13-10 Permit Transfer, Suspension, Revocation and Responsibility 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Administrative changes. Section 45-13-11 Temporary Construction or Modification Permits 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Administrative changes. Section 45-13-12 Permit Application Fees 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] New state effective date. Section 45-13-13 Inconsistency Between Rules 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Administrative changes. Section 45-13-14 Statutory Air Pollution 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] New state effective date. Section 45-13-15 Hazardous Air Pollutants 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Administrative changes. Section 45-13-16 Application for Permission to Commence Construction in Advance of Permit Issuance 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Administrative changes. Table 45-13A Potential Emission Rate 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] New state effective date. Table 45-13B De Minimus Sources 6/1/17 10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register citation] Administrative changes. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-21557 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0550; FRL-9985-00-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; 2018 Amendments to West Virginia's Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision updates the effective date by which the state incorporates by reference the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as well as their monitoring reference and equivalent methods. EPA is approving this revision to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0550. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On July 31, 2018 (83 FR36823), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of a formal SIP revision submitted on June 8, 2018. The formal SIP revision pertains to amendments to Legislative Rule, 45CSR8—Ambient Air Quality Standards and consists of a revised effective date of the incorporation by reference of the NAAQS and the associated monitoring reference and equivalent methods.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    This SIP revision was submitted by WVDEP in order to update the State's incorporation by reference of the primary and secondary NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods, found in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53, respectively. Currently, 45CSR8 incorporates by reference 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 as effective on June 1, 2016. Since that date, EPA retained the standard for lead and made a technical correction to the particulate standard. See 81 FR 71906 and 82 FR 14325, respectively. EPA also designated one new ambient air monitoring reference method for measuring concentrations of sulfur dioxide, four new ambient air monitoring equivalent methods for measuring concentrations of fine and coarse particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10, respectively), and two new equivalent methods for measuring concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in ambient air. Additional information can be found in the NPR and will not be restated here.

    III. Response to Comments

    EPA received two anonymous comments on the July 31, 2018 NPR.

    Comment: The first commenter asked why this SIP revision was “required” by West Virginia and how it is possible for a state to require a SIP revision. In addition, the commenter alleged that just because a state changes a date in the state's regulation does not mean it must change in the SIP. The commenter also asked EPA to clarify the relevance of the phrase, “EPA retained the standard for lead and made a technical correction to the particulate standard,” and to explain what incorporation by reference means in the context of this rulemaking.

    Response: When a state incorporates a rule or standard by reference, the state is formally adopting the standard or rule into its own state rules without having to rewrite the entirety of the referenced rule or standard. States typically incorporate rules by reference to maintain consistency between state and federal requirements and for ease of adoption by the state. While nothing in the CAA or EPA's regulations necessitates West Virginia to incorporate by reference the NAAQS or to update the date of incorporation by reference of the NAAQS in the State's SIP, West Virginia has chosen of its own accord to incorporate by reference the NAAQS into its SIP and recognizes that it is prudent to ensure the SIP and the state's regulations match for consistent implementation and enforcement purposes. In the NPR, EPA inadvertently referred to the State's voluntary decision to submit the SIP revision incorporating the NAAQS as a “requirement” when the State voluntarily decided to incorporate the NAAQS and thus chose to submit its latest revised regulation for SIP approval incorporating EPA's latest revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA agrees with the commenter that the State is not required to submit this latest SIP revision; West Virginia is exercising its voluntary decision to include state regulations incorporating the NAAQS. Because West Virginia chooses to incorporate by reference the NAAQS, and because West Virginia incorporates by reference the NAAQS in its state regulations by referring to federal regulations as published on a certain date, West Virginia periodically updates its state regulations to refer to the most up to date NAAQS in current federal regulations. West Virginia identified several changes in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 which the State determined necessitated updating the date of incorporation by reference in its own state regulations; those changes include the following: In 40 CFR part 50, a technical correction to the particulate standard, and in 40 CFR part 53, one new ambient air monitoring reference method for measuring concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2), four new ambient air monitoring equivalent methods for measuring concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10, respectively, and two new equivalent methods for measuring concentrations of NO2 in ambient air.

    The SIP revision submittal in this rulemaking was submitted by West Virginia because West Virginia's rule, 45CSR8—Ambient Air Quality Standards, incorporated the NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods found in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53, respectively, as of June 1, 2016. Because West Virginia wanted to ensure the most recent ambient air quality standards and air monitoring methods are enforceable at the state level, West Virginia routinely revises 45CSR8 to update the date by which the rule incorporates the federal standards by reference. In this case, West Virginia revised the date of incorporation by reference from June 1, 2016 to June 1, 2018. By revising this date, West Virginia's ambient air quality standards and air monitoring methods would match the federal NAAQS and air monitoring methods in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53.

    In October 2016 and March 2017, EPA made revisions to 40 CFR parts 50 and 53. See 81 FR 71906 and 82 FR 14325, respectively. In these two actions, EPA retained the NAAQS for the lead standard and made a technical correction to the particulate matter standard. After EPA made these changes, West Virginia's 45CSR8 no longer referenced the most current NAAQS and air monitoring methods; therefore, West Virginia decided to revise its state rule to reference the most recent NAAQS and air monitoring methods. In this routine update, West Virginia recognized that its newly revised 45CSR8 would no longer match the version of the same rule that was contained in its SIP, thus, a SIP revision was necessary to bring the SIP into conformance with both the state rule and the federal standards in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53. In conclusion, West Virginia's decision to incorporate the most current NAAQS was voluntary and EPA in the proposed rule inadvertently referred to West Virginia's decision to make this SIP submission as “required.” West Virginia decided voluntarily to incorporate the federal NAAQS and reference methods into its SIP and to submit this revision to incorporate the most recent version of 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 in its SIP. Therefore, EPA agrees with the commenter that EPA inadvertently referred to the submittal as “required;” however, West Virginia's SIP meets requirements in CAA section 110 as discussed in the NPR and commenter has provided no information to challenge the basis for EPA's approval under CAA section 110.

    Regarding the commenter's concern about EPA's statement that “EPA retained the standard for lead and made a technical correction to the particulate standard,” EPA explained the basis for this in the NPR. No changes were made to the NAAQS for lead and thus no evaluation was needed for West Virginia's altered 45CSR8. EPA explained in the NPR that the Agency made a technical correction to our particulate matter NAAQS and the commenter offered no substantive questions or commentary regarding that change; thus, EPA provides no further substantive reply. Regarding an explanation of “what incorporation by reference means,” EPA offers that incorporation by reference means that by this final action approving the SIP revision, EPA is including in the new version of 45CSR8 (which in turn incorporated the text of 40 CFR parts 50 and 53) in the federally approved and federally enforceable West Virginia SIP.

    Comment: The second commenter asked why the State of West Virginia has to update their ambient air quality standards if the federal standards cover all states, including West Virginia. The commenter further opined that this rulemaking action is redundant and unnecessary, and thus, EPA should not approve West Virginia's submission.

    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should disapprove West Virginia's submission based on the SIP revision being “redundant and unnecessary.” Section 110 of the CAA permits states to submit regulations the states deem relevant for SIP inclusion and requires EPA to approve those submissions so long as they conform with the Act. Apart from mandatory CAA requirements, states are free to submit SIP revisions which they believe are necessary for inclusion into the state's SIP. Regarding the comment as to “why the State must update their ambient air quality standards,” EPA's reply is that West Virginia is not “required” to submit this revision, as explained above. West Virginia on its own accord sought to include 45CSR8 in its SIP. EPA's decision to approve this SIP revision submittal is based on our application of section 110 of the CAA to the submittal. As the submission met the requirements of section 110 for SIP approval, EPA must approve this voluntary submission for the West Virginia SIP.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the West Virginia SIP revision updating the date of incorporation by reference as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. The SIP revision was submitted on June 8, 2018.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference 45CSR8, as effective on June 1, 2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 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, updating the effective date of West Virginia's 45CSR8, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 24, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    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 XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries “Section 45-8-1”, “Section 45-8-2”, “Section 45-8-3”, and “Section 45-8-4” to read as follows:
    § 52.2520 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Regulations in the West Virginia SIP State citation
  • [Chapter 16-20 or 45 CSR]
  • Title/subject State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.2565
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * [45 CSR] Series 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards Section 45-8-1 General 6/1/18 10/5/18, [insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2018-0550. Filing and effective dates are revised. Section 45-8-2 Definitions 6/1/18 10/5/18, [insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2018-0550. Previous Approval 3/23/18. Section 45-8-3 Adoption of Standards 6/1/18 10/5/18, [insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2018-0550.Effective date is revised. Section 45-8-4 Inconsistency Between Rules 6/1/18 10/5/18, [insert Federal Register citation] Docket #2018-0550. Previous Approval 3/23/18. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-21664 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0238, FRL-9984-78-Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Lane County Permitting and General Rule Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, and incorporating by reference, specific changes to the Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP) as it applies in Lane County, Oregon. The local air agency in Lane County, Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, revised its rules to align with recent changes to Oregon State regulations. The revisions, submitted on August 29, 2014 and March 27, 2018, are related to the criteria pollutants for which the EPA has established national ambient air quality standards—carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The regulatory changes address Federal particulate matter requirements, update the major and minor source pre-construction permitting programs, add State-level air quality designations, update public processes, and tighten emission standards for dust and smoke.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective November 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0238. 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., Confidential Business Information (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:

    Kristin Hall, at (206) 553-6357, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Comments III. Final Action A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by Reference B. Rules Approved but Not Incorporated by Reference C. Rules Removed D. Rules Deferred IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Oregon Notice Provision VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On August 29, 2014 and March 27, 2018, Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP as it applies in Lane County, Oregon. On July 31, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted rule changes (83 FR 36824). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further explanation and the basis of our finding.

    II. Comments

    During the public comment period on our proposed action, we received two electronic comments covering broad topics including wildfires, forest management practices, climate change, and the National Environmental Policy Act. We have determined the comments lack the required specificity to the Oregon SIP revisions and/or the requirements of CAA section 110 and parts C and D. Moreover, the comments do not address a specific regulation or provision in question, or recommend a different action on the SIP submissions. Therefore, we find that the submitted comments are outside the scope of this action and not adverse. The full text of the submitted comments can be found in the docket for this action. We are finalizing our action as proposed.

    III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference into the Oregon SIP, rule revisions submitted on August 29, 2014 (State effective March 31, 2014) and March 27, 2018 (State effective March 23, 2018) for Lane County. We are also approving, but not incorporating by reference, regulations that provide LRAPA with authority needed for SIP approval.

    As discussed in the proposal and described below, we are reviewing and approving the most recent version of the submitted rules applicable in Lane County, specifically, the most recently adopted and submitted version of each rule section. Further action on the earlier adopted version of a particular submitted rule section is not required because it is no longer in effect and has been superseded by the most recent version of that rule section submitted by the State.

    As requested by LRAPA and the State, we are also removing certain rules from the SIP, because they are obsolete, redundant, or replaced by equivalent or more stringent local rules. We are deferring action on a section of rules because we intend to address them in a separate, future action.

    We note that the submissions include changes to OAR 340-200-0040, a rule that describes the Oregon procedures for adopting its SIP and references all of the State air regulations that have been adopted by LRAPA and ODEQ for approval into the SIP (as a matter of State law), whether or not they have yet been submitted to or approved by the EPA. We are not approving the changes to OAR 340-200-0040 because the federally-approved SIP consists only of regulations and other requirements that have been submitted by LRAPA and ODEQ and approved by the EPA.

    A. Rules Approved and Incorporated by Reference

    We are approving into the Oregon SIP, and incorporating by reference at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, revisions to the following LRAPA rule sections. Each rule section listed is State effective March 23, 2018, unless marked with an asterisk, denoting it is effective March 31, 2014:

    • Title 12—Definitions (001, 005, 010, 020, 025);

    • Title 29—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070*, 0080*, 0090*, 0300, 0310, 0320);

    • Title 30—Incinerator Regulations (010, 015*, 020*—except (2) and (8), 025*—except (9), 030*—except (1)(I) and (2)(E), 035*, 040*, 045*—except (3), 050*, 055*, 060*);

    • Title 31—Public Participation (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0080);

    • Title 32—Emission Standards (001, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 015, 020, 030, 045, 050, 060, 065, 070, 090*, 100, 8010);

    • Title 33—Prohibited Practices and Control of Special Classes of Industry (005, 060, 065, 070—except, in (1), the definitions of “non-condensables”, “other sources”, and “TRS”, (3)(a), (4)(b), (5)(b), (6)(a), (6)(b), 500);

    • Title 34—Stationary Source Notification Requirements (005, 010, 015, 016, 017, 020, 025, 030, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038);

    • Title 35—Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring (0010, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150*);

    • Title 37—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0040, 0052, 0054, 0056, 0060, 0062, 0064, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0082, 0084, 0090, 0094, 8010, 8020);

    • Title 38—New Source Review (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0034, 0038, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0055, 0060, 0070, 0245, 0250, 0255, 0260, 0270, 0500, 0510—except (3), 0530, 0540);

    • Title 40—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);

    • Title 41—Emission Reduction Credits (0010*, 0020, 0030);

    • Title 42—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0010, 0020, 0030, 0035, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0048, 0051, 0055, 0080, 0090);

    • Title 48—Rules for Fugitive Emissions (001, 005, 010, 015);

    • Title 50—Ambient Air Standards and PSD Increments (001, 005, 015, 025, 030, 035, 040, 045, 050, 055, 060*, 065); and

    • Title 51—Air Pollution Emergencies (005, 007, 010, 011, 015, 020, 025, Table I, Table II, Table III).

    B. Rules Approved but Not Incorporated by Reference

    We are approving, but not incorporating by reference, the following LRAPA rule sections. Each rule section is State effective March 23, 2018, unless marked with an asterisk, denoting the rule is effective March 31, 2014:

    • Title 13—General Duties and Powers of Board and Director (005*, 010*, 020*, 025*, 030*, 035*);

    • Title 14—Rules of Practice and Procedures (110, 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 147, 150, 155, 160, 165, 170, 175, 185, 190, 200, 205); and

    • Title 31—Public Participation (0070).

    C. Rules Removed

    We are removing the following rules from the current federally-approved Oregon SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, because they have been repealed, replaced by rules noted in paragraph A. above, or the State has asked that they be removed:

    • Title 12—Definitions (001(2)), State effective March 8, 1994;

    • Title 30—Incinerator Regulations (005), State effective March 8, 1994;

    • Title 33—Prohibited Practices and Control of Special Classes of Industry (030, 045), State effective November 10, 1994; and

    • Title 34—Stationary Source Notification Requirements (040), State effective June 13, 2000.

    We also are removing the following rules in the table entitled, “Rules Also Approved for Lane County”, State effective April 16, 2015, because LRAPA has submitted equivalent or more stringent local rules to apply in place of those requirements:

    Table 5—EPA-Approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Also Approved for Lane County

    • Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0020);

    • Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0050);

    • Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0300, 0310, 0320);

    • Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0110, 0210);

    • Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0114)(5);

    • Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0040, 8010);

    • Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0090);

    • Division 224 -New Source Review (0030, 0530);

    • Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);

    • Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0210); and

    • Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0210).

    D. Rules Deferred

    As stated in the proposal, we are deferring action on the following rules, State effective March 23, 2018, and intend to address them in a separate, future action:

    • Title 36—Excess Emissions (001, 005, 010, 015, 020, 025, 030).

    We note that each of the Title 36 rule sections revised and submitted on August 29, 2014 (State effective March 31, 2014) were also revised and resubmitted on March 27, 2018 (State effective March 23, 2018). As a result, the 2018 submitted version of Title 36 entirely supersedes the 2014 submitted version.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in Section III above and the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

    1See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Oregon Notice Provision

    Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit unless the source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's title V program or to any program if application of the notice provision would disqualify the program from Federal delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • 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).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, 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 18, 2018. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 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 52.1970 is amended by: a. In paragraph (c), revising Table 4 and removing Table 5; and b. In paragraph (e), revising the table entitled “Lane County Regional Air Pollution Authority Regulations, Approved But Not Incorporated By Reference”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.1970 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Table 4—EPA Approved Lane Regional Protection Agency (LRAPA) Rules for Oregon LRAPA citation Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanations
    Title 11—Policy and General Provisions 11-005 Policy 10/9/1979 9/9/1993, 58 FR 47385 11-010 Construction and Validity 10/9/1979 9/9/1993, 58 FR 47385 Title 12—Definitions 12-001 General 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 12-005 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 12-010 Abbreviations and Acronyms 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 12-020 Exceptions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 12-025 Reference Materials 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 16—Home Wood Heating Curtailment Program Enforcement 16-001 Purpose 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-010 Definitions 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-100 Civil Penalty Schedule 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-110 Classification of Violations 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-120 Notice of Violation 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-130 Appeal of Civil Penalty 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-140 Conducting Contested Case Evidentiary Hearings 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-150 Evidentiary Rules 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-160 Final Orders 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 16-170 Default Orders 7/13/1993 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 Title 29—Designation of Air Quality Areas 29-0010 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0020 Designation of Air Quality Control Regions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0030 Designation of Nonattainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0040 Designation of Maintenance Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0050 Designation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0060 Redesignation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0070 Special Control Areas 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0080 Motor Vehicle Inspection Boundary Designations 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0090 Oxygenated Gasoline Control Areas 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Designation of Areas 29-0300 Designation of Sustainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0310 Designation of Reattainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 29-0320 Priority Sources 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 30—Incinerator Regulations 30-010 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 30-015 Best Available Control Technology for Solid and Infectious Waste Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 30-020 Emission Limitations for Solid and Infectious Waste Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (2) and (8). 30-025 Design and Operation for Solid and Infectious Waste Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (9). 30-030 Continuous Emission Monitoring for Solid and Infectious Waste Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (1)(I) and (2)(E). 30-035 Reporting and Testing for Solid and Infectious Waste Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 30-040 Compliance for Solid and Infectious Waste Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 30-045 Emission Limitations of Crematory Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (3). 30-050 Design and Operation of Crematory Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 30-055 Monitoring and Reporting for Crematory Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 30-060 Compliance of Crematory Incinerators 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 31—Public Participation 31-0010 Purpose 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 31-0020 Applicability 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 31-0030 Public Notice Categories and Timing 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 31-0040 Public Notice Information 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 31-0050 Public Notice Procedures 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 31-0060 Persons Required to be Notified 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 31-0080 Issuance or Denial of Permit 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 32—Emission Standards 32-001 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-005 Highest and Best Practicable Treatment and Control Required 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-006 Pollution Prevention 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-007 Operating and Maintenance Requirements 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-008 Typically-Achievable Control Technology Requirements 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-009 Additional Control Requirements for Stationary Sources of Air Contaminants 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-010 Visible Air Contaminant Limitations 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-015 Particulate Matter Emission Limitations for Sources Other than Fuel Burning Equipment, Refuse Burning Equipment, and Fugitive Emissions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-020 Particulate Matter Weight Standards—Existing Combustion Sources 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-030 Particulate Matter Weight Standards—New Combustion Sources 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-045 Process Weight Emission Limitations and Determination of Process Weight 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-050 Concealment and Masking of Emissions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-060 Air Conveying Systems 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Gaseous Emission Limitations 32-065 Sulfur Content of Fuels 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-070 Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-090 Other Emissions 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-100 Alternative Emission Controls (Bubble) 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 32-8010 Particulate Matter Emissions Standards for Process Equipment 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 33—Prohibited Practices and Control of Special Classes of Industry 33-005 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 33-060 Board Products Industries (Hardboard, Particleboard, Plywood, Veneer) 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 33-065 Charcoal Producing Plants 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 33-070 Kraft Pulp Mills 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except in (1) the definitions of “non-condensables”, “other sources”, and “TRS”, (3)(a), (4)(b) (5)(b), (6)(a), and (6)(b). 33-500 Particulate Matter Emissions Standards for Process Equipment 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 34—Stationary Source Notification Requirements 34-005 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-010 Applicability 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-015 Request for Information 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-016 Records: Maintaining and Reporting 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-017 Enforcement; Credible Evidence 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-020 Information Exempt from Disclosure 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Registration 34-025 Registration is General 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-030 Source Registration Requirements and Re-Registration and Maintaining Registration 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Notice of Construction and Approval of Plans 34-034 Requirements for Construction 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-035 Types of Construction/Modification Changes 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-036 Notice to Construct 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-037 Construction Approval 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 34-038 Approval to Operate 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 35—Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring 35-0010 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Sampling, Testing and Measurement 35-0110 Applicability 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 35-0120 Program 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 35-0130 Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 35-0140 Methods 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 35-0150 LRAPA Testing 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 37—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits 37-0010 Purpose 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0020 Applicability and Jurisdiction 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0025 Types of Permits 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0030 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0040 Application Requirements 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0052 Construction ACDP 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0054 Short Term Activity ACDPs 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0056 Basic ACDPs 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0060 General Air Contaminant Discharge Permits 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0062 General ACDP Attachments 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0064 Simple ACDPs 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0066 Standard ACDPs 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0068 Simple and Standard ACDP Attachments 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0070 Permitting a Source with Multiple Activities or Processes at a Single Adjacent or Contiguous Site 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0082 Termination or Revocation of an ACDP 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0084 LRAPA-Initiated Modification 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0090 Sources Subject to ACDPs and Fees 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-0094 Temporary Closure 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-8010 Table 1—Activities and Sources 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 37-8020 Table 2—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 38—New Source Review 38-0010 Applicability and General Prohibitions, General Requirements and Jurisdiction 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0020 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0025 Major Modification 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0030 New Source Review Procedural Requirements 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0034 Exemptions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0038 Fugitive and Secondary Emissions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0040 Review of Sources Subject to Major NSR or Type A State NSR for Compliance With Regulations 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Major New Source Review 38-0045 Requirements for Sources in Sustainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0050 Requirements for Sources in Nonattainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0055 Requirements for Sources in Reattainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0060 Records; Maintaining and Reporting 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0070 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] State New Source Review 38-0245 Requirements for Sources in Sustainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0250 Requirements for Sources in Nonattainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0255 Requirements for Sources in Reattainment Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0260 Requirements for Sources in Maintenance Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0270 Requirement for Sources in Attainment and Unclassified Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Net Air Quality Benefit Emission Offsets 38-0500 Net Air Quality Benefit for Sources Locating Within or Impacting Designated Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0510 Common Offset Requirements 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Except (3). 38-0530 Requirements for Demonstrating Net Air Quality Benefit for Non-Ozone Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 38-0540 Sources in a Designated Area Impacting Other Designated Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 39—Contingency for PM 10 Sources in Eugene-Springfield Non-Attainment Area 39-001 Purpose 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-005 Relation to Other Rules 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-010 Applicability 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-015 Definitions 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-020 Compliance Schedule for Existing Sources 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-025 Wood-Waste Boilers 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-030 Veneer Dryers 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-035 Particle Board Plants and Wood Particle Dryers 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-040 Kraft Pulp Mills 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-050 Air Conveying Systems 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-055 Fugitive Dust 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 39-060 Open Burning 11/13/1991 8/24/1994, 59 FR 43483 Title 40—Air Quality Analysis Requirements 40-0010 Purpose 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 40-0020 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 40-0030 Procedural Requirements 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 40-0040 Air Quality Models 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 40-0045 Requirements for Analysis in Maintenance Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 40-0050 Requirements for Analysis in PSD Class II and Class III Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 40-0060 Requirements for Demonstrating Compliance with Standards and Increments in PSD Class I Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 40-0070 Requirements for Demonstrating Compliance with Air Quality Related Values Protection 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 41—Emission Reduction Credits 41-0010 Applicability 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 41-0020 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 41-0030 Emission Reduction Credits 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 42—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits 42-0010 Policy 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0020 Applicability 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0030 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Criteria for Establishing Plant Site Emission Limits 42-0035 General Requirements for Establishing All PSELs 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0040 Generic Annual PSEL 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0041 Source Specific Annual PSEL 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0042 Short Term PSEL 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0046 Netting Basis 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0048 Baseline Period and Baseline Emission Rate 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0051 Actual Emissions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0055 Unassigned Emissions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0080 Plant Site Emission Limit Compliance 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 42-0090 Combining and Splitting Sources and Changing Primary SIC Code 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 47—Open Burning 47-001 General Policy 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, 80 FR 64346 47-005 Exemptions from These Rules 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, 80 FR 64346 47-010 Definitions 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, 80 FR 64346 Except the definition of “nuisance”. 47-015 Open Burning Requirements 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, 80 FR 64346 Except 1.D, 1.H, 6.B(5). 47-020 Letter Permits 3/14/2008 10/23/2015, 80 FR 64346 Except 3, 9.I, and 10. Title 48—Rules for Fugitive Emissions 48-001 General Policy 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 48-005 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 48-010 General Applicability 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 48-015 General Requirements for Fugitive Emissions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 50—Ambient Air Standards and PSD Increments 50-001 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Ambient Air Quality Standards 50-005 Purpose and Scope of Ambient Air Quality Standards 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-015 Suspended Particulate Matter 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-025 Sulfur Dioxide 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-030 Carbon Monoxide 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-035 Ozone 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-040 Nitrogen Dioxide 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-045 Lead 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] PSD Increments 50-050 General 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-055 Ambient Air PSD Increments 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-060 Ambient Air Ceilings 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 50-065 Ambient Air Quality Impact Levels for Maintenance Areas 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 51—Air Pollution Emergencies 51-005 Introduction 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 51-007 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 51-010 Episode Stage Criteria for Air Pollution Emergencies 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 51-011 Special Conditions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 51-015 Source Emission Reduction Plans 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 51-020 Preplanned Abatement Strategies 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 51-025 Implementation 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Table I Air Pollution Episode, Alert Conditions Emission Reduction Plan 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Table II Air Pollution Episode, Warning Conditions Emission Reduction Plan 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Table III Air Pollution Episode, Emergency Conditions Emission Reduction Plan 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation]

    (e) * * *

    Lane County Regional Air Pollution Authority Regulations, Approved but Not Incorporated by Reference LRAPA citation Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    Title 13—General Duties and Powers of Board and Director 13-005 Authority of the Agency 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 13-010 Duties and Powers of the Board of Directors 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 13-020 Duties and Function of the Director 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 13-025 Conflict of Interest 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 13-030 Advisory Committee 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 13-035 Public Records and Confidential Information 3/31/2014 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 14—Rules of Practice and Procedure 14-110 Definitions 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Rulemaking 14-115 Rulemaking Notice 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-120 Rulemaking Hearings and Process 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-125 Temporary Rules 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-130 Petition to Promulgate, Amend or Repeal Rule—Content of Petition, Filing of Petition 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-135 Declaratory Rulings 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Contested Cases 14-140 Contested Case Proceedings Generally 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-145 Agency Representation by Environmental Law Specialist 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-147 Authorized Representative of Respondent other than a Natural Person in a Contested Case Hearing 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-150 Liability for the Acts of a Person's Employees 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-155 Consolidation or Bifurcation of Contested Case Hearings 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-160 Final Orders 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-165 Default Orders 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-170 Appeal to the Board 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-175 Power of the Director 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-185 Request for Stay Pending Judicial Review 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-190 Request for Stay—Motion to Intervene 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-200 Request for Stay—Agency Determination 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] 14-205 Request for Stay—Time Frames 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Title 15—Enforcement Procedures and Civil Penalties 15-001 Policy 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-003 Scope of Applicability 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-005 Definitions 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-010 Consolidation of Proceedings 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-015 Notice of Violation 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-018 Notice of Permit Violations and Exceptions 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-020 Enforcement Actions 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-025 Civil Penalty Schedule Matrices 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-030 Civil Penalty Determination Procedure (Mitigating and Aggravating Factors) 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-035 Written Notice of Civil Penalty Assessment—When Penalty Payable 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-040 Compromise or Settlement of Civil Penalty by Director 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-045 Stipulated Penalties 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-050 Additional Civil Penalties 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-055 Air Quality Classification of Violation 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-060 Selected Magnitude Categories 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 15-065 Appeals 6/13/1995 8/3/2001, 66 FR 40616 Title 31—Public Participation 31-0070 Hearing Procedures 3/23/2018 10/5/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation]
    3. Section 52.1987 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 52.1987 Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (b) The Lane Regional Air Protection Agency rules for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (provisions of LRAPA Titles 12, 29, 31, 37, 38 (except 0510(3) inter-pollutant offset ratios), 40, 42, and 50) as in effect March 23, 2018, are approved as meeting the requirements of title I, part C, subpart I of the Clean Air Act for preventing significant deterioration of air quality.

    [FR Doc. 2018-21558 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0333; FRL-9984-01] Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances with regional registrations for residues of flumioxazin in or on Grass, forage and Grass, hay. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 5, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 4, 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-2017-0333, 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:

    Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 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, 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-2017-0333 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 December 4, 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-2017-0333, 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. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 23, 2017 (82 FR 49020) (FRL-9967-37), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7E8565) by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.568(c) be amended by establishing tolerances with regional registrations for residues of the herbicide flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only flumioxazin, in or on Grass, forage at 0.4 parts per million (ppm) and Grass, hay 0.05 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Valent, U.S.A. Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. This petition request is associated with an application to allow use of flumioxazin on grass in the States of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. Although comments were submitted to the docket, none were relevant to the safety of the tolerances being established in this action.

    Consistent with the authority in FFDCA 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is issuing a tolerance that varies from what the petitioner sought. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(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. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance 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. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flumioxazin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flumioxazin follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    Toxicity associated with flumioxazin includes anemia and effects on the cardiovascular system and liver. Specifically, alterations in hemoglobin parameters were observed in rats, as well as increased renal toxicity in male rats, and increased absolute and relative liver weights and increased alkaline phosphate values were seen in dogs.

    No evidence of neurotoxicity was seen in male or female rats in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies. The oral and dermal developmental rat studies showed evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility of fetuses, as cardiovascular anomalies (ventral septal defects) were found. These developmental effects in the offspring were more severe and seen at doses lower than those that caused parental and systemic toxicity. The regulatory endpoints for flumioxazin are protective of this increased susceptibility, however, so there is low concern and no residual uncertainties for these effects.

    Flumioxazin was negative for mutagenicity in most of the available studies, however, there were aberrations in a chromosomal aberration assay. The lack of carcinogenicity in mice and rats permits flumioxazin to be classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flumioxazin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document titled, “SUBJECT: Flumioxazin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Uses on Grass (Seed Crop)” at page 24 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0333.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/assessinghuman-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flumioxazin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of September 21, 2012 (77 FR 58493) (FRL-9358-3). One additional endpoint has since been identified, i.e., the selection of an adult oral endpoint for assessing the aggregate risks from short-term and intermediate-term oral exposure: An oral NOAEL of 3 mg/kg/day based on cardiovascular effects in fetuses seen at the LOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day in the rat developmental study was used, along with a 10X interspecies uncertainty factor, a 10X intraspecies uncertainty factor, and a 1X FQPA safety factor. Long-term exposures (greater than 6 months) are not expected based on the existing flumioxazin use pattern.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to flumioxazin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing flumioxazin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.568. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flumioxazin in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for flumioxazin for females 13-49. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated (PCT) for all commodities and DEEM-FCID version 3.16.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID Version 3.16 software which incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption data from USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA incorporated tolerance-level residues and/or 100 PCT for all commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that flumioxazin does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for flumioxazin. Tolerance-level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for flumioxazin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of flumioxazin. The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) are based on hydrolysis and the residues of concern for flumioxazin and its major degradates (482-HA, and APF), expressed as flumioxazin equivalents. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) model, the EDWCs in surface water for acute exposures are 400 parts per billion (ppb) for flumioxazin and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 9.4 ppb, 21.6 ppb, and 110.1 ppb for flumioxazin, 482-HA and APF degradates, respectively, for a total concentration of 141 ppb. Based on the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model, for both acute and chronic (non-cancer) exposures, the EDWCs of 482-HA and APF are estimated to be 45.27 ppb and 2.66 ppb, respectively, for ground water. EDWCs of flumioxazin are estimated to be negligible in ground water for chronic exposures. Estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model as follows. The peak day zero of 400 ppb for flumioxazin (degradates 482-HA and APF were not detected) was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the acute dietary risk assessment, and the day 30 total of 141 ppb for flumioxazin, 482-HA and APF degradates was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessment.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Flumioxazin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf grass, residential lawns, ornamentals, and aquatic weeds. EPA assessed residential exposure under the assumption that homeowner handlers wear shorts, short-sleeved shirts, socks, and shoes, and that they complete all tasks associated with the use of a pesticide product including mixing/loading, if needed, as well as the application. Residential handler exposure scenarios for both dermal and inhalation are considered to be short-term only, due to the infrequent use patterns associated with homeowner products.

    EPA uses the term “post-application” to describe exposure to individuals that occur as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide. Flumioxazin can be used in many areas that can be frequented by the general population including residential areas, lakes, and ponds. As a result, individuals can be exposed by entering these areas if they have been previously treated. Therefore, short-term and intermediate-term dermal and oral post-application exposures and risks were assessed for adults and children. In addition, oral post-application exposures and risks were assessed specifically for children to be protective of possible hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion activities that may occur on treated turf areas. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found flumioxazin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and flumioxazin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that flumioxazin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility of fetuses in the oral and dermal developmental rat studies, where cardiovascular abnormalities occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity. The rat reproduction study also showed evidence of qualitative and quantitative post-natal susceptibility since reproductive effects in offspring were more severe and were seen at lower doses than those that caused parental/systemic toxicity. Even with this observed increased susceptibility, the Agency has concluded there is a low concern and no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity because the developmental toxicity NOAELs/LOAELs are well-characterized after oral and dermal exposure, and the offspring toxicity NOAEL and LOAEL are well characterized in the reproduction study. Furthermore, the doses and endpoints have been selected from the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies for risk assessment of the relevant exposed populations (e.g., pregnant females and children), with the exception of the chronic dietary endpoint, for which a chronic study was selected. Therefore, regulatory endpoints for flumioxazin are protective of the increased susceptibility and there are no residual concerns for these effects.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for oral and dermal exposures, but retained the 10X FQPA database uncertainty factor (UF) for inhalation exposure and risk assessment due to the lack of an inhalation study. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for flumioxazin is incomplete but sufficient for assessing the toxicity and characterizing the hazard of flumioxazin due to the absence of an acceptable inhalation study. Therefore, the Agency is retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor for assessing inhalation risk.

    ii. There is no indication that flumioxazin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is evidence that flumioxazin may result in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. The Agency concluded that while there is an increased susceptibility, there is a low concern and no residual uncertainties for pre-and/or postnatal toxicity because the developmental toxicity NOAELs/LOAELs are well characterized after oral and dermal exposure; the offspring toxicity NOAEL and LOAEL are well characterized in the reproduction study; and the doses and endpoints have been selected from the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies for the relevant populations, except for the chronic dietary endpoint, for which a chronic study was chosen. Therefore, the regulatory endpoints for flumioxazin are protective of the increased susceptibility seen in the developmental and reproduction studies, and there are no residual concerns for these effects.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute and chronic dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on tolerance-level residues, default processing factors, and assuming 100 PCT. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to flumioxazin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flumioxazin.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to flumioxazin will occupy 76% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to flumioxazin from food and water will utilize 44% of the cPAD for all infants <1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of flumioxazin is not expected.

    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risks. Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Flumioxazin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term and intermediate residential exposures, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term and intermediate-term residential exposures to flumioxazin. Since the Agency has determined that the short-term and intermediate-term points of departure are the same, the aggregate risks are the same for both short-term and intermediate-term exposures.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term and intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 110 for adult females 13-49 years and MOE of 200 for children less than 2 years. Because EPA's level of concern for flumioxazin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, flumioxazin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to flumioxazin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method, Valent Method RM30-A-1), is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The reported method limits of quantitation and detection (LOQ and LOD) for flumioxazin in/on plant commodities are 0.02 and 0.01 ppm, respectively.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected].

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for flumioxazin in/on grass, therefore there are no international harmonization issues.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is establishing a tolerance for Grass, forage at 0.40 ppm, rather than 0.4 ppm, to be consistent with its practice to provide greater precision about the levels of residues that are permitted by a tolerance. This is intended to avoid the situation where residues may be higher than the tolerance level, but as a result of rounding would be considered non-violative. For example, Grass, forage tolerance proposed at 0.4 ppm was established at 0.40 ppm, to avoid an observed hypothetical tolerance at 0.44 ppm being rounded to 0.4 ppm.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances with regional registrations are established for residues of flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, including its metabolites and degradates determined by measuring only flumioxazin, in or on raw agricultural commodities, in or on Grass, forage at 0.40 ppm and Grass, hay at 0.05 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. 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); or 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 in this final rule, 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, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 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, the Agency 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 Agency 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).

    VII. 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 21, 2018. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, 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. In § 180.568, add alphabetically the commodities “Grass, forage” and “Grass, hay” to the table in paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 180.568 Flumioxazin; tolerances for residues.

    (c) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Grass, forage 0.40 Grass, hay 0.05
    [FR Doc. 2018-21746 Filed 10-4-18; 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-8551] 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:

    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 North Carolina: Chapel Hill, Town of, Durham and Orange Counties 370180 February 9, 1973, Emerg; April 17, 1978, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. Oct. 19, 2018 Oct. 19, 2018. Chatham County, Unincorporated Areas 370299 N/A, Emerg; March 4, 1997, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do*   Do. Durham, City of, Durham County 370086 July 13, 1973, Emerg; January 17, 1979, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Durham County, Unincorporated Areas 370085 March 16, 1973, Emerg; February 15, 1979, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Orange County, Unincorporated Areas 370342 July 15, 1975, Emerg; March 16, 1981, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Region V Ohio: Butler County, Unincorporated Areas 390037 N/A, Emerg; October 5, 1989, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Fairfield, City of, Butler and Hamilton Counties 390038 October 21, 1974, Emerg; March 15, 1979, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Hamilton, City of, Butler County 390039 April 4, 1974, Emerg; July 15, 1977, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Middletown, City of, Butler and Warren Counties 390040 June 13, 1975, Emerg; March 2, 1979, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Millville, Village of, Butler County 390041 March 26, 1979, Emerg; February 4, 1981, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Monroe, City of, Butler and Warren Counties 390042 August 18, 1975, Emerg; August 5, 1991, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. New Miami, Village of, Butler County. 390043 October 24, 1975, Emerg; February 18, 1981, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Seven Mile, Village of, Butler County 390045 July 7, 1975, Emerg; August 24, 1981, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Trenton, City of, Butler County 390047 May 12, 1975, Emerg; September 3, 1979, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Region X Oregon: Beaverton, City of, Washington County 410240 October 30, 1974, Emerg; September 28, 1984, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Forest Grove, City of, Washington County 410241 June 4, 1975, Emerg; March 15, 1982, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. Oct. 19, 2018 Oct. 19, 2018. Hillsboro, City of, Washington County 410243 January 20, 1975, Emerg; May 17, 1982, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. King City, City of, Washington County 410269 November 14, 1974, Emerg; February 11, 1976, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. North Plains, City of, Washington County 410270 March 25, 1977, Emerg; April 1, 1982, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Sherwood, City of, Washington County 410273 February 4, 1981, Emerg; January 6, 1982, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Tigard, City of, Washington County 410276 February 5, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1982, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Tualatin, City of, Clackamas and Washington Counties 410277 July 3, 1974, Emerg; February 17, 1982, Reg; October 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. Washington County, Unincorporated Areas 410238 April 10, 1973, Emerg; September 30, 1982, Reg; Oct. 19, 2018, Susp. ......do   Do. do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: September 27, 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. 2018-21758 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Parts 502, 503, 515, 520, 530, 535, 540, 550, 555, and 560 [Docket No. 18-08] RIN 3072-AC72 Update of Existing User Fees AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) is updating its current user fees and amending the relevant regulations to reflect these updates.

    DATES:

    The rule is effective without further action on December 19, 2018, unless significant adverse comments are filed prior to November 5, 2018. If significant adverse comments are received, the Commission will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register no later than November 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 18-08, by the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]. For comments, include in the subject line: “Docket 18-08, Comments on User Fee Update.” Comments should be attached to the email as a Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF document. Only non-confidential and public versions of confidential comments and petitions should be submitted by email.

    Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20573-0001.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, including requesting confidential treatment of comments, and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to the Commission's website, unless the commenter has requested confidential treatment.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at:http://www.fmc.gov/18-08, or to the Docket Activity Library at 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20573, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: (202) 523-5725.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary. Phone: (202) 523-5725. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, authorizes agencies to establish charges (user fees) for services and benefits that they provide to specific recipients. Under the IOAA, charges must be fair and based on the costs to the Government, the value of the service or thing to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. The IOAA also provides that regulations implementing user fees are subject to policies prescribed by the President, which are currently set forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, User Charges (revised July 8, 1993).

    Under OMB Circular A-25, fees must be established for Government-provided services that confer benefits on identifiable recipients over and above those benefits received by the general public. OMB Circular A-25 further provides that user fees must be sufficient to recover the full cost to the government for providing the service, resource, or good. Agencies are advised to determine or estimate costs based on the best available records in the agency and to ensure that cost computations cover the direct and indirect costs to the agency of providing the service.

    OMB Circular A-25 also directs agencies to review biennially: (1) User charges for agency programs to assure that existing charges are adjusted to reflect unanticipated changes in costs or market values; and (2) all other agency programs to determine whether fees should be assessed. The Commission last reviewed and updated its user fees in 2016, when it revised its methodology for assessing fees to conform to OMB Circular A-25. 81 FR 59141 (Aug. 29, 2016).

    II. Fee Adjustments

    The Commission has reviewed its data on the time and cost involved in providing particular services to arrive at the updated direct and indirect labor costs for those services. As part of its assessment, the Commission utilized salaries of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) assigned to fee-generating activities to identify the various direct and indirect costs associated with providing services. Direct labor costs include clerical and professional time expended on an activity. Indirect labor costs include labor provided by bureaus and offices that provide direct support to the fee-generating offices in their efforts to provide services, and include managerial and supervisory costs associated with providing a particular service. Other indirect costs include Government overhead costs, such as fringe benefits and other wage-related Government contributions contained in OMB Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities (revised May 29, 2003) and office general and administrative expenses.1 The sum of these indirect cost components gives an indirect cost factor that is added to the direct labor costs of an activity to arrive at the fully distributed cost. A more detailed description of the Commission's methodology has been included in the docket.

    1 OMB Circular A-76 lists the following indirect labor costs: Leave and holidays, retirement, worker's compensation, awards, health and life insurance, and Medicare. General and administrative costs are expressed as a percentage of basic pay. These include all salaries and overhead such as rent, utilities, supplies, and equipment allocated to Commission offices that provide direct support to fee-generating offices such as the Office of the Managing Director, Office of Information Technology, Office of Human Resources, Office of Budget and Finance, and the Office of Management Services.

    The Commission is increasing some fees to reflect increases in salary and indirect (overhead) costs. For some services, an increase in processing or review time may account for all or part of the increase in the amount of the fees. For other services, fees are lower than current fees due to an overall reduced cost to provide those services. One fee is being removed, and no new fees are being added.

    The Commission is including in the docket two supporting documents providing detailed information on the updated user fee calculations. The first document shows the current direct and indirect costs for each service for which a fee is assessed. The second document compares the current fee amounts established in 2016 with the updated fee amounts reflecting the current costs, showing the percentage increase or decrease and change in dollar amount. We briefly describe below those changes that result in more than a 10 percent increase or decrease to a particular fee.

    A. Informal Small Claims (Part 502)

    The filing fee for informal small claims filed under subpart S of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (46 CFR part 502) is increasing from $85.00 to $106.00 due to a shift in some of the reviewing and processing time from Office of the Secretary staff to the Secretary.

    B. Record Search and Document Duplication Fees (Part 503)

    The hourly rate for document searches in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are increasing as follows: From $27 to $52 per hour for clerical/administrative personnel and from $57 to $81 per hours for professional executive personnel. The minimum charge for a records search is increasing from $27 to $31. The fee for the review of records to determine whether they are exempt from disclosure is increasing from $57 per hour to $105 per hour. These updated rates reflect the higher fiscal year 2017 salaries of the employees performing these tasks.

    The fees for duplicating records and documents are also increasing. Similar to the search charges, the hourly rate for duplicating documents is increasing from $27 to $57, and the minimum duplication charge is also increasing from $5 to $6, to reflect the higher salaries of staff performing these services.

    C. Certification and Validation of Documents (Part 503)

    The fees for certifying and validating documents filed with or issued by the Commission is increasing from $84 to $124. This updated fee reflects the higher fiscal year 2017 salaries of the staff who perform these tasks.

    D. Non-Attorney Admission To Practice (Part 503)

    The application fee for non-attorneys seeking admission to practice before the Commission is increasing from $153 to $208. This updated fee reflects the higher fiscal year 2017 salaries of the employees who review and process these applications.

    E. Docket Mailing List (Part 503)

    The Commission is removing the $9 fee associated with being placed on a mailing list to receive all issuances pertaining to a specific docket. Docket issuances are posted in the electronic reading room on the Commission's website,2 and mailing lists for specific dockets are therefore no longer necessary.

    2https://www.fmc.gov/electronic_reading_room/activity_logs.aspx.

    F. OTI Licensing Fees (Part 515)

    The paper application fee for a new ocean transportation intermediary (OTI) license is increasing from $1,055 to $1,962, and the paper application fee for a change to an OTI license or license transfer is increasing from $735 to $1,548. These changes reflect increased review and processing times for these applications. Fees for electronically filed applications remain the same: $250 for new OTI licenses and $125 for changes to an OTI license or license transfer. While the automated filing system allows users to file their applications electronically, the automated system for processing the applications is still under development. As noted in the 2016 final rule, the fees for the electronic filing of OTI applications will be addressed by the Commission when the entire FMC-18 automated system is complete and operational, and the costs of the system and its impact on the review of OTI applications can be quantified.

    G. Passenger Vessel Operator Performance and Casualty Certificates (Part 540)

    The application fees for Certificates of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation are increasing as follows: From $2,284 to $3,272 for general applications; and from $1,224 to $1,652 for applications to add or substitute a vessel to the applicant's fleet. For Certificates of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages, the application fees are increasing as follows: From $1,085 to $1,441 for general applications; and from $593 to $718 for applications to add or substitute a vessel to the applicant's fleet. These increases are primarily due to a change in grade level of the staff reviewing and processing these applications.

    This rule also corrects errors made to § 540.3(e) by the 2016 user fee rulemaking. The 2016 final rule's amendatory instructions inadvertently duplicated the first sentence of § 540.3 and deleted the last sentence. This rule restores the text (aside from the updated fee amounts) to the pre-2016 version.

    III. Public Participation How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.

    You may submit your comments via email to the email address listed above under ADDRESSES. Please include the docket number associated with this notice and the subject matter in the subject line of the email. Comments should be attached to the email as a Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF document. Only non-confidential and public versions of confidential comments should be submitted by email.

    You may also submit comments by mail to the address listed above under ADDRESSES.

    How do I submit confidential business information?

    The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified confidential information to the extent allowed by law. If your comments contain confidential information, you must submit the following by mail to the address listed above under ADDRESSES:

    • A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment that identifies the specific information in the comments for which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.

    • A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page marked “Confidential—Restricted,” and the confidential material clearly marked on each page. You should submit the confidential copy to the Commission by mail.

    • A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public version must state “Public Version—confidential materials excluded” on the cover page and on each affected page, and must clearly indicate any information withheld. You may submit the public version to the Commission by email or mail.

    Will the Commission consider late comments?

    The Commission will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. Because this is a direct final rule that will go into effect as specified in the DATES section in the absence of significant adverse comment received during the comment period, the Commission will not consider any comments filed after the comment closing date.

    How can I read comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the Commission at the Commission's Electronic Reading Room or the Docket Activity Library at the addresses listed above under ADDRESSES.

    IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Direct Final Rule Justification

    The Commission expects the user fee updates to be noncontroversial. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), a final rule may be issued without notice and comment when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This rule merely updates the user fee amounts for various services provided by the Commission based on a review of the costs to provide these services. This rule makes no substantive changes to the Commission's regulations nor does it affect any filing or other requirement. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that providing an opportunity for comment prior to publication of this direct final rule is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

    This rule will therefore become effective on the date listed in the DATES section, unless the Commission receives significant adverse comments within the specified period. The Commission recognizes that parties may have information that could impact the Commission's views and intentions with respect to the revised regulations, and the Commission intends to consider any comments filed. The Commission will withdraw the rule by the date specified in the DATES section if it receives significant adverse comments.

    We note that the scope of the rulemaking is limited to the amounts charged for Commission services, and any changes to the underlying regulations governing those services or related requirements would be outside this scope. Accordingly, comments on the underlying regulations and related requirements will not be considered adverse. Filed comments that are not adverse may be considered for modifications to the Commission's regulations at a future date. If no significant adverse comments are received, the rule will become effective without additional action by the Commission.

    Congressional Review Act

    The rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. The rule will not result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency promulgates a final rule after being required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of the rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 604. An agency is not required to publish a FRFA, however, for the following types of rules, which are excluded from the APA's notice-and-comment requirement: Interpretative rules; general statements of policy; rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; and rules for which the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

    As discussed above, the Commission has for good cause determined that notice and comment in this case is unnecessary. Therefore, the APA does not require publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in this instance, and the Commission is not required to prepare a FRFA.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Commission's regulations categorically exclude certain rulemakings from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they do not increase or decrease air, water or noise pollution or the use of fossil fuels, recyclables, or energy. 46 CFR 504.4. This rule updates user fees for services that fall within various categorical exclusions, and no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. In particular, rulemakings related to the following fall under categorical exclusions: Processing OTI licenses (§ 504.4(a)(1)); certification of financial responsibility of passenger vessels under part 540 (§ 504.4(a)(2)); promulgation of procedural rules under part 502 (§ 504.4(a)(4); receipt of service contracts (§ 504.4(a)(5)); consideration of special permission applications under part 520 (§ 504.4(a)(6)); consideration of agreements (§ 504.4(a)(9)-(13), (30)-(35); action taken on special docket applications under § 502.271 (§ 504.4(a)(19)); and action regarding access to public information under part 503 (§ 504.4(a)(24)).

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets the applicable standards in E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of a rule. 5 CFR 1320.11. This rule does not contain any collections of information as defined by 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

    Regulation Identifier Number

    The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.

    List of Subjects 46 CFR Part 502

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Investigations, Lawyers, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 503

    Classified information, Freedom of Information, Privacy, Sunshine Act.

    46 CFR Part 515

    Exports, Financial responsibility requirements, Freight forwarders, Licensing requirements, Non-vessel-operating common carriers, Ocean transportation intermediaries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 520

    Common carrier, Freight, Intermodal transportation, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 530

    Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 535

    Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 540

    Insurance, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

    46 CFR Part 550

    Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.

    46 CFR Part 555

    Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Maritime carriers.

    46 CFR Part 560

    Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.

    For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR parts 502, 503, 515, 520, 530, 535, 540, 550, 555, and 560 as follows:

    PART 502—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 504, 551, 552, 553, 556(c), 559, 561-569, 571-584; 591-596; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 2112(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40103-40104, 40304, 40306, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109, 41301-41309, 44101-44106; 5 CFR part 2635.

    2. Amend § 502.62 by revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
    § 502.62 Private party complaints for formal adjudication.

    (a) * * *

    (6) Filing fee. The complaint must be accompanied by remittance of a $272 filing fee.

    3. Amend § 502.93 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 502.93 Declaratory orders and fee.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Petitions must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee.

    4. Amend § 502.94 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 502.94 Petitions-general and fee.

    (b) Petitions must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee. [Rule 94.]

    5. Amend § 502.271 by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:
    § 502.271 Special docket application for permission to refund or waive freight charges.

    (d) * * *

    (5) Applications must be accompanied by remittance of a $113 filing fee.

    6. Amend § 502.304 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 502.304 Procedure and filing fee.

    (b) * * * Such claims must be accompanied by remittance of a $106 filing fee.

    PART 503—PUBLIC INFORMATION 7. The authority citation for part 503 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 331, 552, 552a, 552b, 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 13526 of January 5, 2010 75 FR 707, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 298, sections 5.1(a) and (b).

    8. Amend § 503.50 by: a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii), the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2), and paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iii), (c)(4), and (d); and b. Removing paragraph (e).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 503.50 Fees for services.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Search will be performed by clerical/administrative personnel at a rate of $52 per hour and by professional/executive personnel at a rate of $81 per hour.

    (ii) Unless an exception provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section applies, the minimum charge for record search is $31.

    (2) Charges for review of records to determine whether they are exempt from disclosure under § 503.33 must be assessed to recover full costs at the rate of $105 per hour. * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) By Commission personnel, at the rate of ten cents per page (one side) plus $52 per hour.

    (iii) Unless an exception provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section applies, the minimum charge for copying is $6.

    (4) The certification and validation (with Federal Maritime Commission seal) of documents filed with or issued by the Commission will be available at $124 for each certification.

    (d) Applications for admission to practice before the Commission for persons not attorneys at law must be accompanied by a fee of $208 pursuant to § 502.27 of this chapter.

    9. Amend § 503.69 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 503.69 Fees.

    (b) * * *

    (2) The certification and validation (with Federal Maritime Commission seal) of documents filed with or issued by the Commission will be available at $124 for each certification.

    PART 515—LICENSING, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND GENERAL DUTIES FOR OCEAN TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES 10. The authority citation for part 515 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40102, 40104, 40501-40503, 40901-40904, 41101-41109, 41301-41302, 41305-41307; Pub. L. 105-383,112 Stat. 3411; 21 U.S.C. 862.

    11. Amend § 515.5 by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
    § 515.5 Forms and fees.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Application for new OTI license as required by § 515.12(a): Automated filing $250; paper filing pursuant to waiver $1,962.

    (ii) Application for change to OTI license or license transfer as required by § 515.20(a) and (b): Automated filing $125; paper filing pursuant to waiver $1,548.

    PART 520—CARRIER AUTOMATED TARIFFS 12. The authority citation for part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40101-40102, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109.

    13. Amend § 520.14 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 520.14 Special permission.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * * Every such application must be submitted to the Bureau of Trade Analysis and be accompanied by a filing fee of $313.

    PART 530—SERVICE CONTRACTS 14. The authority citation for part 530 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40301-40306, 40501-40503, 41307.

    15. Amend § 530.10 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 530.10 Amendment, correction, cancellation, and electronic transmission errors.

    (c) Corrections. Requests shall be filed, in duplicate, with the Commission's Office of the Secretary within one-hundred eighty (180) days of the contract's filing with the Commission, accompanied by remittance of a $99 service fee, and must include:

    PART 535—OCEAN COMMON CARRIER AND MARINE TERMINAL OPERATOR AGREEMENTS SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1984 16. The authority citation for part 535 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40101-40104, 40301-40307, 40501-40503, 40901-40904, 41101-41109, 41301-41302, and 41305-41307.

    17. Amend § 535.401 by revising paragraph (g) and the first sentence of paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 535.401 General requirements.

    (g) The filing fee is $3,529 for new agreements and any agreement modifications requiring Commission review and action; $537 for agreements processed under delegated authority (for types of agreements that can be processed under delegated authority, see § 501.27(e) of this chapter); $303 for carrier exempt agreements; and $89 for terminal exempt agreements.

    (h) The fee for a request for expedited review of an agreement pursuant to § 535.605 is $151. * * *

    PART 540—PASSENGER VESSEL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 18. The authority citation for part 540 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552, 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 44101-44106.

    19. Amend § 540.4 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 540.4 Procedure for establishing financial responsibility.

    (e) An application for a Certificate (Performance), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $3,272. An application for a Certificate (Performance) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,652. Administrative changes, such as the renaming of a vessel will not incur any additional fees.

    20. Amend § 540.23 by revising the last two sentences of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 540.23 Procedure for establishing financial responsibility.

    (b) * * * An application for a Certificate (Casualty), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,441. An application for a Certificate (Casualty) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet must be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $718.

    PART 550—REGULATIONS TO ADJUST OR MEET CONDITIONS UNFAVORABLE TO SHIPPING IN THE FOREIGN TRADE OF THE UNITED STATES 21. The authority citation for part 550 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 301-307; sec. 19(a)(2), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 46 U.S.C. 42101 and 42104-42109; and sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, 46 U.S.C. 42301-42307.

    22. Revise the last sentence of § 550.402 to read as follows:
    § 550.402 Filing of petitions.

    * * * The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee.

    PART 555—ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ADVERSE CONDITIONS AFFECTING U.S.-FLAG CARRIERS THAT DO NOT EXIST FOR FOREIGN CARRIERS IN THE UNITED STATES 23. The authority citation for part 555 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301-42307).

    24. Amend § 555.4 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 555.4 Petitions.

    (a) * * * The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee.

    PART 560—ACTIONS TO ADDRESS CONDITIONS UNDULY IMPAIRING ACCESS OF U.S.-FLAG VESSELS TO OCEAN TRADE BETWEEN FOREIGN PORTS 25. The authority citation for part 560 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553; secs. 13(b)(6), 15 and 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 305, 40104, and 41108(d); sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. 42301-42307).

    26. Amend § 560.3 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 560.3 Petitions for relief.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * * The petition must be accompanied by remittance of a $291 filing fee.

    By the Commission.

    Rachel Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21671 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 160426363-7275-02] RIN 0648-XG523 Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2018-2019 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for King Mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico Western Zone AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for commercial king mackerel in the western zone of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for king mackerel in the western zone of the Gulf EEZ will be reached on October 5, 2018. Therefore, NMFS closes the western zone of the Gulf EEZ to commercial king mackerel fishing on October 5, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.

    DATES:

    The closure is effective at noon, local time, on October 5, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 1, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for Gulf king mackerel below apply as either round or gutted weight.

    On April 11, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 26 to the FMP in the Federal Register (82 FR 17387). That final rule adjusted the management boundaries, zones, and annual catch limits for Gulf migratory group king mackerel (Gulf king mackerel). The commercial quota for the Gulf king mackerel in the western zone is 1,116,000 lb (506,209 kg) for the current fishing year, July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019 (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)).

    The western zone of Gulf king mackerel is located in the EEZ between a line extending east from the border of the United States and Mexico, and 87°31.1′ W. long., which is a line extending south from the state boundary of Alabama and Florida. The western zone includes the EEZ off Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

    Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(i) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Gulf king mackerel in the western zone when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the commercial quota of 1,116,000 lb (506,209 kg) for Gulf king mackerel in the western zone will be reached on October 5, 2018. Accordingly, the western zone is closed to commercial fishing for Gulf king mackerel effective at noon, local time, on October 5, 2018, through June 30, 2019, the end of the current fishing year.

    During the closure, a person on board a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in the western zone under the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), as long as the recreational sector for Gulf king mackerel is open (50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)).

    Also during the closure, king mackerel from the closed zone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to king mackerel from the closed zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor (50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)).

    Classification

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

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.384(e) and 622.388(a)(1)(i), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirements 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 procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial quota and the associated AM has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Additionally, allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel stock. The capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21659 Filed 10-1-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 194 Friday, October 5, 2018 Proposed Rules SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 240 [Release No. 34-84289; File No. S7-22-18] RIN 3235-AM05 Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is proposing amendments to rules for nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (“NRSROs”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The amendments would provide an exemption from a rule for NRSROs with respect to credit ratings if the issuer of the security or money market instrument referred to in the rule is not a U.S. person, and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of such security or money market instrument by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to such security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States. In addition, the amendments would make conforming changes to similar exemptions in two other Exchange Act rules. The Commission is requesting comment on the proposed rule amendments.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before November 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number S7-22-18 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number S7-22-18. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments also are available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.

    Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the SEC's website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Harriet Orol, Kevin Vasel, or Patrick Boyle, at (212) 336-9080, Office of Credit Ratings, Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Regional Office, 200 Vesey Street, Suite 400, New York, NY 10281.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission is proposing amendments to:

    1 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.

    Commission reference CFR citation
  • (17 CFR)
  • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) 1 Rule 17g-5(a)(3) § 240.17g-5(a)(3) Rule 17g-7(a) § 240.17g-7(a) Rule 15Ga-2 § 240.15Ga-2
    Table of Contents I. Background 6 A. Rule 17g-5(a)(3) 6 B. Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 8 II. Proposed Rule Amendments 11 A. Rule 17g-5(a)(3) 11 B. Conforming Amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 18 III. Request for Comment 21 IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 23 A. Summary of Collection of Information under the Proposed Rule Amendments and Proposed Use of Information 24 1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) 24 2. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) 24 B. Respondents 25 C. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to the Proposed Amendments 25 1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) 25 2. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) 27 D. Collection of Information is Required to Obtain a Benefit 28 E. Confidentiality 28 F. Request for Comment 28 V. Economic Analysis 29 A. Introduction 29 B. Baseline and Affected Parties 31 C. Anticipated Costs and Benefits, Including Potential Effects on Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation 34 1. Potential Benefits 34 2. Potential Costs and Other Anticipated Effects 36 3. Alternative Considered: Allow Exemptive Order to Expire 38 a. Benefits 39 b. Costs 42 VI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 46 VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 47 VIII. Statutory Authority 50 I. Background A. Rule 17g-5(a)(3)

    In 2009, the Commission adopted amendments to 17 CFR 240.17g-5 (“Rule 17g-5”) designed to address conflicts of interest arising from the business of determining credit ratings, and to improve competition and the quality of credit ratings for structured finance products, by making it possible for more NRSROs to rate such securities.2 The amendments established a program (“Rule 17g-5 Program”) by which an NRSRO that is not hired by an issuer, sponsor, or underwriter (collectively, “arranger”) is able to obtain the same information that the arranger provides to an NRSRO hired to determine a credit rating for the structured finance product at the same time the information is provided to the hired NRSRO.3

    2Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 61050 (Nov. 23, 2009), 74 FR 63832 (Dec. 4, 2009) (“Rule 17g-5 Adopting Release”). The term “structured finance product” as used throughout this release refers broadly to any security or money market instrument issued by an asset pool or as part of any asset-backed securities transaction. This broad category of financial instruments includes an asset-backed security as defined in Section 3(a)(79) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(79)) and other types of structured debt instruments, including synthetic and hybrid collateralized debt obligations. See, e.g., Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 72936 (Aug. 27, 2014), 79 FR 55078, 55081 n.18 (Sept. 15, 2014) (“2014 NRSRO Amendments”).

    3 Rule 17g-5 Adopting Release, supra note 2, 74 FR at 63832. See also 17 CFR 240.17g-5. Throughout this release, an NRSRO that is not hired by an arranger is referred to as a “non-hired NRSRO.” An NRSRO that is hired by an arranger is referred to as a “hired NRSRO.”

    The Rule 17g-5 Program operates by requiring a hired NRSRO to maintain a password-protected website containing a list of each structured finance product for which it is currently in the process of determining an initial credit rating.4 The list must be in chronological order and identify the type of structured finance product, the name of the issuer, the date the credit rating process was initiated, and the website where the arranger of the structured finance product represents that the information provided to the hired NRSRO can be accessed by non-hired NRSROs.5 The hired NRSRO must provide free and unlimited access to the website it maintains pursuant to the Rule 17g-5 Program to any non-hired NRSRO that provides a copy of a certification it has furnished to the Commission in accordance with 17 CFR 240.17g-5(e).6

    4See 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3)(i).

    5Id.

    6See 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3)(ii); 17 CFR 240.17g-5(e).

    The Rule 17g-5 Program also requires the hired NRSRO to obtain a written representation from the arranger of the structured finance product that can be reasonably relied on by the hired NRSRO.7 Such representation must include: That the arranger will maintain a password-protected website that other NRSROs can access; that the arranger will post on this website all information the arranger provides to the hired NRSRO (or contracts with a third party to provide to the hired NRSRO) for the purpose of determining the initial credit rating and undertaking credit rating surveillance; and that the arranger will post this information to the website at the same time such information is provided to the hired NRSRO.8

    7See 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3)(iii).

    8Id.

    Prior to the June 2, 2010 compliance date for the Rule 17g-5 Program, the Commission by order granted a temporary conditional exemption to NRSROs from Rule 17g-5(a)(3). This temporary conditional exemption (the “existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption”) applies solely with respect to credit ratings if: (1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined under 17 CFR 230.902(k)); and (2) the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product will be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger linked to the structured finance product will effect transactions of the structured finance product after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside the United States.9 These conditions were designed to confine the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption's application to credit ratings of structured finance products issued in, and linked to, financial markets outside of the United States. The Commission granted this relief in light of concerns raised by various foreign securities regulators and market participants that local securitization markets may be disrupted if the rule applied to transactions outside the United States.10 The Commission has extended the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption several times, most recently until the earlier of December 2, 2019, or the compliance date set forth in any final rule that may be adopted by the Commission that provides for a similar exemption.11

    9See Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemption for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations from Requirements of Rule 17g-5 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for Comment, Exchange Act Release No. 62120 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR 28825 (May 24, 2010) (“Exemptive Order”).

    10Id. at 28826-27. Such foreign securities regulators and market participants indicated that arrangers of structured finance products located outside the United States generally were not aware that they would be required to make the representations prescribed in Rule 17g-5 in order to obtain credit ratings from NRSROs and were not prepared to make and adhere to the new requirements set forth in Rule 17g-5(a)(3). These commenters also identified potential conflicts with local law in non-U.S. jurisdictions as a concern. Id.

    11See Order Extending Conditional Temporary Exemption for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations from Requirements of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 82144 (Nov. 22, 2017), 82 FR 56309 (No. 28, 2017).

    B. Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2

    In 2014, the Commission adopted Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2. Rule 17g-7(a) requires an NRSRO, when taking a rating action, to publish an information disclosure form containing specified information about the related credit rating.12 For example, the information disclosure form must specify, among other things, the version of the methodology used to determine the credit rating, a description of the types of data relied upon to determine the credit rating, and information on the sensitivity of the credit rating to assumptions made by the NRSRO.13 The NRSRO must also attach to the information disclosure form an attestation affirming that no part of the credit rating was influenced by any other business activities, that the credit rating was based solely upon the merits of the obligor, security, or money market instrument being rated, and that the rating was an independent evaluation of the credit risk of the obligor, security, or money market instrument.14

    12 17 CFR 240.17g-7(a)(1). Rule 17g-7(a) sets forth the required format and content of the information disclosure form and specifies that the form (and other items required by Rule 17g-7(a)) must be published in the same manner as the credit rating that is the result or subject of the rating action.

    13See 17 CFR 240.17g-7(a)(1)(ii)(B), (H), and (M). For a comprehensive discussion of the required content of the form, see 2014 NRSRO Amendments, supra note 2, 79 FR at 55167-77.

    14 17 CFR 240.17g-7(a)(1)(iii).

    Rule 17g-7(a) also requires an NRSRO, when taking a rating action, to publish any executed Form ABS Due Diligence-15E containing information about the security or money market instrument subject to the rating action received by the NRSRO or obtained by the NRSRO through the website maintained by an arranger under the Rule 17g-5 Program.15 Form ABS Due Diligence-15E is the form on which a person employed by an NRSRO, issuer, or underwriter to provide third-party due diligence services in connection with an asset-backed security must, among other things, describe the scope and manner of the due diligence provided, summarize the findings and conclusions of its review, and certify that it conducted a thorough review in performing the due diligence.16

    15 17 CFR 240.17g-7(a)(2).

    16 Rule 17g-10 identifies Form ABS Due Diligence-15E as the form on which the certification required pursuant to Exchange Act Section 15E(s)(4)(B) must be set forth. See 17 CFR 240.17g-10; see also 15 U.S.C. 78o-7(s)(4)(B).

    Rule 15Ga-2 also relates to third-party due diligence services and requires the issuer or underwriter of an asset-backed security that is to be rated by an NRSRO to furnish to the Commission Form ABS-15G containing the findings and conclusions of any third-party due diligence report obtained by the issuer or underwriter.17

    17See 17 CFR 240.15Ga-2; 17 CFR 249.1400. Forms ABS-15G are made publicly available through the Commission's EDGAR system. See 17 CFR 232.101(a)(xvi).

    In response to concerns raised by commenters when the rules were proposed,18 the Commission included paragraph (a)(3) in 17 CFR 240.17g-7 (“Rule 17g-7”) and paragraph (e) in Rule 15Ga-2 to provide an exemption from the disclosure requirements for certain offshore transactions.19 The Commission closely modeled the language of the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption on the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption.20 The Commission noted that it was appropriate for the Rule 15Ga-2 exemption to be aligned with the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption so that there is a consistent approach to determining when the Commission's NRSRO rules apply to offshore transactions.21

    18 With respect to Rule 17g-7(a), a commenter suggested that local laws could impede the ability of an NRSRO to obtain or disclose information about the issuer as required by the proposed rule. See 2014 NRSRO Amendments, supra note 2, 79 FR at 55165. Similarly, with respect to Rule 15Ga-2, a commenter indicated that application of the rule to offshore transactions may conflict with foreign securities laws and other laws, rules, and regulations. See 2014 NRSRO Amendments, supra note 2, 79 FR at 55184, n.1420. As discussed in Section II.A. of this release, similar concerns regarding potentially overlapping or conflicting foreign regulations have been raised by commenters with respect to Rule 17g-5(a)(3).

    19See 2014 NRSRO Amendments, supra note 2, 79 FR at 55165, 55184-85. See also 17 CFR 240.17g-7(a)(3) (providing for an exemption if: (1) The rated obligor or issuer of the rated security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person; and (2) the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that a security or money market instrument issued by the rated obligor or the issuer will be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any underwriter or arranger linked to the security or money market instrument will effect transactions in the security or money market instrument, only in transactions that occur outside the United States); 17 CFR 240.15Ga-2(e) (providing for an exemption with respect to offerings of asset-backed securities if: (1) The offering is not required to be, and is not, registered under the Securities Act; (2) the issuer of the rated security is not a U.S. person; and (3) the security will be offered and sold upon issuance, and any underwriter or arranger linked to the security will effect transactions of the security after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside the United States).

    202014 NRSRO Amendments, supra note 2, 79 FR at 55165.

    21Id. at 55185 n.1422.

    II. Proposed Rule Amendments A. Rule 17g-5(a)(3)

    In the Exemptive Order, the Commission requested comment regarding the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to transactions outside the United States, including whether any specific conflicts would arise with respect to foreign regulators, regulations, and laws.22 In subsequent extension orders, the Commission continued to provide interested parties with the opportunity to comment. The Commission received a number of comment letters in response to these requests for comment.23

    22See Exemptive Order, supra note 9, 75 FR at 28825, 28828.

    23 Comment letters received in response to the request for comment regarding the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to transactions outside the United States are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-04-09/s70409.shtml.

    Commenters on the Exemptive Order and extensions generally have supported the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, with many commenters expressly requesting that such exemption be extended indefinitely, made permanent, or codified in Rule 17g-5(a)(3).24 In support of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, some commenters indicated that broad application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to credit ratings of structured finance products offered and sold by non-U.S. persons outside the United States could disrupt local securitization markets or inhibit the ability of local firms to raise capital.25

    24See, e.g., letter from Rick Watson, Managing Director, Association for Financial Markets in Europe/European Securitisation Forum, dated November 11, 2010 (“AFME 2010 Letter”); letter from Jack Rando, Director, Capital Markets, Investment Industry Association of Canada, dated September 22, 2010 (“IIAC Letter”); letter from Masamichi Kono, Vice Commissioner for International Affairs, Financial Services Agency, Government of Japan, dated November 12, 2010 (“Japan FSA Letter”); letter from Takefumi Emori, Managing Director, Japan Credit Rating Agency, Ltd., dated June 25, 2010 (“JCR Letter”); letter from Patrick D. Dolan, Chair, Structured Finance Committee, New York City Bar Association, dated October 20, 2016 (“NYC Bar Association Letter”); letter from Richard Johns, Executive Director, Structured Finance Industry Group, and Chris Dalton, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Securitisation Forum, dated July 19, 2017 (“SFIG/AuSF Letter”); letter from Masaru Ono, Executive Director, Securitization Forum of Japan, dated November 12, 2010 (“SFJ Letter”).

    25See, e.g., AFME 2010 Letter; letter from Chris Dalton, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Securitisation Forum, dated June 25, 2010 (“AuSF Letter”); Japan FSA Letter; JCR Letter; SFJ Letter. Other commenters indicated more generally that such application of the rule could have a negative impact on foreign markets. See, e.g., IIAC Letter; NYC Bar Association Letter; SFIG/AuSF Letter.

    Specifically, some commenters discussed potentially overlapping regulatory regimes as a reason the exemption was appropriate.26 For example, one commenter indicated that new securitization disclosure requirements in Europe take a different approach in regulating the same general activity as Rule 17g-5(a)(3).27 In an earlier comment letter, this commenter asserted that subjecting European market participants to overlapping regulatory regimes may impose significant compliance issues and an increased execution burden.28 In this commenter's view, the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) in a non-U.S. offered context may be disruptive to local markets because the rule does not reflect certain features specific to the securitization market in Europe.29

    26See, e.g., AFME 2010 Letter; Japan FSA Letter;SFJ Letter.

    27See letter from Richard Hopkin, Managing Director & Head of Fixed Income, Association for Financial Markets in Europe, dated November 1, 2017 (“AFME 2017 Letter”).

    28See AFME 2010 Letter.

    29See AFME 2010 Letter; AFME 2017 Letter.

    Commenters also supported the exemption based on the disclosure of confidential information that could result from the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to non-U.S. offered transactions.30 One commenter indicated that compliance with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) could potentially conflict with local bank confidentiality and/or data protection laws.31 Other commenters also identified concerns regarding the posting of confidential information through the Rule 17g-5 Program, stating that a reluctance to disclose confidential information to non-hired NRSROs could cause market participants to provide less information to hired NRSROs 32 or to forgo obtaining credit ratings on structured finance products.33

    30See, e.g., AFME 2010 Letter; JCR Letter; SFJ Letter.

    31See AFME 2010 Letter.

    32See SFJ Letter. This commenter asserted that it would be difficult for Japanese market participants to obtain an adequate level of comfort regarding how non-hired NRSROs that are neither established in Japan nor have an affiliate registered in Japan would protect confidential information posted pursuant to the Rule 17g-5 Program.

    33See JCR Letter. This commenter noted a concern that an arranger may “be held liable to a third party for disclosing such party's sensitive, proprietary information” through the Rule 17g-5 Program.

    One commenter also discussed business practices and characteristics of the securitization market in its jurisdiction that, according to the commenter, may make the Rule 17g-5 Program less likely to be effective.34 Among other things, the commenter indicated that it is not customary for credit rating agencies in Japan to issue unsolicited ratings on structured finance products. 35 The commenter posited that, unless an NRSRO is established in Japan or has a Japanese affiliate, it may not have the requisite knowledge and expertise to rate Japanese structured finance products.36 This commenter also suggested that, given the smaller and less mature securitization market in Japan as compared to the United States, market participants in Japan may utilize other sources of financing rather than bear the costs associated with the Rule 17g-5 Program.37

    34See SFJ Letter.

    35Id.

    36Id.

    37Id.

    A number of commenters also advocated for the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption based on principles related to international comity, asserting that the Commission has a limited interest in regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside the United States and that these transactions are more appropriately regulated by the relevant local authorities.38 A number of these commenters pointed to 17 CFR 230.901 through 230.905 (“Regulation S”), which excludes offers and sales that occur outside the United States from the registration requirements under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”),39 as evidence, in the commenters' view, of the Commission's limited interest in regulating securities offered and sold solely outside the United States.40

    38See, e.g., AFME 2010 Letter; AuSF Letter; IIAC Letter; Japan FSA Letter; JCR Letter; NYC Bar Association Letter; SFJ Letter. Some of these commenters posited that these policy considerations are particularly acute given that Rule 17g-5(a)(3) impacts both the regulated entities (i.e., NRSROs) and their customers (i.e., the issuers of rated structured finance products). See, e.g., NYC Bar Association Letter.

    39See 17 CFR 230.901 through 230.905.

    40See, e.g., AFME 2010 Letter; AuSF Letter; NYC Bar Association Letter.

    The Commission has considered the views and policy considerations expressed by commenters and preliminarily believes it is appropriate to provide relief regarding the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to transactions outside the United States. The Commission is of the view that such an approach is consistent with the approach it has taken in other contexts, and with notions of international comity and the generally limited interest of the Commission in regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside of the United States. For example, in adopting Regulation S,41 the Commission stated that “[p]rinciples of comity and the reasonable expectations of participants in the global markets justify reliance on laws applicable in jurisdictions outside the United States to define requirements for transactions effected offshore.” 42 The Commission believes that the approach it articulated in adopting Regulation S applies similarly to the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3)—i.e., that providing relief regarding the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to transactions outside the United States recognizes the reasonable expectations of participants in the global markets in defining requirements for transactions effected outside the United States.

    41 17 CFR 230.901 through 230.905.

    42See Offshore Offers and Sales, Securities Act Release No. 6863 (Apr. 24, 1990). As described in the Commission's adopting release for Regulation S, Regulation S relates solely to the applicability of the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act and does not limit in any way the scope or applicability of the antifraud or other provisions of the federal securities laws.

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission preliminarily believes that it is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors to require NRSROs and arrangers to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) with respect to ratings of structured finance products offered and sold exclusively outside the United States and that it is therefore appropriate to propose to codify, with certain clarifying changes, the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption.43 The proposed exemption only applies to the provisions of paragraphs (i) through (iii) of Rule 17g-5(a)(3). It does not limit in any way the scope or applicability of the other requirements in Rule 17g-5 or other provisions of the federal securities laws, including the antifraud provisions.

    43 Codifying an exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) also will standardize the manner in which the exemptions to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2 are promulgated. Unlike the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, the Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 exemptions are included in the rule text and not subject to expiration. See supra Section I.B.

    Accordingly, the Commission proposes to add new paragraph (a)(3)(iv) to Rule 17g-5 to provide that the provisions of paragraphs (i) through (iii) of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) will not apply to an NRSRO when issuing or maintaining a credit rating for a security or money market instrument issued by an asset pool or as part of any asset-backed securities transaction, if: (1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined in 17 CFR 230.902(k)); and (2) the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the security or money market instrument by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in Regulation S).44

    44See proposed new paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of Rule 17g-5.

    The first condition of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3)—that the issuer of the structured finance product must not be a U.S. person—is designed to limit relief to non-U.S. issuers. To this end, and for purposes of the exemption, the Commission is proposing that “U.S. person” have the same definition as under Regulation S.45 Consequently, to qualify for the exemption, the NRSRO would have to be determining a credit rating for a structured finance product issued by a person that is not a U.S. person. This condition is identical to the corresponding condition in the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption.

    45See 17 CFR 230.902(k).

    The second condition of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3)—that the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States—would limit the relief to transactions offered and sold exclusively outside the United States. This condition contains certain modifications to the corresponding condition in the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption. The Commission is proposing these modifications for two reasons: (1) To clarify the relationship between the proposed exemption and Regulation S—i.e., that the exemption applies when all offers and sales of a structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product are excluded from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act in reliance on Regulation S; and (2) to clarify that the standards in the second condition are not the same as the standards that are developing in the case law with respect to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act following the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The second condition of the proposed exemption closely tracks the language of Regulation S 46 and specifies that the phrase “occur outside the United States” has the same meaning as in Regulation S. The proposed modifications are not designed to change the scope of the second condition of the proposed exemption from the corresponding condition in the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3)exemption.47

    46See 17 CFR 230.901.

    47 From its inception, the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption has been linked to Regulation S. For instance, in the Exemptive Order, the example given of a transaction that occurs outside the United States is a transaction that complies with the applicable safe harbor under Rules 903 and 904 of Regulation S. See Exemptive Order, supra note 9, 75 FR at 28827.

    The determination of whether an NRSRO would have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given situation. To have a reasonable basis to reach such a conclusion, the NRSRO generally should ascertain how any arranger linked to the structured finance product intends to market and sell the structured finance product and to engage in any secondary market activities (i.e., re-sales) of the structured finance product, and whether any such efforts and activities will occur in the United States (including any “directed selling efforts,” as defined in Regulation S).48

    48 17 CFR 230.902(c).

    For instance, an NRSRO could obtain from the applicable arranger a representation upon which the NRSRO can reasonably rely that all offers and sales by the arranger of the structured finance product to be rated by the NRSRO will occur outside the United States. For example, the arranger's representation could provide assurances that all such offers and sales will be conducted in accordance with the applicable safe harbor under Regulation S.49 In determining whether it is reasonable to rely on any such representation, an NRSRO should evaluate the representation in light of other information known to the NRSRO, such as information in the relevant transaction documents, any ongoing or prior failures by the arranger to adhere to its representations, and any pattern of conduct by the arranger of it failing to promptly correct breaches of its representations.

    49See 17 CFR 230.903 and 904.

    An NRSRO generally should reevaluate the reasonableness of its basis for concluding that the structured finance product will be offered and sold outside the United States if the NRSRO obtains information during the course of its engagement that could cause it to reasonably believe there are activities inside the U.S. In this regard, the NRSRO could include in any representation obtained from an arranger a mechanism for the arranger to promptly notify the NRSRO of any change that would render the representation untrue or inaccurate.

    B. Conforming Amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2

    As discussed in Section I.B. of this release, Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 contain exemptions similar to the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption. The Commission closely modeled the language of the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption on the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption.50 The Commission then aligned the Rule 15Ga-2 exemption to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption so that there is a consistent approach to determining when the Commission's NRSRO rules apply to offshore transactions.51

    502014 NRSRO Amendments, supra note 2, 79 FR at 55165.

    51Id. at 55185 n.1422.

    The Commission continues to believe that it is appropriate for there to be a consistent approach to determining how Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2 apply to offshore transactions. Commenters raised similar concerns with respect to all three rules regarding the potential conflicts between such rules and foreign regulations and practices with respect to transactions offered and sold exclusively outside the United States.52 As discussed in Section II.A. of this release, the Commission believes that it has a limited interest in regulating securities offered and sold solely outside the United States (a view which is also consistent with international comity).

    52See supra note 18 and Section II.A.

    Further, as discussed in Section II.A. of this release, the proposed modifications to the conditions of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption are not designed to change the scope of the exemption, but rather to clarify how the exemption relates to Regulation S. The Commission believes that clarifying the conditions to the exemption with respect to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) without also clarifying the substantially identical conditions to the exemptions in Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 could raise interpretive questions regarding the intended application of those exemptions. Accordingly, to promote clarity and consistency, the Commission proposes to amend Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 to align the exemptions to such rules with the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3).53

    53See supra Section II.A.

    Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend the third condition of the Rule 15Ga-2 exemption to clarify that the exemption is available only if all offers and sales of an asset-backed security by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in Regulation S).54

    54See proposed revised paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 15Ga-2.

    Likewise, the Commission proposes to amend the second condition of the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption to clarify that the exemption is available only if an NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that: (A) With respect to any security or money market instrument issued by a rated obligor, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in Regulation S); or (B) with respect to a rated security or money market instrument, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in Regulation S).55

    55See proposed revised paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of Rule 17g-7.

    As is the case with the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), the determination of whether an NRSRO would have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the applicable securities or money market instruments by any arranger linked to such securities or money market instruments will occur outside the United States would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given situation. The discussion in Section II.A. of this release regarding how an NRSRO may obtain such a reasonable basis for purposes of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) also applies for purposes of the proposed amendment to Rule 17g-7(a).

    The proposed amendment to Rule 17g-7(a) also clarifies that the second condition of the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption applies differently in the case of rated obligors than it does in the case of rated securities or money market instruments. In the case of rated securities or money market instruments, the condition to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption applies in the same way as the condition to the proposed Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption—i.e., an NRSRO must have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the rated security or money market instrument by any arranger linked to that security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States. For the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption to apply with respect to a rating of an obligor, however, an NRSRO must have a reasonable basis to conclude that the condition is satisfied with respect to all securities or money market instruments issued by that obligor. Accordingly, if any of a rated obligor's securities or money market instruments are offered and sold by an arranger linked to those securities or money market instruments within the United States, the exemption would not apply to rating actions involving the credit rating assigned to the obligor as an entity. The Commission previously discussed the distinction between the application of the exemption with respect to rated obligors and rated securities or money market instruments in the adopting release for Rule 17g-7(a).56 The proposed amendment to Rule 17g-7(a) more clearly states this distinction in the rule text itself.

    56See 2014 NRSRO Amendments, supra note 2, 79 FR at 55165 n.1107.

    III. Request for Comment

    The Commission generally requests comment on the proposal to add new paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of Rule 17g-5 and to amend paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of Rule 17g-7 and paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 15Ga-2. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:

    1. Is it appropriate for the Commission to amend Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to provide an exemption from the rule with respect to credit ratings where the issuer of the structured finance product is not a U.S. person and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance produce will occur outside the United States? Why or why not?

    2. Would the proposed exemption be consistent with the Commission's general approach to regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside the United States?

    3. Is it appropriate for the Commission to amend Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 to conform to the proposed exemption in Rule 17g-5(a)(3)? Why or why not?

    4. Are there other ways in which the Commission should consider amending Rule 17g-5, Rule 17g-7, and Rule 15Ga-2? Please be specific.

    5. What information might an NRSRO consider in order to form a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of a structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States?

    6. What actions might an NRSRO take to ensure that it continues throughout the ratings process to have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of a structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States? In what circumstances might an NRSRO need to reevaluate its conclusion?

    7. Should Rule 17g-5(a)(3) be amended to require an NRSRO to take specific actions in order to obtain and continue to ensure that it has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of a structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States? If so, how? For example, should an NRSRO be required to obtain from the applicable arranger a representation upon which the NRSRO can reasonably rely that all offers and sales by the arranger of the structured finance product to be rated by the NRSRO will occur outside the United States?

    8. If the Exemptive Order were allowed to expire without amending Rule 17g-5(a)(3) as proposed, are there any jurisdictions where applicable law would preclude compliance with Rule 17g-5(a)(3)? If so, what impact would application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to structured finance products offered and sold in such jurisdictions have on NRSROs? Would NRSROs and their affiliates be precluded from issuing ratings of structured finance products in such jurisdictions?

    9. What actions would NRSROs and arrangers need to take in order to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) if the Exemptive Order were allowed to expire without codifying the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption? How much advance notice would market participants currently relying on the Exemptive Order require in order to prepare to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3)?

    10. If the Exemptive Order were allowed to expire without codifying the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, would any NRSROs use information available through the websites maintained by arrangers under the Rule 17g-5 Program to determine and monitor credit ratings with respect to transactions that would be exempted by the proposed rule?

    In responding to the specific requests for comment above, the Commission encourages interested persons to provide supporting data and analysis and, when appropriate, suggest modifications to the proposed rule text. Responses that are supported by data and analysis assist the Commission in considering the practicality and effectiveness of a proposed new requirement as well as evaluating the benefits and costs of the proposed rule.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) and Rule 17g-7(a) contain new “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).57 The Commission will submit the proposed rule amendments to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review in accordance with the PRA.58 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

    57 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    58See 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR 1320.11.

    The titles and OMB control numbers for the collections of information are:

    (1) Rule 17g-5, Conflicts of interest (OMB control number 3235-0649); and

    (2) Rule 17g-7, Disclosure requirements (OMB control number 3235-0656).

    The amendments to Rule 15Ga-2 do not contain a collection of information requirement within the meaning of the PRA.

    A. Summary of Collection of Information Under the Proposed Rule Amendments and Proposed Use of Information 1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3)

    The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) that would provide an exemption to the rule with respect to credit ratings of structured finance products if the issuer of the structured finance product is not a U.S. person and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States.59 In order to have a reasonable basis for such a conclusion, an NRSRO may collect information from an arranger. For instance, an NRSRO may elect to obtain a representation from an arranger regarding the manner in which the structured finance product will be offered and sold. Such information regarding the manner in which the structured finance product will be offered and sold may be necessary for an NRSRO to determine whether the proposed exemption applies with respect to the rating of the structured finance product.

    59See proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of Rule 17g-5; see also supra Section II.A. (discussing the proposed exemption in more detail).

    2. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17g-7(a)

    The Commission is proposing amendments to an existing exemption in Rule 17g-7(a). The proposed amendment would clarify that, in order for the exemption to apply, an NRSRO must have a reasonable basis to conclude that: (A) With respect to any security or money market instrument issued by a rated obligor, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States; or (B) with respect to a rated security or money market instrument, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States.60 In order to have a reasonable basis for such a conclusion, an NRSRO may collect information from an arranger or obligor. For instance, an NRSRO may elect to obtain a representation from an arranger regarding the manner in which a rated security or money market instrument will be offered and sold or from an obligor regarding the manner in which all its securities and money market instruments have been offered and sold. Such information may be necessary for an NRSRO to determine whether the proposed exemption applies with respect to a rating action.

    60See proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of Rule 17g-7; see also supra Section II.B. (discussing the proposed amendments in more detail).

    B. Respondents

    Rule 17g-5(a)(3) applies to NRSROs that rate structured finance products. Currently, there are seven NRSROs that are registered in the issuers of asset-backed securities ratings class that could rely on the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3).

    Rule 17g-7(a) applies to all rating actions taken by an NRSRO. There are currently ten credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs that could rely on the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-7(a).

    C. Burden and Cost Estimates Related to the Proposed Amendments 1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3)

    The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) that would provide an exemption to the rule with respect to ratings of certain structured finance products if, among other things, the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States.61 The proposed amendment would codify the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, with certain clarifying changes.

    61See proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iv)(B) of Rule 17g-5; see also supra Section II.A. (discussing the proposed exemption in more detail).

    The Commission preliminarily believes that NRSROs will modify their processes to reflect the clarifying changes being proposed to the exemption. For instance, an NRSRO that currently seeks written representations from an arranger to support the reasonable belief required under the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption may modify the form of the representation to conform to the language of the condition as proposed. The Commission estimates that it would take an NRSRO approximately five hours to update its process for obtaining a reasonable basis to reflect the clarifying language in the proposed exemption, for an industry-wide one-time burden of approximately 35 hours.62

    62 5 hours × 7 NRSROs registered to rate asset-backed securities = 35 hours.

    In order to have a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States, the Commission preliminarily believes that NRSROs will likely seek information from arrangers, thereby resulting in associated costs. The Commission estimates that an NRSRO would spend approximately two hours per transaction gathering and reviewing information received from arrangers to determine if the exemption applies. The Commission also currently estimates that approximately 267 rated transactions would be eligible for the proposed exemption in a given year and that each transaction is rated by approximately two NRSROs,63 resulting in a total aggregate annual hour burden of 1,068 hours.64

    63 These estimates were calculated using information, as of September 5, 2018, from the databases maintained by Asset-Backed Alert and Commercial Mortgage Alert. Isolating the transactions coded in the databases as “Non-U.S.” offerings provided an estimate of the number of transactions that would have been eligible for the proposed exemption. The databases also specify the number of NRSROs rating each transaction, which was used to calculate the average number of NRSROs per transaction (1.90). For purposes of the Commission's estimates, the number of NRSROs per transaction was rounded to the nearest whole number. The estimates represent the average number of transactions and NRSROs per transaction for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

    64 2 hours × 267 transactions × 2 NRSROs per transaction = 1,068 hours.

    2. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17g-7(a)

    The Commission is proposing conforming and clarifying amendments to an existing exemption in Rule 17g-7(a). The proposed amendment would clarify that, in order for the exemption to apply, an NRSRO must have a reasonable basis to conclude that: (A) With respect to any security or money market instrument issued by a rated obligor, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States; or (B) with respect to a rated security or money market instrument, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States.65

    65See proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of Rule 17g-7; see also supra Section II.B. (discussing the proposed amendments in more detail).

    The Commission preliminarily believes that NRSROs will modify their processes to reflect the proposed amendments to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption. For instance, an NRSRO that currently seeks written representations from an obligor or arranger to support the reasonable belief required under the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption, as currently in effect, may modify the form of the representation to conform to the language of the condition as proposed to be amended. The Commission estimates that it would take an NRSRO approximately five hours to update its process for obtaining a reasonable basis to reflect the proposed amendment to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption, for an industry-wide one-time burden of approximately 50 hours.66

    66 5 hours × 10 NRSROs = 50 hours.

    D. Collection of Information is Required To Obtain a Benefit

    The proposed collection of information is required to obtain or maintain a benefit. In order to form a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product will occur outside the United States, an NRSRO likely will gather certain information from the arranger including, for example, obtaining from the arranger a representation to that effect. The determination of a reasonable basis would be necessary for the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) and the proposed amended exemption to Rule 17g-7(a) to apply.

    E. Confidentiality

    Any information obtained by an NRSRO from an obligor or arranger to establish a reasonable basis will not be made public, unless the NRSRO, obligor, or arranger chooses to make it public. Information provided to the Commission in connection with staff examinations or investigations would be kept confidential, subject to the provisions of applicable law.

    F. Request for Comment

    The Commission requests comment on the proposed collections of information in order to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Persons who desire to submit comments on the collection of information should direct their comments to the OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-22-18. Requests for materials submitted to the OMB with regard to these collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-22-18, and be submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this release. Consequently, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    V. Economic Analysis A. Introduction

    As discussed above, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to provide an exemption from the rule with respect to credit ratings where the issuer of the structured finance product is not a U.S. person, and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States. The Commission is also proposing conforming amendments to similar exemptions set forth in Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2. The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits of its rules. When engaging in rulemaking that requires the Commission to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act requires that the Commission consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.67 In addition, Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to consider the effects on competition of any rules the Commission adopts under the Exchange Act, and prohibits the Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.68

    67See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    68See 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).

    The Commission has considered the effects of the proposed amendments on competition, efficiency, and capital formation. Many of the benefits discussed below are difficult to quantify, in particular when considering the potential impact on conflicts of interest or competition. Consequently, while the Commission has, wherever possible, attempted to quantify the economic effects expected to result from this proposal, much of the discussion below is qualitative in nature. Moreover, because the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption is currently in effect (and has been in effect since May 19, 2010—i.e., prior to the compliance date for Rule 17g-5(a)(3)), there has been no effect on transactions outside the United States because changes in the market related to the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) have not occurred with respect to these transactions as a consequence of the Exemptive Order. Where the Commission is unable to quantify the economic effects of the proposed amendment, the Commission provides a qualitative assessment of the potential effects and encourages commenters to provide data and information that could help quantify the costs, benefits, and the potential impacts of the proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

    The Commission's preliminary view is that the codification of current practices with respect to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) is appropriate when compared to the alternative of allowing the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption to expire, as discussed below. This view was shared by the various commenters who requested that the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption be extended indefinitely, made permanent, or codified in Rule 17g-5(a)(3).69

    69See supra note 24 and accompanying text.

    As discussed in Section II.B. of this release, the amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 are conforming and clarifying in nature. Further, unlike the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, the Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 exemptions are already included as part of the rule text, and thus not subject to expiration. Therefore, the Commission's preliminary view is that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 will not have a material impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation or impose new costs of any significance.

    B. Baseline and Affected Parties

    The Exemptive Order serves as the economic baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, of the proposed codification of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption is considered.

    Currently, pursuant to the Exemptive Order, NRSROs are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (i) through (iii) of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) for credit ratings where: (1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined under 17 CFR 230.902(k)); and (2) the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product will be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger linked to the structured finance product will effect transactions of the structured finance product after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside the United States. As a result, with respect to such structured finance products, NRSROs are currently not required to comply with the requirements of Rule 17g-5(a)(3), including the requirement to obtain from the arranger a representation that the arranger will maintain a website containing all information the arranger provides to the hired NRSRO in connection with the rating.

    Similarly, the existing exemptive language of paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17g-7 and paragraph (e) of Rule 15Ga-2 serves as the economic baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, of the amendments to such rules are considered. As previously noted, the Commission believes the amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 are clarifying and conforming in nature and do not substantively deviate from the baseline.

    The economic and regulatory analysis in this section reflects structured finance product markets and the credit rating industry as they exist today. We begin with a summary of the approximate number of NRSROs that would be directly affected by the proposed codification and features of the regulatory and economic environment in which the affected entities operate. A discussion of the current economic environment will provide a framework for assessing how the proposed regulation may impact efficiency, competition, and capital formation in this market.

    Currently, ten credit rating agencies are registered with the Commission as NRSROs.70 Of the ten NRSROs, seven are currently registered in the class of credit ratings for issuers of asset-backed securities.71 Among these seven, three of the larger NRSROs accounted for approximately 96 percent of credit ratings outstanding as of December 31, 2017; 72 these three firms have operations outside of the United States.

    70 The following credit rating agencies are currently registered as NRSROs: A.M. Best Rating Services, Inc. (“A.M. Best”); DBRS, Inc. (“DBRS”); Egan-Jones Ratings Company; Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”); HR Ratings de México, S.A. de C.V. (“HR Ratings”); Japan Credit Rating Agency, Ltd. (“JCR”); Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Inc. (“KBRA”); Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody's”); Morningstar Credit Ratings, LLC (“Morningstar”); and S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”).

    71 The seven NRSROs registered to rate asset-backed securities are: A.M. Best; DBRS; Fitch; KBRA; Moody's; Morningstar; and S&P.

    72 The three NRSROs are Fitch, Moody's, and S&P. The percentage of credit ratings outstanding attributable to Fitch, Moody's, and S&P was calculated using information reported by each NRSRO on Item 7A of Form NRSRO with respect to its annual certification for calendar year 2017. Annual certifications on Form NRSRO must be filed with the Commission on EDGAR pursuant to Rule 17g-1(f) and made publicly and freely available on each NRSRO's website pursuant to Rule 17g-1(i). The number of outstanding credit ratings for each class of credit ratings for which an NRSRO is registered is reported on Item 7A of Form NRSRO.

    The credit rating industry is highly concentrated and this market structure persists, in part, as a result of the costs associated with building the necessary reputational capital. In addition, large and incumbent NRSROs benefit from economies of scale, as well as from switching costs that issuers are likely to bear if they were to consider using different NRSROs. These costs provide incentives for issuers to use the services of NRSROs that they have preexisting relationships with and represent a barrier that newcomers entering the market for credit ratings would need to overcome to compete with incumbent credit rating agencies.

    In addition to the above economic barriers to entry, there exist some commercial and other barriers to entry.73 For instance, the investment guidelines of fixed income mutual fund managers and pension plan sponsors often specify use of the ratings of particular credit rating agencies, and many of these guidelines refer to the larger NRSROs by name. Some fixed income indices also require ratings by specific NRSROs, thus increasing the demand for ratings from those NRSROs. However, it has been reported that some investors are changing their guidelines to include ratings from additional NRSROs, and several of the smaller NRSROs have reported success in gaining market share with respect to the issuers of asset-backed securities.74

    73See 2017 Annual Report on Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, available at https://www.sec.gov/ocr/reportspubs/annual-reports/2017-annual-report-on-nrsros.pdf, 24-25 (discussing various potential barriers to entry including economic, commercial, and regulatory barriers).

    74See id. at 21-24.

    Gathering comprehensive data on foreign issuances of asset-backed securities is difficult given the breadth of markets and products one needs to consider and that data may not be available for several lesser-developed markets. Further, it is often not clear whether these issuances are made by non-U.S. persons. However, there has been an increase in the issuances of asset-backed securities worldwide since 2011, with the issuances amounting to approximately $693.9 billion in 2017.75 For example, when considering all underwriters for deals in Europe, while the trend has varied over the past five years, the two highest annual issuance totals over such period were achieved in 2016 and 2017.76 Asset-backed securities constitute a growing market in Europe and other major financial markets, and, as discussed below, any application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to transactions outside the United States could affect the functioning of these foreign markets.77

    75See Asset-Backed Alert (Rankings for Issuers of Worldwide Asset- and Mortgage-Backed Securities), available at https://www.abalert.com/rankings.pl?Q=100. See also Commercial Mortgage Alert (CMBS Summary—Global CMBS Issuance in 2017), available at https://www.cmalert.com/rankings.pl?Q=67. The information on these websites, reported as of September 5, 2018, indicates that, notwithstanding a slight decline in issuances in 2016, there has been an upward trend in the total annual issuances of asset-backed securities from 2011 through 2017.

    76See Asset-Backed Alert (Rankings for Bookrunners of European Structured Finance Deals), available at https://www.abalert.com/rankings.pl?Q=98, information reported as of September 5, 2018. Total issuances in Europe amounted to approximately $101.1 billion in 2016 and approximately $95.5 billion in 2017. Id.

    77See, e.g., the SIFMA databases that cover historical issuances and outstanding values in Europe, the United States, and Australia for the following: asset-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations/collateralized loan obligations, commercial mortgage-backed securities, and residential mortgage-backed securities, available at http://www.sifma.org.

    C. Anticipated Costs and Benefits, Including Potential Effects on Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation 1. Potential Benefits

    As discussed above, the Commission issued the Exemptive Order in 2010, and an extension of the Exemptive Order is currently in effect. Because the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) and amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 would generally maintain the status quo,78 we do not expect the amendments would result in any major economic effects. For the same reason, we also do not expect this rulemaking to affect efficiency, competition, or capital formation in any major way.

    78 Although the language of the second condition of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) differs from the comparable condition set forth in the Exemptive Order, and conforming changes are being proposed to the corresponding conditions in Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2, the changes are clarifying in nature and the Commission does not believe they will alter the status quo. See supra Section II. The conforming changes being proposed in Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2, however, could result in changes from the current state. Specifically, those changes could avoid potential confusion by arrangers and NRSROs that could result from differences in the language of the conditions set forth in the rules.

    To the extent that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) would enhance the certainty of the future status of an exemption to this rule, they could result in marginal economic benefits to arrangers, NRSROs, and regulators. Specifically, if NRSROs and arrangers expect to be required to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) in the future, they may allocate personnel and financial resources to correspond with foreign and U.S. regulators and to set up applicable websites in anticipation of future compliance. By promulgating an exemptive rule without a set termination date, the Commission preliminarily believes the proposed amendment would eliminate the need to incur such costs. Furthermore, by reducing the need to incur such costs, the proposed amendment could allow issuers and smaller NRSROs to expand in the global structured finance market, and could improve competition.

    The proposed exemption would not necessarily result in more intense competition between issuers and other intermediaries because issuers would continue to offer structured finance products as they do under the current regulatory regime. Further, all existing NRSROs rating structured finance products could continue to rely on the exemption as they do currently under the extended Exemptive Order; therefore, competition among these existing credit rating agencies would most likely not be affected by the proposed exemption.

    2. Potential Costs and Other Anticipated Effects

    Similarly, because the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption is currently in effect, the proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) should not impose any significant additional costs on NRSROs or arrangers of structured finance products relative to the baseline.

    However, as is the case with the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption, issuers and NRSROs may incur some expenses in relying on the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), which is conditioned on an NRSRO having a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States. In order to have a reasonable basis for such a conclusion, the Commission preliminarily believes that NRSROs will likely seek representations from arrangers, thereby resulting in associated costs. The Commission currently estimates that approximately 267 rated transactions would be eligible for the proposed exemption in a given year.79 To the extent that NRSROs seek representations to support their reasonable belief, the Commission estimates that it would cost an arranger approximately $720 per transaction to provide such representations,80 for total aggregate annual costs for all arrangers of approximately $192,240.81.81

    79See supra note 63.

    80 Calculated as 2 hours per transaction × legal fee for a compliance attorney at $360 per hour = $720. The Commission estimates the wage rate associated with these burden hours based on salary information for the securities industry compiled by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA). For example, the estimated wage figure for compliance attorneys is based on published rates for compliance attorneys, modified to account for a 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead, yielding an effective hourly rate for 2013 of $334 for compliance attorneys. See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013. These estimates are adjusted for inflation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data on CPI-U between January 2013 (230.280) and January 2018 (247.873). Therefore, the 2018 inflation-adjusted effective hourly wage rates for compliance attorneys are estimated at $360 ($334 × 247.873/230.280). All effective hourly wage rates discussed throughout the release rely on the same SIFMA data inflation adjusted to January 2018.

    81 Calculated as $720 per transaction × 267 annual transactions = $192,240.

    Similarly, for an NRSRO that chooses to seek representations to support its reasonable belief, the Commission estimates that it would cost the NRSRO approximately $720 per transaction.82 The Commission further estimates that each transaction is rated by approximately two NRSROs,83 for total aggregate annual costs for all NRSROs of $384,480.84 Thus, to the extent that all NRSROs seek representations for all transactions eligible to rely on the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) each year, the Commission estimates the proposed amendment would result in total annual costs of $576,720.85

    82 Calculated as 2 hours per transaction × legal fee for a compliance attorney at $360 per hour = $720.

    83See supra note 63.

    84 Calculated as $720 per transaction × 267 annual transactions × 2 NRSROs per transaction = $384,480.

    85 Calculated as $720 per transaction × 267 annual transactions (for arrangers) + $720 per transaction × 267 annual transactions × 2 NRSROs per transaction (for NRSROs) = $576,720.

    In addition, although the conditions with respect to the exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) are substantially the same under the Exemptive Order, NRSROs may incur a modest one-time cost to conform their processes to reflect the clarifying change being proposed to one of the conditions to the exemption. For instance, an NRSRO that currently seeks written representations from an arranger to support the reasonable belief required under the Exemptive Order may modify the form of the representation to conform to the language of the condition as proposed. The Commission expects an NRSRO's in-house attorney would oversee revisions to the form representation and that there would be a one-time burden of five hours for the language to be revised, approved, and documented. Accordingly, the Commission estimates a one-time aggregate cost of $12,600 for NRSROs to adjust their procedures to reflect the clarifying language of the proposed exemption.86

    86 Calculated as 5 hours per NRSRO × legal fee for a compliance attorney at $360 per hour × the 7 NRSROs registered to rate asset-backed securities = $12,600.

    Similarly, additional one-time costs may be incurred by NRSROs to modify their processes to reflect the proposed conforming amendments to the conditions with respect to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption. The Commission expects the one-time costs incurred by such NRSROs to approximate the costs set forth with respect to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) above. As with Rule 17g-5(a)(3), the Commission expects an NRSRO's in-house attorney would oversee revisions to the form representation with respect to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption and that there would be a one-time burden of five hours for the language to be revised, approved, and documented. Accordingly, the Commission estimates a one-time aggregate cost of $18,000 for NRSROs to adjust their procedures to reflect the proposed conforming changes to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption.87

    87 Calculated as 5 hours per NRSRO × legal fee for a compliance attorney at $360 per hour × all 10 NRSROs = $18,000.

    The Commission believes that no similar costs will be incurred by issuers and underwriters as a result of the proposed amendment to Rule 15Ga-2, given that such rule relates to an obligation of the issuer or underwriter of a structured finance product and there is no equivalent need to obtain information from a third party to determine if the Rule 15Ga-2 exemption applies.

    3. Alternative Considered: Allow Exemptive Order to Expire

    The Commission considered the alternative of allowing the current extension of the Exemptive Order to expire without codifying an exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3). The Commission preliminarily believes that this alternative is not consistent with notions of international comity or the Commission's limited interest in regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside the United States. As discussed in Section II.A. of this release, the Commission believes principles of international comity and reasonable expectations of participants would be better served by not allowing the expiration of the current extension of the Exemptive Order. The Commission has nevertheless considered the economic effects of this alternative, and, as with its economic analysis of the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), the Commission solicits comment, including estimates and data from interested parties, which could help it refine its analysis of the economic effects of this alternative.

    a. Benefits

    This alternative offers several potential economic benefits. The last three decades have witnessed an increase in the globalization of financial markets and in cross-border trading. Greater international capital flows can contribute to the development of new product markets and industries by enabling issuers to raise capital in markets around the world. The Commission considered the potential implications of the expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption on cross-listing activity for U.S. and non-U.S. issuers.88 One possible factor that hypothetically could affect the flow of capital from U.S. markets to foreign alternative trading venues is the costs associated with complying with U.S. securities laws. If complying with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) implies higher costs for issuers of structured finance products, and the costs affect the choice of an issuer's venue, non-U.S. issuers may benefit from the current exemptive relief by obtaining funding at a lower all-in cost than similarly situated U.S. issuers. If the Exemptive Order were to expire, however, such non-U.S. issuers would be unable to pursue such a strategy because they would have the same regulatory treatment as U.S. issuers. As a result, if the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption were to expire, U.S. and non-U.S. issuers may compete for funding on more even terms.

    88 Although the Commission regulations are designed to promote competition, efficiency, and capital formation in U.S. markets and to protect U.S. investors, the Commission recognizes that some of its regulations impact market participants globally. When applicable, the economic effects to those market participants are discussed.

    Investors and issuers globally could obtain potential economic benefits, such as reduced conflicts of interest and informational efficiency in credit ratings, if arrangers were required to comply with the Rule 17g-5 Program. With respect to certain debt and structured finance products, credit ratings provided by non-hired NRSROs using information provided pursuant to the Rule 17g-5 Program could serve a verification function in capital markets by offering market participants a broader set of opinions on the creditworthiness of those products.89 This information could help investors in their decisions to augment the risk profiles of their portfolios through economic exposure to investment opportunities.90

    89See Rule 17g-5 Adopting Release, supra note 2, 74 FR at 63857.

    90See e.g., Arthur R. Pinto, Control and Responsibility of Credit Rating Agencies in the United States, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 54 at 341-56 (2006). See also John R.M. Hand et al., The Effect of Bond Rating Agency Announcements on Bond and Stock Prices, Journal of Finance, Vol. 47, No. 2 at 733-52 (1992).

    Globalization, however, can be a conduit of risk and could lead to problems in one market or jurisdiction spilling over to other markets or jurisdictions.91 If the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption were to expire, then it is possible that any benefits of this rule with respect to the credit rating industry in the United States may apply to foreign markets as well, potentially reducing the risk of spillovers that may result from conflicts of interest that Rule 17g-5(a)(3) was designed to address.92 Specifically, arrangers that engage in structured finance transactions in foreign markets would also need to maintain websites containing all information provided to hired NRSROs with respect to the rating of such structured finance products and provide access to any non-hired NRSRO that makes the required certifications. This may permit non-hired NRSROs to provide ratings of these products. The availability of additional ratings from an independent source may provide incentives to hired NRSROs to provide more accurate and unbiased ratings due to reputational concerns. Any additional ratings by non-hired NRSROs could, in turn, provide investors with independent views on the risk profiles of the structured finance products and improve the reliability of the credit ratings of these products.93 The potential improvement in the quality of ratings in foreign markets could attenuate the risk of spillovers, which could benefit financial markets globally.

    91 For instance, the European sovereign debt crisis renewed the debate on the role credit rating agencies play during crises and the interdependence between different financial markets. This debt crisis has included sovereign credit rating downgrades, widening of sovereign bond and credit default swap spreads, and pressures on stock markets. See, e.g., Manfred Gärtner et al., PIGS or Lambs? The European Sovereign Debt Crisis and the Role of Rating Agencies, International Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 17, No. 3 at 288 (2011). See also Valerie De Bruyckere et al., Bank/Sovereign Risk Spillovers in the European Debt Crisis, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 37, Issue 12 at 4793-809 (2013).

    92 See Rule 17g-5 Adopting Release, supra note 2, 74 FR at 63857.

    93See, e.g., Daniel Covitz and Paul Harrison, Testing Conflicts of Interest at Bond Rating Agencies with Market Anticipation: Evidence that Reputation Incentives Dominate, Federal Reserve Board Working Paper No. 2003-68 (2003), for evidence on the role of reputation among credit rating agencies. However, there is also some evidence to the contrary, wherein the argument is that if reputation losses are lower in an industry due to increased competition, then there are lesser incentives to provide accurate ratings. See Bo Becker and Todd Milbourn, How Did Increased Competition Affect Credit Ratings?, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 101, No. 3 at 493-514 (2011).

    The Commission notes, however, that the possible benefits attributable to the expiration of the Exemptive Order for Rule 17g-5(a)(3) should be viewed in light of the concerns expressed by commenters (as described in Section II.A. of this release). If any foreign laws limit the information an arranger is able to post on the website maintained pursuant to the Rule 17g-5 Program, a hired NRSRO may not have sufficient information on which to base a credit rating or, if the arranger provides information to a hired NRSRO that it cannot also post to the website, the hired NRSRO will not be able to reasonably rely on the representation it received from the arranger.94 In either case, NRSROs effectively would be precluded from rating structured finance products in such jurisdictions, attenuating the benefits described above.

    94See supra notes 7-8 and accompanying text.

    b. Costs

    Several costs of expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption are relevant to consider. As mentioned earlier, the Commission currently estimates that approximately 267 rated transactions would be eligible for the proposed exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) in a given year.95 If the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption were allowed to expire, the requirements of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) would apply with respect to these transactions. The Commission preliminarily estimates the following costs as a result of expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption.

    95See supra note 63.

    The Commission believes that expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption would result in an annual increase in costs of $155,916 for NRSROs for additional website maintenance and associated compliance costs.96 The Commission also estimates an annual increase in costs of $45,924 for arrangers to post information about new structured finance product transactions to the related websites.97 Additionally, if certain sponsors do not also currently issue rated structured finance products in transactions that occur within the United States (which are currently subject to the requirements of Rule 17g-5(a)(3)), then they may incur one-time costs to set up websites. The Commission estimates that it would take a sponsor 300 hours to develop a system, as well as the policies and procedures governing the disclosures, resulting in a total of up to 41,400 hours across 138 sponsors.98 The Commission estimates that the average one-time cost to each sponsor would be $81,300, and the total aggregate one-time cost across all sponsors would be up to $11,219,400.99 Finally, on an ongoing basis, the Commission estimates an annual increase in costs of $2,231,453 for arrangers to make additional information about these transactions available on the related websites each month and to monitor compliance with its obligations over the life of the structured finance products.100

    96 The Commission estimates that it will take approximately one hour per transaction for website maintenance and that an NRSRO would have a webmaster perform these responsibilities, at a cost of $244 per hour. The Commission further estimates that each transaction will be rated by approximately two NRSROs (see supra note 63). Therefore, the estimated annual cost for website maintenance by NRSROs involved with 267 structured finance ratings would be $130,296 (267 transactions × 1 hour per transaction × $244 per hour × 2 NRSROs per transaction). In addition, the Commission estimates that compliance personnel at an NRSRO will spend, on average, one hour per month to monitor compliance with the requirements of the Rule 17g-5 Program. Staff estimates a $305 per hour figure for a compliance manager. Therefore, the estimated annual compliance cost would be $25,620 (12 months per year × 1 hour per month × $305 per hour × 7 NRSROs registered to rate asset-backed securities). As a result, the total estimated annual cost for NRSROs would be $155,916 ($130,296 website maintenance cost + $25,620 compliance cost).

    97 The Commission estimates that it will take an arranger approximately one hour per transaction to post the information it provides to a hired NRSRO to the related website. The Commission believes that an arranger would have a junior business analyst perform these responsibilities, at a cost of $172 per hour. Therefore, based on the estimate of 267 rated transactions per year, the estimated annual cost for arrangers to make such information available on the related website would be $45,924 (267 transactions × 1 hour per transaction × $172 per hour).

    98 Total hours to develop systems would be 41,400 (138 sponsors × 300 hours per sponsor). The number of sponsors was estimated using information as of September 5, 2018 from the Asset-Backed Alert and Commercial Mortgage Alert databases. Isolating the transactions coded in the database as “Non-U.S.” offerings and sorting the data by sponsor (in the case of the Asset-Backed Alert database) or seller (in the case of the Commercial Mortgage Alert database) enables an estimate of the number of separate sponsors that would be eligible for the exemption. The estimate represents the average number of such sponsors for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2016, and 2017. We note that the estimate of the aggregate hours across all sponsors represents upper bounds, as it is plausible that some sponsors also issue structured finance products in U.S.-based transactions and would have already incurred any such one-time costs.

    99 As discussed in the Rule 17g-5 Adopting Release, the Commission believes that a sponsor would use a compliance manager and a programmer analyst to perform these functions, and each would spend 50% of the estimated hours conducting these tasks. The average hourly cost for a compliance manager is $305 and the average hourly cost for a programmer analyst is $237. Therefore, the average one-time cost to a sponsor would be $81,300 ([150 hours × $305 per hour] + [150 hours × $237 per hour]). The aggregate cost across all sponsors would be up to $11,219,400 (138 sponsors × $81,300 per sponsor). We note that these estimates represent upper bounds. As noted in note 98, some sponsors may have already incurred any one-time set up costs in connection with U.S.-based issuances. In addition, it is plausible that sponsors will obtain these services for a much lower cost from web service providers.

    100 The Commission estimates that it will take an arranger approximately half an hour per month for each transaction to make such information available on the related website. The hourly burden per transaction for a year is 6 hours (0.5 hours per month × 12 months). The Commission believes that an arranger would have a junior business analyst perform these responsibilities at a rate of $172. Further, we relied on the Rule 17g-5 Adopting Release to infer the total number of outstanding deals under surveillance. In that release, the Commission indicated that, on average, an arranger will issue 20 new deals a year and will have 125 outstanding deals, or 6.25 outstanding deals for every new deal. Combining this with our estimate of 267 new transactions per year yields an estimate of 6.25 × 267 = 1,669 outstanding deals. Combining these estimates, the annual cost for arrangers to provide information on ongoing deals is $1,722,408 (1,669 outstanding transactions × $172 per hour × 6 hours per year). In addition, the Commission estimates that compliance personnel at an arranger will spend, for each outstanding transaction, one hour per year to monitor compliance with its requirements in connection with the Rule 17g-5 Program. The Commission estimates a $305 per hour figure for a compliance manager. Therefore, the estimated annual compliance cost would be $509,045 (1 hour per transaction, per year × $305 per hour × 1,669 outstanding transactions). As a result, the total estimated annual ongoing cost for arrangers would be $2,231,453 ($1,722,408 website maintenance cost + $509,045 compliance cost).

    In addition to these direct compliance costs, expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption could result in costs that are difficult to quantify. For instance, an incremental increase in costs resulting from the applicability of the Rule 17g-5 Program may vary significantly from transaction to transaction, contributing to the difficulty in quantifying such costs. A bespoke transaction may require significantly more communications between the arranger and the hired NRSRO than a transaction by a frequent issuer of similar securities, resulting in the incurrence of higher costs to arrangers. Moreover, the Rule 17g-5 Program requires that information must be posted to the arranger's website at the same time such information is provided to a hired NRSRO. If the exemption were to expire, information that may have previously been communicated verbally to a hired NRSRO may need to be memorialized in writing. In certain cases, an arranger may enlist outside counsel to draft or review materials to be provided to a hired NRSRO, resulting in additional costs.

    Further, there are potential negative economic consequences. Since the global financial crisis there have been other efforts, in addition to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,101 to assess and regulate the credit rating industry as well as to encourage market participants to establish stronger internal credit risk assessment practices. As discussed in Section II.A. of this release, commenters have expressed concerns that the requirements of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) could potentially be duplicative of or conflict with regulations applicable to NRSROs and arrangers in foreign markets, and thus harm the competitive position of NRSROs in those markets.102 Failure to provide relief regarding the application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to transactions offered and sold exclusively outside the United States may be viewed as inconsistent with notions of international comity.

    101 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, H.R. 4173 (July 21, 2010).

    102See supra notes 26-33 and accompanying text.

    The expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption may lead to losses for NRSROs if, as commenters suggest, conflicts exist between the requirements of the Rule 17g-5 Program and foreign laws that limit the information available to NRSROs. Some NRSROs could be precluded from rating structured finance products in such jurisdictions, which could lead to loss of revenue associated with credit ratings that NRSROs currently provide under the existing Exemptive Order. NRSROs may also experience losses as a result of the expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption due to competitive pressures in the foreign markets from credit rating agencies that are not registered as NRSROs (“non-NRSRO rating agencies”) and therefore not subject to Rule 17g-5(a)(3). Expiration of the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption may also lead to new compliance costs for NRSROs and arrangers relating to posting information on the websites with respect to credit ratings maintained by NRSROs that had previously been subject to the exemption. From the point of view of arrangers, additional costs of compliance could result in a decline in their issuances of structured finance products if alternative non-NRSRO rating agencies are unavailable or unacceptable to arrangers or investors.

    Finally, if the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption were allowed to expire, this could also raise legal barriers to entry for smaller NRSROs that may be planning to expand their foreign ratings business.103 The increased set-up costs may lower such NRSROs' incentives to rate structured finance products in those foreign markets.

    103 Three of the four smaller NRSROs registered in the class of credit ratings for issuers of asset-backed securities list foreign affiliates as credit rating affiliates on their most recently filed Form NRSRO. Form NRSRO filings can be accessed through the Commission's EDGAR system.

    VI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, or “SBREFA,” 104 the Commission must advise OMB as to whether the proposed regulation constitutes a “major rule.” Under SBREFA, a rule is considered “major” where, if adopted, it results or is likely to result in: (i) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease); (ii) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or (iii) a significant adverse effect on competition, investment, or innovation. If a rule is “major,” its effective date will generally be delayed for 60 days pending Congressional review.

    104 123 Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996) (codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C., including as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601).

    The Commission requests comment on the potential annual economic impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2, any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries, and any potential effect on competition, investment, or innovation. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the extent possible.

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (“RFA”) 105 requires the Commission to undertake an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposed rule amendments on small entities unless the Commission certifies that the proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.106 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2 would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    105 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    106See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    The proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) would provide an exemption from the requirements of paragraphs (i) through (iii) of Rule 17g-5(a)(3) with respect to credit ratings if the issuer of the structured finance product is not a U.S. person, and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the structured finance product by any arranger linked to the structured finance product will occur outside the United States. The proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 conform the existing exemptions with respect to such rules to the proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) in order to reflect certain clarifying changes to the conditions thereof.

    The Commission's rules do not define “small business” or “small organization” with respect to NRSROs. However, 17 CFR 240.0-10(a) provides that, for purposes of the RFA, a small entity “[w]hen used with reference to an `issuer' or a `person' other than an investment company” means “an `issuer' or `person' that, on the last day of its most recent fiscal year, had total assets of $5 million or less.” 107 The Commission has stated in the past that an NRSRO with total assets of $5 million or less would qualify as a “small” entity for purposes of the RFA.108 The Commission continues to believe this threshold of total assets of $5 million or less would qualify an NRSRO as “small” for purposes of the RFA.109

    107See Rule 0-10(a).

    108See, e.g., Oversight of Credit Rating Agencies Registered as Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 55857 (June 5, 2007), 72 FR 33564, 33618 (June 18, 2007); Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 59342 (Feb. 2, 2009), 74 FR 6456, 6481 (Feb. 9, 2009); Rule 17g-5 Adopting Release, supra note 2, 74 FR at 63863.

    109 Under Section 601(3) of the RFA, the term “small business” is defined as having “the same meaning as the term `small business concern' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act, 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.”

    Currently, there are ten credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs and, based on their most recently filed annual reports pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g-3,110 two NRSROs are small entities under the above definition. Neither of these two NRSROs is currently registered for the class of credit ratings for issuers of asset-backed securities.

    110See Rule 17g-3.

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities” as defined by the RFA. The proposed amendment to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) applies exclusively to rated structured finance products and the NRSROs that are considered small under the above definition are not currently registered for the class of credit ratings for issuers of asset-backed securities.

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities” as defined by the RFA. Although Rule 17g-7(a) applies to all NRSROs, including the two NRSROs that qualify as “small” for purposes of the RFA, the Commission preliminarily believes that the economic impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) would not be significant. The Rule 17g-7(a) exemption is already included as part of the rule text, and the proposed amendments to such exemption are clarifying in nature.111 The Commission preliminarily believes NRSROs may incur modest one-time costs to modify their processes to reflect the proposed amendments to the Rule 17g-7(a) exemption,112 but that any ongoing annual costs related to the exemption, amended as proposed, are likely to be unchanged relative to the existing exemption.

    111See supra Section II.B. (discussing the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) in more detail).

    112 The Commission estimates that it will take an NRSRO approximately 5 hours to modify its processes to reflect the proposed amended language of the exemption. The Commission believes that the work will likely be completed by a compliance attorney at $360 per hour, resulting in a cost of $1,800 for each NRSRO. See supra note 87 and accompanying text.

    The adopting release for Rule 15Ga-2 certified that Rule 15Ga-2 and the amendments to Form ABS-15G will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.113 As is the case with Rule 17g-7(a), the Rule 15Ga-2 exemption is already included as part of the rule text, and the proposed amendments to such exemption are clarifying in nature.114 In addition, Rule 15Ga-2 relates to an obligation of the issuer or underwriter of a structured finance product and there is no need to obtain information from a third party to determine if the 15Ga-2 exemption applies. As such, the Commission preliminarily believes that no costs will be incurred by issuers and underwriters as a result of the proposed amendment to the Rule 15Ga-2 exemption.

    113See 2014 NRSRO Amendments, supra note 2, 79 FR at 55257.

    114See supra Section II.B. (discussing the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) in more detail).

    The Commission encourages written comments regarding this certification. We solicit comment as to whether the proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2 could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data to support the extent of such impact.

    VIII. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing an amendment to 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3), 17 CFR 240.17g-7(a), and 17 CRF 240.15Ga-2 pursuant to the authority conferred by the Exchange Act, including Sections 15E, 17(a), and 36 (15 U.S.C. 78o-7, 78q, and 78mm).

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    Text of Proposed Amendment

    In accordance with the foregoing, the Commission proposes that title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations be amended as follows:

    PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 1. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4, 78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, 7201 et seq.; and 8302; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C. 1350; and Pub. L. 111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1887 (2010); and secs. 503 and 602, Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 326 (2012), unless otherwise noted.

    Section 240.15Ga-2 is also issued under sec. 943, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.

    Section 240.17g-7 is also issued under sec. 943, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.

    2. Amend § 240.15Ga-2 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 240.15Ga-2 Findings and conclusions of third-party due diligence reports.

    (e) The requirements of this rule would not apply to an offering of an asset-backed security if certain conditions are met, including:

    (1) The offering is not required to be, and is not, registered under the Securities Act of 1933;

    (2) The issuer of the rated security is not a U.S. person (as defined in § 230.902(k)); and

    (3) All offers and sales of the security by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in §§ 230.901 through 230.905 (Regulation S)).

    3. Amend § 240.17g-5 by adding paragraph (a)(3)(iv) to read as follows:
    § 240.17g-5 Conflicts of interest.

    (a) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section will not apply to a nationally recognized statistical rating organization when issuing or maintaining a credit rating for a security or money market instrument issued by an asset pool or as part of any asset-backed securities transaction, if:

    (A) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined in § 230.902(k) of this chapter); and

    (B) The nationally recognized statistical rating organization has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of the security or money market instrument by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in §§ 230.901 through 230.905 (Regulation S) of this chapter).

    4. Amend § 240.17g-7 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 240.17g-7 Disclosure requirements.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Exemption. The provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply to a rating action if:

    (i) The rated obligor or issuer of the rated security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined in § 230.902(k) of this chapter); and

    (ii) The nationally recognized statistical rating organization has a reasonable basis to conclude that:

    (A) With respect to any security or money market instrument issued by a rated obligor, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in §§ 230.901 through 230.905 (Regulation S) of this chapter); or

    (B) With respect to a rated security or money market instrument, all offers and sales by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to the security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States (as that phrase is used in §§ 230.901 through 230.905 (Regulation S) of this chapter).

    By the Commission.

    Dated: September 26, 2018. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21295 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0864] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Tumon Bay, Tumon, GU AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 190 yard radius of a fireworks barge located in Tumon Bay for the New Year's Eve Fireworks display. The Coast Guard believes this safety zone is necessary to protect the public from potential hazards created by the fireworks display fallout. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam (COTP). We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0864 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Todd Wheeler, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671-355-4566, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The fireworks display is anticipated to be from midnight on December 31, 2018 through 00:30 a.m. on January 1, 2019, to celebrate New Year's Eve. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in Tumon Bay approximately 350 yards north of Joseph F. Flores Beach Park. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 190 yard radius of the barge.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 190 yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9 p.m. on December 31, 2018 through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2019. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 190 yards of the fireworks barge. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 190 yards of the barge. The duration of the zone is intended to protect the public before, during, and after the fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Tumon Bay for 4 hours. This is a low traffic area that consists mainly of outrigger canoes and sail boards during daylight hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 4 hours that would prohibit entry within 190 yards of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, you may go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, and you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T14-0864 to read as follows:
    § 165. T14-0864 Safety Zone; Tumon Bay, Tumon, GU.

    (a) Location. The following areas, within the Guam Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), all navigable waters on the surface and below the surface within 190 yards of the fireworks barge participating in the New Year's Eve Fireworks display.

    (1) Location. The following position 13 degrees 30 minutes 24.99 seconds N Latitude, 144 degrees 47 minutes 21.93 seconds E Longitude are to be used as a guide to the location of the barge.

    (b) Effective Dates. This rule is effective from 9 p.m. on December 31, 2018 through 1 a.m. on January 1, 2019.

    (c) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may enforce this temporary safety zone.

    (d) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security.

    (g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Christopher M. Chase, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21621 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145; 9983-65-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan, Oklahoma; Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, withdrawal of proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supplementing our proposed approval published on March 22, 2018, of revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma, as submitted by the State of Oklahoma designee with a letter dated February 14, 2017. First, we are reopening the comment period based on information submitted by Oklahoma in a letter dated July 31, 2018, and our analysis of it. Second, EPA is withdrawing its proposed action on the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units rule because the State did not submit it for approval as a SIP revision.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.

    The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-6691, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-6691; [email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Alan Shar.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA.

    I. Background

    On March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12514), we published a proposed rulemaking action to approve certain revisions to the Oklahoma SIP, as submitted by Oklahoma on February 14, 2017. The submittal covers updates to the Oklahoma SIP, as contained in annual SIP updates for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and incorporates the latest changes to the EPA regulations. Specifically, the March 22, 2018 proposal concerned revisions to the following rules in the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)—OAC 252:100-13 Open Burning, OAC 252:100-17 Incinerators, OAC 252:100-25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, OAC 252:100-31 Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds, OAC 252:100, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and OAC 252:100, Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. Comments on the proposal were required to be received by April 23, 2018.

    II. Additional information submitted by Oklahoma

    After the close of the public comment period, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted additional information, by letter dated July 31, 2018, concerning the SIP rule revisions in our March 22, 2018 proposal. ODEQ provided this information in response to adverse comments (EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145-022) submitted to the EPA during the initial comment period. The information submitted by ODEQ is intended to clarify the rule revisions and their applicability as well as to further demonstrate how the revisions improve the Oklahoma SIP. In particular, ODEQ provided additional information related to the following four rule revisions included in the March 22, 2018 proposal: (1) A revision to OAC 252:100-9(4) that exempts opening burning allowed under OAC 252:100-13-7(6)(B) and OAC 252:100-13-8 from the time restrictions otherwise applicable to opening burning; (2) a revision to OAC 252:100-17-2 adding NSPS Subpart AAAA and NSPS Subpart CCCC to the list of sources exempt from the requirements for general purpose incinerators; (3) a revision to OAC 252:100-25-5(c) eliminating the words “and EPA” from the rule's requirement concerning alternative monitoring; and (4) a revision to OAC 252:100-31 which replaces SO2 ambient standards (exposure limits) in the existing SIP at OAC 252:100-31-12 (renumbered OAC 252:100-31-7) with EPA's 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    III. EPA's Evaluation and Analysis of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 Letter

    We have evaluated the information contained in ODEQ's July 31, 2018 letter and find that it affirms our determination that the submitted revisions included in the March 22, 2018 proposal meet SIP requirements, as provided by CAA section 110 and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. We have included our evaluation of ODEQ's July 31, 2018 letter and our additional analysis of the four rule revisions identified in part II above in a supplement to the Technical Support Document (TSD) which may be found in the docket. See Supplement 3 to the TSD in the docket for this action. The result of our evaluation and analysis continues to support the proposed approval of the rule revisions identified in the March 22, 2018 proposal, with the recognition of one inadvertent oversight on our part described below.

    The March 22, 2018 proposal inadvertently includes a proposal to approve rule revisions to OAC 252:100-17, Part 9 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units—specifically OAC 252:100-17-60 through 17-76. We are withdrawing our proposal action on these provisions because we lack the authority to act on them under section 110 as a SIP revision. Moreover, these provisions were not submitted to EPA for SIP approval as part of the February 14, 2017 SIP submittal and include provisions that pertain to CAA sections 111(d) and 129, instead, which will be acted upon separately in the future.1

    1 Those provisions are not directly related to CAA section 110 (State implementation Plans for NAAQS) and pertain to CAA sections 111(d) (Standards of performance for existing sources; remaining useful life of source) and 129 (Solid waste combustion) standards. These Subchapter 17 revisions were submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality to EPA, by letter dated September 15, 2017, as an update to Oklahoma's Air Quality State Plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI) units, under CAA sections 111(d) and 129. Pursuant to those statutory provisions and EPA's implementing regulations related thereto, EPA will be evaluating and acting upon the September 15, 2017 Submittal in a separate action.

    IV. Supplemental Proposed Action

    In summary, EPA proposed to approve certain revisions to the Oklahoma SIP, as submitted by Oklahoma on February 14, 2017, in our March 22, 2018 proposal (83 FR 12514). In this supplemental proposed action, we are withdrawing the proposed action on the revisions to OAC 252:100-17, Part 9 (Part 9), because Part 9 was not included in Oklahoma's February 14, 2017 SIP submittal. We lack the authority to act on this Part 9 under CAA section 110 because the State did not submit it as a SIP revision for approval. We are proposing to affirm the approvability of the other rule revisions contained in the March 22, 2018 proposal based upon the supplemental information in ODEQ's July 31, 2018 letter, as well as additional information included in Supplement 3 to the TSD. The scope of this supplemental notice and the reopening of the comment period is strictly limited to only the supplemental information and our evaluation of it. The EPA is not reopening the comment period on any other aspect of the March 22, 2018 proposal, as an adequate opportunity to comment on those issues has already been provided. The EPA will not respond to comments received during the reopened comment period outside the above-defined scope. This action will allow interested persons additional time to review the supplemental information to prepare and submit relevant comments. The EPA will address all comments received on the original proposal and on this supplemental action in our final action.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Oklahoma's regulations, as described in part IV above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 18, 2018. David Gray, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21718 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681; FRL-9984-98-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Beaver, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Beaver County, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Beaver Area” or “Area”). The Beaver Area is comprised of a portion of Beaver County (Industry Borough, Shippingport Borough, Midland Borough, Brighton Township, Potter Township and Vanport Township) in Pennsylvania. The SIP submission is an attainment plan which includes the base year emissions inventory, an analysis of the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, contingency measures for the Beaver Area, and Pennsylvania's new source review (NSR) permitting program. As part of approving the attainment plan, EPA is also proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP new SO2 emission limits and associated compliance parameters for the FirstEnergy Generation, LLC (FirstEnergy) Bruce Mansfield Power Station (Bruce Mansfield Facility) and a consent order with Jewel Acquisition Midland steel plant (Jewel Facility). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan Goold (215) 814-2027, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Averaging Times IV. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Beaver Area V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Beaver Area A. Pollutants Addressed B. Emissions Inventory Requirements C. Air Quality Modeling D. RACM/RACT E. RFP Plan F. Contingency Measures G. New Source Review VI. EPA's Proposed Action VII. Incorporation by Reference VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule establishing a new SO2 NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). This action also revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject to certain conditions.1 EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to SO2 emissions ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010, final rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for 29 areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which became effective on October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011, where there was sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation.2

    1 EPA's June 22, 2010 final action revoked the two 1971 primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard of 30 ppb because they were determined not to add additional public health protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR 35520. However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was retained. Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only revoked for certain of those areas the EPA has already designated for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).

    2 EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order entered on March 2, 2015, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 13-cv-03953-SI (2015).

    Effective on October 4, 2013, the Beaver Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that encompasses several past and current sources of SO2 emissions and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 42-007-0005). The October 4, 2013 final designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how the Area would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA section 192(a).

    For a number of areas, including the Beaver Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO2 attainment plan by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to Pennsylvania's submittal of September 29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent letter dated October 5, 2017, to Pennsylvania finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of these sanctions' deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania's missing the SIP submission deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding triggers a requirement that EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the finding unless, by that time the state has made the necessary complete submittal and EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. EPA's obligation to promulgate and implement a FIP will not apply if EPA makes final the approval action proposed here.

    II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans

    Attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c) of Title 1, part D of the CAA. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a document entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for SIP control strategies. Id. at 13545-49, 13567-68. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could address the statutory requirements in SO2 attainment plans.3 In this guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); an attainment demonstration that includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NSR (172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the affected area (172(c)(9)). A synopsis of these requirements is also provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the Illinois SO2 nonattainment plans, published on October 5, 2017 at 82 FR 46434.

    3See “Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions” (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.

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

    III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging

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

    EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance recommends that the emission limits established for the attainment demonstration be expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance recommends that—should states and sources utilize longer averaging times—the longer term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise would have set.

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

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

    For plans for SO2 based on 1-hour emission limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed emission rates. The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to result in attainment (i.e., an “average year” 4 shows three, not four days with maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the “critical emission value.” The modeling process for identifying this critical emissions value inherently considers the numerous variables that affect ambient concentrations of SO2, such as meteorological data, background concentrations, and topography. In the standard approach, the state would then provide for attainment by setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission limit at this critical emission value.

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

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

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

    As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, which results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an “average year,” these emissions cause the 5-highest maximum daily average 1-hour concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1000 pounds per hour, but with a typical emissions profile emissions would much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds/hour, 1100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour, and 1200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative example because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is well over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would result in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third and fourth days would not have exceedances that otherwise would have occurred. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.

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

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

    The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the (lower) level of the longer term average emission limit that would be estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new controls) may require use of an emission database from another source. The recommended method involves using these data to calculate a complete set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit to determine a longer term average emission limit that may be considered comparably stringent.5 The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance also addresses a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might occur under the longer term emission rate limit. Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in Appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, Appendix W).6 In 2005, EPA promulgated the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) as the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in Appendix A to the April 23, 2014 SO2 nonattainment area SIP guidance document referenced above. Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan provides for attainment.

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

    6 The EPA published revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models on January 17, 2017.

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

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

    IV. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Beaver Area

    In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Beaver Area includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); (2) an attainment demonstration including an analysis that locates, identifies, and quantifies sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy for the primary remaining SO2 sources in the area and which also accounts for smaller sources within the Area in the background concentration, showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date; (3) a determination that the control strategy for the primary remaining SO2 sources within the nonattainment area constitutes RACM/RACT; (4) requirements for RFP toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; (5) contingency measures; and (6) the assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NSR program meets the applicable requirements for SO2. The Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Beaver Area also includes the request that emission limitations and compliance parameters contained in a consent order with Bruce Mansfield and a consent order with Jewel be incorporated into the SIP.

    V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Beaver Area

    Consistent with CAA requirements (see section 172), an attainment demonstration for a SO2 nonattainment area must show that the area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reductions analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. EPA is proposing that the attainment plan submitted by Pennsylvania is sufficient, and EPA is proposing to approve the plan to ensure ongoing attainment.

    A. Pollutants Addressed

    Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan evaluates SO2 emissions for the Area within the portion of Beaver County (Industry Borough, Shippingport Borough, Midland Borough, Brighton Township, Potter Township and Vanport Township) that is designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. There are no precursors to consider for the SO2 attainment plan. SO2 is a pollutant that arises from direct emissions, and therefore concentrations are highest relatively close to the sources and much lower at greater distances due to dispersion. Thus, SO2 concentration patterns resemble those of other directly emitted pollutants like lead, and differ from those of photochemically-formed (secondary) pollutants such as ozone.

    B. Emissions Inventory Requirements

    States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop comprehensive, accurate and current emissions inventories of all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. These inventories provide detailed accounting of all emissions and emissions sources by precursor or pollutant. In addition, inventories are used in air quality modeling to demonstrate that attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides that the emissions inventory should be consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.7

    7 The AERR at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51 cover overarching federal reporting requirements for the states to submit emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions Inventory System. EPA uses these submittals, along with other data sources, to build the National Emissions Inventory.

    For the base year inventory of actual emissions, a “comprehensive, accurate and current” inventory can be represented by a year that contributed to the three-year design value used for the original nonattainment designation. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance notes that the base year inventory should include all sources of SO2 in the nonattainment area as well as any sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. Pennsylvania appropriately elected to use 2011 as the base year, as the Area was designated nonattainment with monitor data from 2009-2011. Actual emissions from all the sources of SO2 in the Beaver Area were reviewed and compiled for the base year emissions inventory requirement. One additional source located outside the area was included in the inventory due to its proximity to the Area. The source is IPSCO Koppel Tubular (Koppel) with 2011 emissions of 130.42 tons per year (tpy). Table 1 shows the level of emissions, expressed in tpy, in the Beaver Area for the 2011 base year by emissions source category. The point source category includes all sources within the nonattainment area and one source (Koppel) just outside the area.

    Table 1—2011 Base Year SO2 Emissions Inventory for the Beaver Area Emission source category SO2
  • Emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Point 26,591.051 Area 29.784 Non-road 0.111 On-road 1.530 Total 26,622.476
    Table 2—Point Source 2011 Actual Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventory Facility SO2
  • Emissions
  • (tpy)
  • AES BEAVER VALLEY 3,085.634 BRUCE MANSFIELD 21,195.710 HORSEHEAD 2,014.920 IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL * 130.420 JEWEL 162.100 SHELL 0.000 All Other Point Sources Combined 2.267 Total 26,591.051 * IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL is not physically in the Beaver Area, but modeling shows it has a small impact on it. Another source located near the Area, Anchor Hocking/Monaca, which had 2011 SO2 emissions of 26.068 tons, was also evaluated. Based on the modeling analysis, Anchor Hocking/Monaca does not have significant impacts in the Beaver Area and is not included in the inventory.

    A more detailed discussion of the emissions inventory for the Beaver Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal, as well as, the emissions inventory Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681 and is available online at www.regulations.gov. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Beaver Area and has made the determination that this inventory was developed consistently with section 172(c)(3) and EPA's guidance as discussed in detail in the inventory TSD. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Beaver Area.

    The attainment plan also provides for a projected attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all emission sources of SO2 which are determined to impact the Beaver Area for the year in which the area is expected to attain the NAAQS. Pennsylvania provided a 2018 projected emissions inventory for all known sources included in the 2011 base year inventory and one additional source, Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's recently permitted petrochemicals complex. This source will not start operation until after 2018 but has been included to provide assurance that the NAAQS will be attained and maintained notwithstanding commencement of its operation.

    The projected 2018 emissions are shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Projected allowable emissions for 2018 exceed the 2011 emissions inventory; however, projected actual emissions for 2018 are below the 2011 emissions inventory. It should be noted that the sources most likely causing impacts at the previously violating monitor, including AES Beaver Valley and Horsehead, have closed or remain idled such as the Jewel Facility's Meltshop. The remaining primary SO2 sources with their new allowable emissions may be above the total 2011 actual emissions in the Area; however, the remaining primary sources were modeled using emissions above their new allowable emissions (as listed in Table 4) and demonstrate attainment as discussed subsequently in this Notice. SO2 impacts are very source specific and assumptions cannot be made merely related to the total amount of emissions in an area. Also, as discussed in the submittal, the projected actual emissions are based on business projections of 2018 operations, and allowable maximum 2018 emissions are assuming that the plant is operating 8,760 hours per year and in compliance with the comparably stringent longer term average limit. The allowable maximum provides the worst-case emissions for the facilities versus the actual anticipated emissions which are based on typical operating hours and on projected business demand. In this case, the modeled maximum SO2 emissions were not set equal to the allowable maximum emissions, but were greater than the allowable maximum emissions. For Bruce Mansfield, the 2018 maximum modeled emissions were 45,038.226 tpy. The 2018 modeled maximum emissions for Koppel and Shell were 306.6 tpy and 22.0 tpy, respectively.

    Reductions in projected 2018 SO2 emissions in the onroad, nonroad and nonpoint source categories can be attributed to lower sulfur content limits for gasoline and diesel fuels for the onroad and nonroad sector, and more stringent sulfur content limits on home heating oil and other distillate/residual fuel oils for the nonpoint sector which limits are included in the Pennsylvania SIP. A detailed discussion of projected emissions for the Beaver Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681 and online at www.regulations.gov.

    Table 3—2018 Projected SO2 Emission Inventory for the Beaver Area Emission source category SO2
  • emissions (tpy)
  • anticipated
  • actual
  • SO2
  • emissions (tpy) *includes allowable emissions for all point sources
  • Point 14,679.771 32,420.050 Area 22.586 22.586 Non-road 0.057 0.057 On-road 0.590 0.590 Total 14,703.004 32,443.283
    Table 4—2018 Projected Point Source Emissions for the Beaver Area Facility 2018
  • Allowable
  • Max SO2
  • (tpy)
  • 2018
  • Anticipated
  • Actual SO2
  • (tpy)
  • AES BEAVER VALLEY 0.000 0.000 BRUCE MANSFIELD 32,245.560 14,542.309 HORSEHEAD 0.000 0.000 IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL * 149.500 133.472 JEWEL 1.603 1.603 SHELL ** 21.000 0.000 All Other Point Sources Combined 2.387 2.387 Total 32,420.050 14,679.771 * IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL is not physically in the nonattainment area, but modeling shows it has a small impact on it. It is included in the 2011 base year and 2018 attainment year inventories. ** Shell does not anticipate startup to occur prior to the end of 2018. Annual emissions after startup are limited by the facility's Plan Approval to less than 21 tons SO2 per year.
    C. Air Quality Modeling

    The SO2 attainment demonstration provides an air quality dispersion modeling analysis to demonstrate that control strategies chosen to reduce SO2 source emissions will bring the Area into attainment by the statutory attainment date of October 4, 2018. The modeling analysis, conducted pursuant to recommendations outlined in Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA's Modeling Guidance), is used for the attainment demonstration to assess the control strategy for a nonattainment area and establish emission limits that will provide for attainment. The analysis requires five years of meteorological data to simulate the dispersion of pollutant plumes from multiple point, area, or volume sources across the averaging times of interest. The modeling demonstration typically also relies on maximum allowable emissions from sources in the nonattainment area. Though the actual emissions are likely to be below the allowable emissions, sources have the ability to run at higher production rates or optimize controls such that emissions approach the allowable emissions limits. A modeling analysis that provides for attainment under all scenarios of operation for each source must therefore consider the worst-case scenario of both the meteorology (e.g. predominant wind directions, stagnation, etc.) and the maximum allowable emissions. In this case, the modeled maximum SO2 emissions were greater than the allowable maximum SO2 emissions.

    PADEP's modeling analysis was developed in accordance with EPA's Modeling Guidance and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, and was prepared using EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system, AERMOD. A more detailed discussion of PADEP's modeling analysis for the Beaver Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal as well as the modeling TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681 which is available online at www.regulations.gov.

    For its modeling demonstration, PADEP evaluated SO2 emissions from the Bruce Mansfield Facility located in Shippingport Borough and potential SO2 emissions from Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's (Shell Chemical Appalachia) planned petrochemicals complex to be located in Potter and Center Townships. SO2 emissions from Koppel, located outside the Beaver Area were also included in the modeling. The Jewel Facility Meltshop was idled in 2015 and its emissions were not included in the attainment modeling demonstration. To resume operation, the Meltshop must comply with a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) described in section D of this notice.

    EPA has reviewed the modeling that Pennsylvania submitted to support the attainment demonstration for the Beaver Area and has determined that this modeling is consistent with CAA requirements, Appendix W, and EPA's Guidance for SO2 attainment demonstration modeling. The modeling properly characterized source limits, local meteorological data, background concentrations, and provided an adequate model receptor grid to capture maximum modeled concentrations. Using the EPA conversion factor for the SO2 NAAQS, the modeled design values for the Beaver Area are less than 75 ppb as shown in Table 5 below.8 EPA's analysis of the modeling is discussed in more detail in EPA's modeling TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681. EPA proposes to conclude that the modeling provided in the attainment plan shows that the Beaver Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date and proposes to approve the attainment demonstration.

    8 The SO2 NAAQS level is expressed in ppb but AERMOD gives results in micrograms per meter cubed (μg/m3). The conversion factor for SO2 (at the standard conditions applied in the ambient SO2 reference method) is 1ppb = approximately 2.619 μg/m3. See Pennsylvania's SO2 Round 3 Designations Proposed Technical Support Document at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/35_pa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.

    D. RACM/RACT

    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a state determines to be both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable “for existing sources in the area.” In addition, CAA section 172(c)(6) requires plans to include enforceable emission limitations and control measures as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment by the attainment date.

    Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal discusses federal and state measures that will provide emission reductions leading to attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. With regards to state rules, Pennsylvania cites its low sulfur fuel rules, which were SIP-approved on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39330). Pennsylvania's low sulfur fuel oil provisions apply to refineries, pipelines, terminals, retail outlet fuel storage facilities, commercial and industrial facilities, and facilities with units burning regulated fuel oil to produce electricity and domestic home heaters. These low sulfur fuel oil rules reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel oils used in combustion units, thereby reducing SO2 emissions and the formation of sulfates that cause decreased visibility.

    Pennsylvania's attainment plan submittal discusses facility closures and facility-specific control measures. Pennsylvania's submittal indicates that two of the three largest sources in the Beaver Area were permanently shut down prior to January 2, 2017. The Horsehead facility closed in the spring of 2014 and has been demolished. AES Beaver Valley was a coal fired power plant that permanently shut down in the fall of 2015. Appendix A of the state submittal includes PADEP's approval letters of Emission Reduction Credits for these facilities which indicate permanent facility closure. The Jewel Facility is currently idled and has agreed in a Consent Order and Agreement with PADEP that its Meltshop cannot emit any SO2 emissions unless additional modeling is done to support attainment and new SO2 emissions limitations are established for the SIP as necessary. This restriction is established in a COA (see Appendix C of the September 29, 2017 submittal) between PADEP and the Jewel Facility which PADEP seeks to have incorporated by reference into the SIP, thereby making it permanently federally enforceable under the CAA. In addition to these actual emission reductions in the Area of 5,100.554 tpy, new SO2 emission limits were developed through air dispersion modeling (AERMOD) submitted by PADEP as discussed below, and in section IV.C. Air Quality Modeling of this proposed rulemaking as well as in the modeling TSD.

    In order to ensure that the Beaver Area demonstrates attainment with the SO2 NAAQS, PADEP asserts that the following combination of emission limits at the Bruce Mansfield Facility are sufficient for the Beaver Area to meet the SO2 NAAQS and serve as RACM/RACT. For the Bruce Mansfield Facility, the new emission limits are established in a COA (see Appendix C of the September 29, 2017 submittal) between PADEP and FirstEnergy for the Bruce Mansfield Facility, which PADEP has also submitted for incorporation into the SIP as permanently federally enforceable limits under the CAA.

    The Facility's SO2 emission sources include three coal-fired boilers (Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3) that were included in the air dispersion modeling. The SO2 emissions from each of the three boilers are controlled by three individual Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems. Unit 1 and Unit 2 each vent through two flues within a common stack. Unit 3 vents through two flues in the other stack. To demonstrate compliance with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, FirstEnergy requested that the Unit 1 and Unit 2 combined emission limit be established as a function of the Unit 3 emission limit. On and after October 1, 2018, FirstEnergy shall begin calculating a pound per hour (lb/hr) 30-operating day rolling average SO2 emission rate for Unit 1 (Source ID 031) and Unit 2 (Source ID 032) from Chimney 1 (Stacks S01-S04), and a lb/hr 30-operating day rolling average SO2 emission rate for Unit 3 (Source ID 033) from Chimney 2 (Stacks S05 and S06), using data from the PADEP-certified Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) at the Bruce Mansfield Facility. The 30-operating day rolling average SO2 emissions rates shall be calculated using the procedures outlined in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulations in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. The 30-operating day rolling average SO2 emissions rate for Units 1 and 2 cannot exceed the result of equation one (EQ-1), below, with Chimney 1 (CH1) and Chimney 2 (CH2) in service, calculated daily. In addition, the 30-operating day rolling average emissions rate cannot exceed 7,362 lb/hr for Units 1 and 2 combined. The 30-operating day rolling average SO2 emissions rate cannot exceed 3,584 lb/hr for Unit 3. The results of EQ-1 are only valid when Unit 3 emissions are less than or equal to 3,584 lb/hr.

    EQ-1: CH1SO2 Lim = −1.38E-04 × CH2SO2 2 − 0.920 × CH2SO2 + 7100 Where: CH1SO2 Lim: Chimney 1 SO2 lb/hr 30-day rolling average Limit CH1SO2 Lim ≤7,362 lb/hr CH2SO2: Chimney 2 SO2 lb/hr 30-day rolling average. CH2SO2 ≤3,584 lb/hr

    Also, FirstEnergy is required by the COA to use its PADEP-certified CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the new emission restrictions as detailed in the COA (Paragraph 3.a. of the COA). In accordance with the current version of PADEP's Continuous Source Monitoring Manual, FirstEnergy is required by the COA to continue to provide quarterly reports of emissions data as recorded by the CEMS to PADEP.

    Additionally, FirstEnergy shall achieve as detailed in the COA at least a 95% removal efficiency from the FGDs following the general requirements contained in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139.11. FirstEnergy shall annually test for removal efficiency of the FGDs by using a combination of CEMS data and coal sampling in accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 19. Three test runs shall be conducted concurrently in the two flues that feed each unit during the annual tests. Each test run shall be a minimum of sixty minutes in duration. A report of the efficiency test shall be provided annually to PADEP. The first report shall be submitted within one (1) year of the final execution of this COA and annually thereafter. FirstEnergy shall maintain records of the operation of and emissions monitoring from the FGDs, including the annual efficiency report.

    The auxiliary boilers located at the Bruce Mansfield Facility are limited by an existing federally enforceable operating permit to a capacity factor of less than 5% in any 12-consecutive month period. PADEP stated this existing federally enforceable limitation has reduced the potential to emit SO2 to levels at which additional SO2 controls are not feasible. Thus PADEP concluded the permit restrictions are RACM and no further control is needed from these auxiliary boilers for the Area to attain the NAAQS or to reflect RACT from these boilers. EPA finds Pennsylvania's conclusion for the auxiliary boilers reasonable given the existing permit limitations and low potential to emit SO2.

    Operating restrictions are also placed on the Jewel Facility as RACM/RACT. To ensure that the Beaver Area will demonstrate attainment with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the Jewel Facility has agreed to conditions in a COA which specifies zero SO2 emissions from the Meltshop, which is the Jewel Facility Source ID 106. Other SO2 emission sources at the facility were addressed in the modeling analysis as part of the “background” sources as discussed in section V. C. of this notice. The COA also requires additional modeling and SO2 emission limitations for the SIP as necessary to assure attainment before the Jewel Facility would be able to operate the Meltshop. EPA is proposing here to approve the requirement for zero emissions from the Meltshop as RACM/RACT; any authorization of nonzero emissions from this Meltshop source would need to be subject to EPA review as a SIP revision with required modeling analysis showing continued attainment of the NAAQS.

    Based on the modeling analysis discussed in section V.C. Air Quality Modeling above, the collective emission limits and related compliance parameters for the Bruce Mansfield Facility, along with the operating restrictions at the Jewel Facility, have been proposed as RACM/RACT and for incorporation into the SIP, therefore making them federally enforceable. PADEP asserts that this proposed control strategy as demonstrated by the modeling analysis is sufficient for the Beaver Area to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    To establish the emission limit equation (EQ-1) described earlier in this section, Pennsylvania conducted a modeling analysis that included eleven modeling runs, supplemented with six additional modeling runs performed by FirstEnergy, to determine the range of emission rates for the three Units at the Bruce Mansfield Facility that provide for attainment. In each of these runs, the model demonstrates that the respective set of hourly emissions would result in the 5-year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum hourly SO2 concentrations below the level of the 1-hour NAAQS. The modeling results are presented in Table 5.

    Table 5—Summary of Air Dispersion Modeling Results for FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield 1-Hour SO2 Modeled Emission Values Model run Unit 1 & unit 2 combined
  • 1-hour SO2 rate
  • (lb/hr)
  • Unit 3
  • 1-hour SO2 rate
  • (lb/hr)
  • Maximum modeled
  • 1-hour SO2
  • design concentration
  • (µg/m3)
  • 1 10,282.70 0.00 196.17563 2 9,254.43 761.19 196.18089 3 8,226.16 1,482.72 196.17966 1FE * 7,484.24 2,006.14 196.18033 4 7,197.89 2,206.62 196.17977 2FE * 6,765.97 2,507.57 196.14426 5 6,169.62 2,885.44 196.18044 3FE * 5,952.47 3,009.17 196.07897 6 5,141.35 3,469.90 196.17912 4FE * 5,051.66 3,510.68 196.11106 7 4,113.08 3,985.46 196.17974 5FE * 4,015.93 4,012.20 196.04158 8 3,084.81 4,407.53 196.18032 6FE * 2,857.18 4,513.72 196.10031 9 2,056.54 4,743.88 196.18082 10 1,028.27 4,956.43 196.18081 11 0.00 5,041.58 196.17832 * FirstEnergy model run.

    FirstEnergy developed adjustment factors to convert the 1-hour emission rates (Table 5) to comparably stringent 30-operating day emission rates for each unit at the Bruce Mansfield Facility. To do this, historic operating data for 2012-2016 from EPA's Clean Air Markets Database (CAMD) were used in accordance with the methods EPA recommended in Appendix C and Appendix D of EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. The SO2 emission limit adjustment factor was calculated as 0.59 for Unit 1, 0.717 for Unit 2, and 0.794 for Unit 3. The adjustment factor for Unit 2 was applied to Unit 1 as First Energy deemed it a more representative correction factor for Unit 1. It was noted in Pennsylvania's submittal that Unit 2's hourly emissions have a tendency to be higher more frequently than Unit 1. Given this fact, Pennsylvania asserted that applying the adjustment factor developed for Unit 2 (higher frequency of higher emissions) to Unit 1 will continue to protect the NAAQS. EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Guidance allows for using a unit more representative of planned operations going forward under the newly established emission limits stating “. . . data from other sources of comparable source type, size, operation, fuel, and control type may be more useful for these comparisons.” In addition, Unit 2's adjustment factors of 0.717 is very similar to the average adjustment factor for 30-day emission values (0.71) listed in Appendix D of EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Guidance for sources with wet scrubbers (the same control technology that Unit 1 and 2 have in place). For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to utilize 0.717 as the adjustment factor for Unit 1.

    The unit specific adjustment factors (0.717 for Units 1 and 2, and 0.794 for Unit 3) were multiplied by the 1-hour modeled emission rates shown in Table 5, resulting in the corresponding 30-day average emission rates shown in columns three and five in Table 6. These corresponding 30-day average emission rates show a series of 30-day average limits for Units 1 and 2 combined emissions and for Unit 3 emissions, respectively. Pennsylvania then determined an equation (EQ-1), identified above, that can be used to interpolate additional combinations of emissions that would also result in attainment.

    Table 6 addresses the relationship between the modeling results and Pennsylvania's emission limit in particular addressing whether the modeling demonstrates that Pennsylvania's compliance equation provides for attainment throughout the range of possible combinations of allowable emissions. For each model run, Table 6 shows the modeled emission rates for Units 1 + 2 (reflecting the sum of emissions from the two units) and for Unit 3, along with the corresponding 30-day average emission rates. EPA calculated the sixth column of Table 6 by plugging in the Unit 3 30-day average emission rates (from the fifth column, Table 6) into the equation, and determining the limit for Units 1 and 2. In three cases, the entry in the sixth column is “Disallowed,” because the emission rate for Unit 3 is higher than the 30-operating day average limit (3,584 lbs/hr) that independently applies to Unit 3. An important feature of Table 6 is that the limit on the sum of emissions from Units 1 and 2 computed using the equation (EQ-1), in all cases is lower than the 30-day average sum of Units 1 and 2 emissions that was calculated as comparably stringent to the modeled 1-hour sum of Units 1 and 2 emissions. For a full range of cases, Pennsylvania demonstrated that its equation required a level of emissions that is lower than the level (adjusted to reflect comparable stringency) demonstrated to result in attainment. In other words, the equation (EQ-1) used to calculate the 30-day average limits is slightly more stringent than the comparably stringent adjusted 30-day average limits. By this means, Pennsylvania demonstrated that the compliance equation that it adopted, supplemented by independent limits on the emissions of Unit 3 and on the sum of emissions from Units 1 and 2, provides for attainment.

    Table 6—FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield 30-Day Average SO2 Emission Limits Model run Modeled
  • emissions
  • for units
  • 1 + 2
  • (lb/hr)
  • Corresponding
  • 30-day
  • average
  • emissions
  • for units
  • 1 + 2
  • (lb/hr) **
  • Modeled
  • emissions
  • for unit 3
  • (lb/hr)
  • Corresponding
  • 30-day
  • average
  • emissions
  • for unit 3
  • (lb/hr) **
  • 30-day
  • average SO2
  • limit for
  • units 1 + 2
  • based on
  • 30-day
  • average
  • equivalent
  • to modeled
  • unit 3
  • emissions
  • (lb/hr) ***
  • 1 10,282.70 7,372.70 0.00 0.00 7100.0 2 9,254.43 6,635.43 761.19 604.38 6493.6 3 8,226.16 5,898.16 1,482.72 1,177.28 5825.6 1FE * 7,484.24 5,366.20 2,006.14 1,592.88 5284.4 4 7,197.89 5,160.89 2,206.62 1,752.06 5064.5 2FE * 6,765.97 4,851.20 2,507.57 1,991.01 4721.2 5 6,169.62 4,323.62 2,885.44 2,291.04 4267.9 3FE * 5,952.47 4,267.92 3,009.17 2,389.28 4114.1 6 5,141.35 3,686.35 3,469.90 2,755.10 3517.8 4FE * 5,051.66 3,622.04 3,510.68 2,787.48 3463.3 7 4,113.08 2,949.08 3,985.46 3,164.46 2806.8 5FE * 4,015.93 2,879.42 4,012.20 3,185.69 2768.7 8 3,084.81 2,211.81 4,407.53 3,499.58 2190.3 6FE * 2,857.18 2,048.60 4,513.72 3,583.89 2030.3 9 2,056.54 1,474.54 4,743.88 3,766.64 Disallowed 10 1,028.27 737.27 4,956.43 3,935.41 Disallowed 11 0.00 0.00 5,041.58 4,003.01 Disallowed * FirstEnergy model run. ** Corresponding 30-day average emission rates were calculated by multiplying the modeled 1-hour emission rates from Table 5 by PADEP's adjustment ratios (0.717 for Units 1 and 2; 0.794 for Unit 3). *** The limit that would result from the compliance equation (EQ-1) using the Unit 3 30-operating day average emission rate that corresponds to the modeled 1-hour rate (from fifth column of this table).

    EPA's guidance for longer term average limits states that plans based on such limits can be considered to provide for attainment where appropriate as long as the longer term limit is comparably stringent to the 1-hour limit that would otherwise be set, and as long as EPA can have reasonable confidence that occasions of emissions above the CEV will be limited in frequency and magnitude. To address this latter criterion, Pennsylvania has provided an analysis of historic emissions, assessing the frequency of elevated emissions. This analysis used 2012-2016 CAMD data. Pennsylvania established a limit based on an equation involving the emissions from multiple units. The equation was derived from the modeled CEV values (from Table 5). These values were used to develop a polynomial equation which was plotted on a graph and compared to the 2012-2016 CAMD data. This comparison demonstrates that during 2012-2016, the Bruce Mansfield Facility only exceeded the 1 hour emissions formula for 0.50% of the hours.9 PADEP's CEV analysis is provided in an excel spreadsheet in the Docket at www.regulations.gov.

    9 Appendix E-1 of Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal included a statement that “[p]rior to the implementation of the new emissions limits associated with the 2010 standard, the occasions when emissions have exceeded the proposed CEVs have been relatively few. In fact, it has only occurred 13% of the time during the period of 2012-2016.” Pennsylvania submitted a correction to this statement and the corresponding emissions analysis on June 11, 2018 via email which is included in Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681. EPA has reviewed the correction and agrees with the assessment.

    Accordingly, EPA believes that PADEP has demonstrated that its limit for the Bruce Mansfield facility will assure that occasions of emissions exceeding critical levels will be limited. More generally, EPA believes that PADEP has met EPA's recommended criteria for longer term average limits and believes that the emission limits proposed by PADEP for the Bruce Mansfield Facility will provide reasonable assurance that the Area will attain the standard.

    Additional information on the development of the adjustment factor and limits, including statistical analyses performed to develop the limits in accordance with the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, can be found in Section IV: Control Strategies and in Appendices D and E of the Pennsylvania attainment plan submittal of September 29, 2017. These adjustment factors are reasonably consistent with the average adjustment factor identified in Appendix D of the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance for units controlled with wet FGDs (an adjustment factor of 0.71). EPA reviewed the modeling which shows the Beaver Area attaining the NAAQS with these limits at the Bruce Mansfield Facility and reviewed the methodology used to develop the 30-operating day limits and agrees that the limits are reasonable and follow EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. EPA is proposing to approve the emission limits for the Bruce Mansfield Facility Units 1, 2 and 3 as representing RACM/RACT.

    EPA finds that the proposed SO2 control strategy at the Bruce Mansfield Facility and Jewel Facility, the only remaining significant SO2 sources in the Area after the closure of Horsehead and AES Beaver Valley, constitute RACM/RACT for sources in the Beaver Area based on the modeling analysis previously described which demonstrates the Beaver Area is projected to attain the SO2 NAAQS by the 2018 attainment date. Furthermore, with our final approval of Pennsylvania's attainment plan, the emission limits described for the three units at the Bruce Mansfield Facility and corresponding compliance parameters found in the COA for the Bruce Mansfield Facility as well as the operating restrictions on the Jewel Facility will become permanent and enforceable SIP measures to meet the requirements of the CAA. EPA proposes that Pennsylvania has satisfied the requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(6) to adopt and submit all RACM and enforceable emission limitations and control measures as needed to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable.

    E. RFP Plan

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan includes a demonstration that shows reasonable further progress (i.e., RFP) for meeting air quality standards will be achieved through generally linear incremental improvement in air quality. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part (part D) or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.” As stated originally in the 1994 SO2 Guidelines Document 10 and repeated in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA continues to believe that this definition is most appropriate for pollutants that are emitted from numerous and diverse sources, where the relationship between particular sources and ambient air quality are not directly quantified. In such cases, emissions reductions may be required from various types and locations of sources. The relationship between SO2 and sources is much more defined, and usually there is a single step between pre-control nonattainment and post-control attainment. Therefore, EPA interpreted RFP for SO2 as adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule in both the 1994 SO2 Guideline Document and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. The control measures for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS included in Pennsylvania's submittal have been modeled to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The SO2 emission reductions from the permanent shutdowns at Horsehead and AES Beaver Valley along with the COAs including specific emission limits and compliance parameters which are effective at the Bruce Mansfield Facility on October 1, 2018, and operating restrictions on the Jewel Facility effective on October 1, 2018, show the resulting emission reductions to be achieved as expeditiously as practicable for the Area. EPA guidance recommends a compliance date of January 1, 2017 for purposes of providing for a calendar year of meeting the standard, however in this plan some sources in the area did not have any emissions for several years while other sources still in operation such as the Bruce Mansfield and Jewel facilities will have new limits effective October 1, 2018. However, air quality data in this area has shown attainment of the NAAQS since 2015. Also based on air quality modeling reviewed by EPA, the new limits and shutdowns result in modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for the Beaver Area. Therefore, EPA has determined that PADEP's SO2 attainment plan for the Beaver Area fulfills the RFP requirements for the Area. EPA does not anticipate future nonattainment, or that the Area will not meet the October 4, 2018 attainment date. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan with respect to the RFP requirements.

    10 SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994. Located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

    F. Contingency Measures

    In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures are required as additional measures to be implemented in the event that an area fails to meet the RFP requirements or fails to attain the standard by its attainment date. These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to meet its attainment date, and should contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. However, SO2 presents special considerations. As stated in the final 2010 SO2 NAAQS promulgation on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520) and in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA concluded that because of the quantifiable relationship between SO2 sources and control measures, it is appropriate that state agencies develop a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement.

    The Bruce Mansfield Facility COA (see Appendix C of the September 29, 2017 submittal) contains the following measures that are designed to keep the Area from triggering an exceedance or violation of the SO2 NAAQS: (1) If the SO2 emissions from Units 1, 2 or 3 exceed 99% of the limits set forth in paragraph 3A of the COA, FirstEnergy shall, within 48 hours, begin a full system audit of Units 1, 2, and 3 SO2 controls. The audit shall document the operating parameters of the sources and their control devices and evaluate whether the units and control devices were operating effectively. If the units and/or control devices were not operating effectively, FirstEnergy shall identify corrective actions to be implemented to ensure that the limits in Paragraph 3(a) of the COA are not exceeded. Only one audit in a seven operating day period is required if SO2 emissions from Units 1, 2, and 3 exceed 99% of the limits in Paragraph 3(a) of the COA. The audit shall be documented and records maintained on site, and a report documenting the audit provided to PADEP within 45 days of completing the audit. (2) At any time after October 1, 2018, if any PADEP SO2 monitor within the Beaver Area measures a 1-hour concentration exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP will notify the Jewel Facility, Koppel, Shell, and FirstEnergy in writing. A 1-hour SO2 concentration that exceeds 75 ppb at any PADEP SO2 monitor in the Beaver Area will be a “daily exceedance.” FirstEnergy shall identify whether Unit 1, Unit 2, and/or Unit 3 were running at the time of the exceedance and within a reasonable time period leading up to the exceedance. If Unit 1, Unit 2, and/or Unit 3 were running at the time of the exceedance, and within a reasonable time period leading up to the exceedance, FirstEnergy shall perform an analysis of meteorological data on the day the daily exceedance occurred to ensure that the daily exceedance was not due to SO2 emissions from that source. The meteorological data analysis may include trajectories run at three different heights (one at stack height and two more within the boundary layer) by NOAA's Hysplit program or an equivalent program, hourly meteorological data collected at the FirstEnergy Beaver Valley nuclear power station to determine stability parameters within the river valley, and/or an analysis of Pittsburgh International Airport's radiosonde data and modeled upper air data. The overall goal of the meteorological data analysis is to investigate if emissions from the source could have potentially mixed down to the SO2 monitor measuring the exceedance. The source's finding must be submitted in writing to PADEP within 45 days of PADEP notifying FirstEnergy. These measures will be incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP upon EPA's final approval of this attainment plan.

    There is also one contingency measure pertaining to the Jewel Facility. According to the COA with the facility, if the Jewel Facility Meltshop is reactivated and if any of PADEP's monitors in the Beaver Area measure a 1-hour SO2 concentration of 75 ppb or greater, PADEP will notify the Jewel Facility both verbally and in writing. The Jewel Facility shall notify PADEP of the operational status of the Meltshop within 10 days of the notice.

    Additionally, PADEP states in its attainment plan that if PADEP identifies a 1-hour daily maximum concentration at a PADEP operated SO2 ambient air quality monitor in the Beaver Area that registers a concentration exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP would proceed with the following actions and enforcement as appropriate: (1) Within 5 business days, the PADEP Bureau of Air Quality Monitoring Division will contact the Air Resource Management Division Chief and the Southwest Regional Office (SWRO) Air Program Manager to report the monitored value. (2) Within 5 business days, SWRO staff will contact FirstEnergy and the Jewel Facility, if reactivated, to trigger the implementation of their contingency measures found in the COAs. If necessary, section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), 35 P.S. § 4004(27), authorizes PADEP to take any action it deems necessary or proper for the effective enforcement of the APCA and the rules and regulations promulgated under the APCA. Such actions include the issuance of orders (i.e., enforcement orders and orders to take corrective action to address air pollution or the danger of air pollution from a source) and the assessment of civil penalties. A more detailed description of the contingency measures can be found in section VIII of the September 27, 2017 submittal as well as in the COAs included in the submittal and included for incorporation by reference into the SIP.

    EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal includes sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the source of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for aggressive follow-up including enforcement measures within PADEP's authority under the APCA as necessary. Therefore, EPA proposes that the contingency measures submitted by Pennsylvania follow the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and meet the section 172(c)(9) requirements.

    G. New Source Review 11

    11 The CAA new source review (NSR) program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment NSR (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in undesignated areas and areas that meet the NAAQS— designated “attainment areas”—as well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS—designated “unclassifiable areas.” The NNSR program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS —“nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR program addresses construction or modification activities that do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. Together, these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. Section 173 of the CAA lays out the NNSR program for preconstruction review of new major sources or major modifications to existing sources, as required by CAA section 172(c)(5). The programmatic elements for NNSR include, among other things, compliance with the lowest achievable emissions rate and the requirement to obtain emissions offsets.

    Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a fully implemented Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program for criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, which was originally approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision pertaining to the pre-construction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania's NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). These rules provide for appropriate new source review as required by CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Beaver Area without need for modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA concludes that the Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5) for this Area.

    VI. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision, its attainment plan for the Beaver Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, an RFP plan, and contingency measures for the Beaver Area and is proposing that the Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements for NSR for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP specific SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters and control measures established for the SO2 sources impacting the Beaver Area.

    EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Beaver County meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Beaver Area as submitted on September 29, 2017. EPA's analysis for this proposed action is discussed in Section V of this proposed rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Final approval of this SIP submittal will remove EPA's duty to promulgate and implement a FIP for this Area.

    VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in a final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 40 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the portions of the COAs entered between Pennsylvania and FirstEnergy and Pennsylvania and Jewel included in the PADEP submittal of September 29, 2017 that are not redacted. This includes emission limits and associated compliance parameters, recording-keeping and reporting, and contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule, concerning the SO2 attainment plan for the Beaver nonattainment area in Pennsylvania, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 24, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21667 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Part 1152 [Docket No. EP 749; Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1)] National Association of Reversionary Property Owners—Petition for Rulemaking; Limiting Extensions of Trail Use Negotiating Periods AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board) grants in part a petition by the National Association of Reversionary Property Owners (NARPO) and opens a proceeding in Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) to consider revising regulations related to the National Trails System Act. The Board proposes to modify its regulations to limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use negotiating period to a maximum of six extensions, absent extraordinary circumstances.

    DATES:

    Comments are due by November 1, 2018; replies are due by November 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and replies may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions found on the Board's website at “www.stb.gov” at the “E-FILING” link. Any person submitting a filing in paper format should send an original and 10 paper copies of the filing to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1), 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Fancher, (202) 245-0355. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 14, 2018, NARPO filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Board consider issuing three rules related to 16 U.S.C. 1247(d), the codification of section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), Public Law 90-543, section 8, 82 Stat. 919 (1968). Specifically, NARPO asks that the Board open a proceeding to consider rules that would: (1) Limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use negotiating period to six; (2) require a rail carrier or trail sponsor negotiating an interim trail use agreement to send notice of the issuance of a Certificate of Interim Trail Use (CITU) or Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) 1 to landowners adjacent to the right-of-way covered by the CITU/NITU; and (3) require all entities, including government entities, filing a request for a CITU/NITU, or extension thereof, to pay a filing fee.

    1 As explained below, the issuance of a CITU/NITU by the Board provides time for the parties to negotiate an interim trail use arrangement. NARPO's proposed rules only refer to NITUs, but, presumably, NARPO intended to propose the same changes to CITU procedures as there are no substantive differences between CITUs (issued in an abandonment application proceeding) and NITUs (issued in an abandonment exemption proceeding).

    On July 5, 2018, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) replied in opposition to the changes proposed in NARPO's petition.2 Thereafter, late-filed letters in support of NARPO's petition were filed by the Community Council Railroad Committee, Save Taxes & Our Property (STOP), and several individuals. Comments in opposition to the petition were late-filed by the Madison County Mass Transit District (MCMTD), the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF), the City of Seattle, Wash. (City of Seattle), and the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy (RTC). RTC also requested a 30-day extension of time to respond to NARPO's petition. In the interest of compiling a complete record, the late-filed pleadings were accepted into the record, but RTC's extension request was denied. Nat'l Ass'n of Reversionary Prop. Owners—Pet. for Rulemaking, EP 749 (STB served Aug. 14, 2018).

    2 On July 23, 2018, NARPO filed a reply, which was accepted into the record. Nat'l Ass'n of Reversionary Prop. Owners—Pet. for Rulemaking, EP 749, slip op. at 1 n.1 (STB served Aug. 14, 2018).

    The Board has broad discretion when determining whether to initiate a rulemaking. See, e.g., Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913, 919 (DC Cir. 2008). After considering the petition for rulemaking and the comments received, the Board will grant NARPO's petition in part and institute a rulemaking proceeding in Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) to propose modifications to the Board's rules related to extensions of the trail use negotiating period. The Board will deny NARPO's petition with regard to its other two proposed rules. Because the Board is proposing a rule change in a separate sub-docket, the docket in Docket No. EP 749 will be closed.

    Background

    The Trails Act was established in 1968 to create a nationwide system of recreational trails. In 1983, Congress added a rail section, codified at 16 U.S.C. 1247(d). This addition to the Trails Act was the “culmination of congressional efforts to preserve shrinking rail trackage by converting unused rights-of-way to recreational trails.” Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 5 (1990). Under the Trails Act, the Board must “preserve established railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service” by prohibiting abandonment where a trail sponsor agrees to assume full managerial, tax, and legal liability for the right-of-way for use in the interim as a trail. 16 U.S.C. 1247(d); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. ICC, 850 F.2d 694, 699-702 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The statute expressly provides that “if such interim use is subject to restoration or reconstruction for railroad purposes, such interim use shall not be treated, for [any] purposes . . . as an abandonment. . . .” Section 1247(d). Instead, the right-of-way is “rail-banked,” which means that the railroad is relieved of the current obligation to provide service over the line but that the railroad (or any other approved rail service provider) may reassert control over the right-of-way to restore service on the line in the future. See Birt v. STB, 90 F.3d 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Iowa Power—Const. Exemption—Council Bluffs, Iowa, 8 I.C.C.2d 858, 866-67 (1990); 49 CFR 1152.29.3 If a line is railbanked and designated for trail use, any reversionary interests that adjoining landowners might have under state law upon abandonment are not activated. Preseault, 494 U.S. at 8; Birt, 90 F.3d at 583.

    3 The Board, and its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), has promulgated, modified, and clarified its rules to implement the Trails Act a number of times. See, e.g., Nat'l Trails System Act & R.R. Rights-of-Way, EP 702 (STB served Apr. 30, 2012); Aban. & Discontinuance of Rail Lines & Rail Transp. Under 49 U.S.C. 10903, 1 S.T.B. 894 (1996); Policy Statement on Rails to Trails Conversions, EP 272 (Sub-No. 13B) (ICC served Jan. 29, 1990); Rail Abans.—Use of Rights-of-Way as Trails—Supplemental Trails Act Procedures, 4 I.C.C.2d 152 (1987); Rail Abans.—Use of Rights-of-Way as Trails, 2 I.C.C.2d 591 (1986).

    The Trails Act is invoked when a prospective trail sponsor files a request with the Board to railbank a line that a carrier has proposed to abandon. The trail sponsor's request must include a statement of willingness to assume responsibility for management, legal liability, and payment of taxes, and an acknowledgement that interim trail use is subject to restoration of rail service at any time. 49 CFR 1152.29(a). Pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1) and (d)(1), if the railroad indicates its willingness to negotiate a railbanking/interim trail use agreement for the line, the Board will issue a CITU (in an abandonment application proceeding) or a NITU (in an abandonment exemption proceeding) for the line. The CITU/NITU grants parties a 180-day period (which can be extended by Board order) to negotiate a railbanking agreement. 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1), (d)(1); Preseault, 494 U.S. at 7 n.5; Birt, 90 F.3d at 583 (affirming the agency's authority to grant “reasonable” extensions of the Trails Act negotiating period). See also Grantwood Vill. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 95 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 1996) (ICC “was free to extend [the 180-day CITU/NITU] time period for an agreement”).

    If parties reach an agreement during the trail use negotiating period, the CITU/NITU automatically authorizes railbanking/interim trail use. Preseault, 494 U.S. at 7 n.5. Without further action from the Board,4 the trail sponsor may assume management of the right-of-way, subject to the right of a railroad to reassert control of the property for restoration or reconstruction of rail service and the terms of the agreement. 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(2), (d)(2); Birt, 90 F.3d at 583. If no railbanking/interim trail use agreement is reached by the expiration of the CITU/NITU 180-day negotiation period (and any extension thereof), the CITU/NITU authorizes the railroad to “exercise its option to fully abandon” the line by consummating the abandonment, without further action by the agency, 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1), (d)(1), provided that there are no unmet conditions imposed on the abandonment authority that must be satisfied prior to consummation. See Consummation of Rail Line Abans. That Are Subject to Historic Pres. & Other Envtl. Conditions, EP 678, slip op. at 3-4 (STB served Apr. 23, 2008).

    4 The trail sponsor and railroad are required to notify the Board that an agreement has been reached, 49 CFR 1152.29(h), but the Board's overall role under the Trails Act is limited. Citizens Against Rails-to-Trails v. STB, 267 F.3d 1144, 1151-52 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Goos v. ICC, 911 F.2d 1283, 1295 (8th Cir. 1990) (agency has “little, if any, discretion to forestall a voluntary agreement to effect a conversion to trail use”). Once the railroad and trail sponsor have reached a trail use agreement, “the Board's chief concern . . . is that the statutory railbanking conditions not be compromised and that nothing occur that would preclude a railroad's right to reassert control over the right-of-way at some future time to revive active service.” Sunflower Rails-Trails Conservancy, Inc.—Pet. for Declaratory Order—Sale of Railbanked Right-of-Way, FD 36034, slip. op. at 4 (STB served Feb. 23, 2017).

    The Board retains jurisdiction over a rail line throughout the CITU/NITU negotiating period, any period of railbanking/interim trail use, and any period during which rail service is restored. Only after a CITU/NITU is no longer in effect and the railroad has lawfully consummated its abandonment authority is the Board's jurisdiction terminated. See Section 1247(d); Hayfield N. R.R. v. Chi. & N. W. Transp. Co., 467 U.S. 622, 633 (1984). At that point, the right-of-way may revert to reversionary landowner interests, if any, pursuant to state law. Preseault, 494 U.S. at 5, 8.

    NARPO's Petition for Rulemaking and Comments Received

    Limiting CITU/NITU Extension Requests. In its petition for rulemaking, NARPO proposes that the Board limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use negotiating period to six. (NARPO Pet. 2.) NARPO identifies several proceedings in which the Board extended the 180-day trail use negotiating period for what it terms excessive periods of time (e.g., nearly 10 years). (Id. at 2-4.) NARPO argues that the Board must impose a reasonable limit on the number of extensions granted for trail use negotiations. (Id. at 4.) NARPO contends that its proposed rule calling for a maximum of six 180-day extensions strikes a reasonable balance between the time legitimately required for trail use negotiations, and the abuse of trail use procedures that results from repeated extensions over a lengthy period of time. (Id.)

    A few commenters support NARPO's proposal to limit the number of extensions granted during the trail use negotiation period. (E.g., Tomani Comments 1; Rood Comments 1.) Other commenters, however, oppose NARPO's proposal. Some argue that NARPO has failed to justify that its proposed rule is needed or to demonstrate how any of its members might be prejudiced by the extensions. (MCMTD Comments 2; City of Seattle Comments 2-3.) Others contend that the ability to extend the trail use negotiating period is critical as delays may be a result of factors not attributable to the trail sponsor (e.g., proceedings involving an Offer of Financial Assistance, delays resulting from compliance with environmental and historic preservation conditions, and carrier negotiations with salvage operators). (RTC Comments 3; City of Seattle Comments 4.) RTC argues that the Board has held that CITU/NITU extensions should be liberally granted because of the “strong Congressional policy favoring trails use/railbanking.” (RTC Comments 3.) RTC also asserts that negotiating a railbanking/interim trail use agreement is a complex undertaking, requiring the potential trail sponsor to assume extensive liabilities and long-term financial responsibilities for the management of the corridor. (RTC Comments 3.) Thus, RTC argues that NARPO's proposed limit of six extensions for NITUs would undermine the implementation and effectiveness of the federal railbanking law. (Id.) AAR also opposes NARPO's proposal, arguing (along with RTC) that the Board may evaluate NITU extension requests on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are reasonable. (AAR Comments 4, RTC Comments 4.)

    Having considered this aspect of NARPO's petition and the comments filed in this docket, the Board concludes that proposing a rule imposing limits on the availability of extensions is reasonable and warranted. The agency has granted CITU/NITU extensions liberally in the past and, at times, Trails Act negotiations have gone on for many years. The courts have noted that extensions “ad infinitum” could have the undesirable effect of “allowing the railroad to stop service without either relinquishing its rights to the easement or putting the right-of-way to productive use.” Birt, 90 F.3d at 589. While the Trails Act process (which depends on a railroad and a trail sponsor negotiating a voluntary agreement) clearly contemplates that sufficient time is needed to determine if a specific rail corridor can be railbanked, the process must also be concluded after a reasonable period of time and provide administrative finality.5 By allowing a maximum of six 180-day extensions (absent extraordinary circumstances), the Board could appropriately foster the interests of administrative efficiency and clarity by limiting negotiations to a reasonable period while still ensuring that parties also have the time required to take the many steps that may be part of the process involved in negotiating an agreement.

    5 The Board is also aware that courts have held that the timing of a CITU/NITU notice and the length of the negotiation period can potentially have impacts on takings claims proceedings. See Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015, 1024-26 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

    Notice to Landowners. In its petition, NARPO also proposes that the Board require a rail carrier or trail sponsor to “send notice” to adjoining landowners following the issuance of a CITU/NITU. (NARPO Pet. 4.) Reasserting an argument raised in several prior proceedings before the Board and the ICC, NARPO argues that effective notice of a CITU/NITU is essential for property owners to adequately protect their interests. (NARPO Pet. 5; NARPO Reply 6-7.)

    NARPO argues that it would no longer be unduly burdensome for railroads or trail sponsors to send individual notice to each adjoining landowner because, according to NARPO, practically every county in the United States now has its property records stored electronically. (NARPO Pet. 5.) NARPO concludes that a rail carrier or trail sponsor could easily search county records, or retain a title company to do so, thereby obtaining the information needed to contact adjoining landowners. (Id.) Given the supposed ease of identifying and providing individual notice to property owners, NARPO maintains that Federal Register notice and local newspaper publication are no longer sufficient. (Id.) Commenters that support NARPO's proposal ask the Board to implement the individual notice requirement and assert that such notice to landowners could be accomplished easily. (E.g., STOP Comments 1.)

    Several commenters oppose NARPO's proposal, contending that the agency has already considered and rejected similar proposals by NARPO in the past, and that locating all adjacent landowners would be time-consuming, expensive, and burdensome. (RTC Comments 4; INHF Comments 2; City of Seattle Comments 5.) They further point out that NARPO provides no support for its argument that its proposed notice requirement could be “easily” accomplished because many jurisdictions maintain computerized land records. (RTC Comments 4; City of Seattle Comments 5; MCMTD Comments 2.) Some commenters also claim that NARPO's proposed rule would be inconsistent with the Board's limited role in administering the Trails Act, and contrary to the purpose of the Trails Act, which is to encourage and facilitate interim trail use of railroad rights-of-way that would otherwise be abandoned. (AAR Comments 2; INHF Comments 2.) Some commenters further argue that the existing notice procedures are sufficient. (AAR Comments 3; MCMTD Comments 2; City of Seattle Comments 6.)

    The Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1105.12 require, in every abandonment exemption case, that the rail carrier certify that it has published a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the line is located. See Nat'l Trails Sys. Act & R.R. Rights-of-Way, EP 702, slip op. at 7 (STB served Feb. 16, 2011); see also Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. FAA, 896 F.3d 425, 435-36 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding Federal Aviation Administration satisfied notice obligation through publication in local newspapers). Such a notice of the proposed abandonment provides information about available reuse alternatives, including trail use and public use, and informs the public how it may participate in the Board proceeding. See 49 CFR 1105.12. Moreover, Federal Register notice is also provided in every abandonment proceeding. 49 CFR 1152.22(i), 1152.50(d)(3), 1152.60(a). Courts have repeatedly held that publication in the Federal Register is legally sufficient notice to all interested or affected persons regardless of actual knowledge or hardship resulting from ignorance. See Friends of Sierra R.R. v. ICC, 881 F.2d 663, 667-68 (9th Cir. 1989); Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85 (1947); Gov't. of Guam v. United States, 744 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir. 1984); Bennett v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 717 F.2d 1167, 1169 (7th Cir.1983); N. Ala. Express, Inc. v. United States, 585 F.2d 783, 787 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1978).

    The Board and the ICC previously considered similar notice proposals by NARPO. Both the Board and the ICC declined to adopt such a rule, finding that providing direct notice to adjacent landowners would be time-consuming, burdensome, and unnecessary. Nat'l Ass'n of Reversionary Prop. Owners v. STB, 158 F.3d 135 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see Nat'l Trails System Act & R.R. Rights-of-Way, EP 702, slip op. at 7-8 (STB served Feb. 16, 2011; Rail Abans.—Use of Rights-of-Way as Trails—Supplemental Trails Act Procedures, EP 274 (Sub-No. 13) (ICC served July 28, 1994). The Board finds that NARPO has not provided a sufficient basis for altering the existing notice requirements. A requirement that a rail carrier or trail sponsor identify, locate, and notify all adjacent landowners would be time-consuming and burdensome, even if electronic property records for each parcel located adjacent to the railroad right-of-way are available. Such a burdensome process could result in confusion and significant delay in the interim trail use process due to chain-of-title errors, multiple tenants-in-common, or claims by third parties against particular property owners. Further, NARPO does not support its claim that electronic property records are widely available. Therefore, the Board will not further consider this aspect of NARPO's petition.

    Filing Fees for CITU/NITU Extension Requests. NARPO requests that the Board require public entities to pay filing fees for CITU/NITU extensions, as is currently required for non-public entities. (NARPO Pet. 5.) According to NARPO, non-payment of filing fees for CITU/NITU extensions requested by public entities burdens both the Board and non-public entities. (Id.) NARPO claims that extensive waivers of filing fees unduly burden Board staff because staff incurs the same labor cost for an extension request filed by a public entity as it would for a non-public entity. (Id. at 6.) NARPO also argues that non-public entities are burdened because their filing fees are higher than they would otherwise be to account for the numerous waivers granted for public entities. (Id.)

    While some commenters support NARPO's proposal to require public entities to submit filing fees for NITU extensions (e.g., Tomani Comments 1; Rood Comments 1), others oppose it. Generally, those opposing commenters contend that, pursuant to 49 CFR 1002.2(e)(1), no other filings submitted to the Board by federal, state, or local entities require fees, and that a NITU extension should be no different. (AAR Comments 4; City of Seattle Comments 7; INHF Comments 2.) The City of Seattle and MCMTD also contend that there is no evidence that the Board raises the price for fee payers due to fee exemptions granted to government entities. (City of Seattle Comments 7; MCMTD Comments 3.) RTC further argues that NARPO has failed to articulate why requiring public agencies to pay fees would in any way protect legitimate interests of adjacent landowners or reversionary interest holders. (RTC Comments 5.) AAR submits similar comments in opposition to NARPO's proposal and states that the Board need not address NARPO's request in a rulemaking as the Board can evaluate each request for a fee waiver on its own merit. (AAR Comments 4-5.) AAR also notes that the Board has concluded that third parties have no standing to challenge the grant or denial of a party's fee waiver request because it has no bearing on the merits of that party's claims and that there is no private right of action to enforce the Independent Offices Appropriations Act, 31 U.S.C. 9701, which regulates fees collected by government agencies. See Hartwell First United Methodist Church—Adverse Aban. & Discontinuance—The Great Walton R.R., in Hart Cty., Ga., AB 1242 (STB served June 2, 2017) (citing Byers v. Intuit, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 385, 414-19 (E.D. Pa. 2008).

    The Board finds NARPO's proposal lacks merit. The Board's rules are clear that filing fees are waived for any “application or other proceeding”—including a CITU/NITU extension request—that is filed by a federal government agency, or a state or local government entity. 49 CFR 1002.2(e)(1). NARPO has failed to explain why an exception from this rule of general applicability should be made only in the CITU/NITU context. The Board evaluates each fee waiver request on its own merits and waivers do not affect the level of fees charged to other entities. See Regulations Governing Fees for Servs. Performed in Connection with Licensing & Related Servs., 1 I.C.C.2d 60, 64 (1986) (“An agency may impose a reasonable charge on recipients for an amount of work from which they benefit. The fees must be for specific services to specific persons.”).6 Therefore, the Board will not further consider this aspect of NARPO's petition.

    6 Courts have recognized that there is no private right of action to enforce the Independent Offices Appropriations Act, 31 U.S.C. 9701, which regulates fees collected by government agencies. See Hartwell, AB 1242, slip op. at 1-2 (citing Byers, 564 F. Supp. 2d at 414-19). Moreover, the Board has held that third parties have no standing to oppose the grant or denial of a party's fee waiver request, as the fee waiver has no bearing on the merits of the party's underlying application. Id. at 2.

    Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed above, and as set forth below, the Board proposes to limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use negotiating period to six, unless the requesting party can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances justify the grant of a further extension. The Board seeks comments concerning whether capping extensions at a maximum of six, with a very limited opportunity for an additional extension in extraordinary circumstances, strikes an appropriate balance between reasonably limiting the negotiating period and permitting parties enough time to finalize their negotiations.

    The Board proposes to make the new rules applicable to both new CITUs/NITUs and cases where the CITU/NITU negotiating period, or any extension thereof, has not yet expired when the rules become effective. For cases where a CITU/NITU has been issued or extended prior to the effective date of the rules—and the CITU/NITU negotiating period, or any extension, has not yet expired—parties (absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances) would be limited to a maximum of six 180-day extensions following the expiration of the initial 180-day negotiation period. For example, in a Trails Act case where two 180-day extensions have already been granted, parties would be limited to requesting a maximum of four more 180-day extensions, absent extraordinary circumstances. In such Trails Act proceedings (including those where extensions might have already have exceeded the maximum limit of six), the Board may more liberally provide additional extensions for extraordinary circumstances.7 Interested persons may comment on the proposed rule by November 1, 2018; replies to comments may be filed by November 21, 2018.

    7 Although the proposed rule would apply to new extension requests in proceedings where a current NITU may be expiring, there would be no retroactivity concern because parties have no vested right to a newly requested extension of the negotiating period. See Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 638 F.3d 794, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Each extension request is considered on its own merits.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. Sections 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,” section 605(b). Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).

    The Board's proposed changes to its regulations here are intended to improve and expedite its trail use procedures and do not mandate or circumscribe the conduct of small entities. Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction, the Board defines a “small business” as only including those rail carriers classified as Class III rail carriers under 49 CFR 1201.1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016) (with Board Member Begeman dissenting).8 The changes proposed here are largely procedural and would not have a significant economic impact on the Class III rail carriers to which the RFA applies, as participation in a negotiation under the Trails Act is voluntary for both the railroad and the trail sponsor. Therefore, the Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. The proposed rules, if promulgated, would limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use negotiating period to six extensions, absent extraordinary circumstances.

    8 Class III carriers have annual operating revenues of $20 million or less in 1991 dollars or $37,108,875 or less when adjusted for inflation using 2017 data. Class II rail carriers have annual operating revenues of less than $250 million or $463,860,933 when adjusted for inflation using 2017 data. The Board calculates the revenue deflator factor annually and publishes the railroad revenue thresholds on its website. 49 CFR 1201.1-1.

    This decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Offices of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.

    It is ordered:

    1. The Board proposes to amend its rules as set forth in this decision. Notice of the proposed rules will be published in the Federal Register.

    2. The procedural schedule is established as follows: Comments regarding the proposed rules are due by November 1, 2018; replies are due by November 21, 2018.

    3. The Board terminates the proceeding in Docket No. EP 749.

    4. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.

    5. This decision is effective on its service date.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1152

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.

    Decided: October 1, 2018.

    By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.

    Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1152 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 1152—ABANDONMENT AND DISCONTINUANCE OF RAIL LINES AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10903 1. The authority citation for Part 1152 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C. 744; and 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321(a), 10502, 10903-10905, and 11161.

    2. Amend § 1152.29 as follows: a. Add the following sentences to the end of paragraph (c)(1): “Parties may request a Board order to extend the 180-day interim trail use negotiation period. A maximum of six 180-day extensions may be granted. Requests for additional extensions beyond six are not favored and will be granted only if the requestors demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances warrant a further extension.” b. Add the following sentences to the end of (d)(1): “Parties may request a Board order to extend the 180-day interim trail use negotiation period. A maximum of six 180-day extensions may be granted. Requests for additional extensions beyond six are not favored and will be granted only if the requestors demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances warrant a further extension.”
    [FR Doc. 2018-21760 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    83 194 Friday, October 5, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Idaho (Boise, Caribou-Targhee, Salmon-Challis, and Sawtooth National Forests and Curlew National Grassland); Nevada (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest); Utah (Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, and Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forests); Wyoming (Bridger-Teton National Forest); and Wyoming/Colorado (Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland) Amendments to Land Management Plans for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability of the Draft Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Management Plan Amendments and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service has prepared the Draft Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Management Plan Amendments (LMPA) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions. This notice is announcing the opening of the comment period and the Forest Service is soliciting comments on the Draft LMPA and Draft EIS.

    DATES:

    To ensure that comments will be considered, the Forest Service must receive written comments on the Draft LMPA/Draft EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of availability of the Draft LMPA/Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The Forest Service will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public participation activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media releases, and/or mailings.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit comments via one of the following methods:

    1. Public participation portal (preferred): https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?project=52904.

    2. Mail: Sage-grouse Amendment Comment, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region, Federal Building, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401.

    3. Email: [email protected]

    4. Facsimile: 801-625-5277.

    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received online via the public reading room at: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?project=52904.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Shivik at 801-625-5667 or email [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a species that is dependent on sagebrush steppe ecosystems. These ecosystems are managed in partnership across the range of the greater sage-grouse by federal, state, and local authorities and private landowners. Efforts to conserve the species and its habitat date back to the 1950s. Over the past two decades, state wildlife agencies, federal agencies, and many others have been collaborating to conserve greater sage-grouse and its habitats.

    The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) directs the Forest Service to develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land management plans which guide management of National Forest System (NFS) lands (16 U.S.C. 1604(a)). In March 2010, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a 12 Month Finding for Petitions to List the greater sage-grouse as Threatened or Endangered (75 FR 13910). In that 12-Month Finding, the USFWS concluded that listing the greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species was “warranted, but precluded by higher priority listing actions.” The 2010 USFWS listing decision prompted a Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) joint planning effort to amend Forest Service land management plans and BLM equivalents to incorporate conservation measures to support the continued existence of the greater sage-grouse. For the Forest Service, this effort culminated in the Forest Service Greater Sage-grouse Records of Decisions (RODs) that were signed on September 16, 2015.

    On October 2, 2015, the USFWS found that listing the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act was not warranted (80 FR 59858). The USFWS based its finding on regulatory certainty from the conservation measures in the Forest Service and BLM greater sage-grouse land management plan amendments and revisions, as well as on other private, state, and federal conservation efforts.

    The plan amendments have been challenged in court. One challenge involved the designation of sagebrush focal areas between the Draft and Final EISs. On March 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to provide the public with enough information to meaningfully participate in the EIS process in the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-grouse Land Management Plan Amendment. The court ordered the Forest Service to prepare a Supplemental EIS to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the designation of sagebrush focal areas in the amendments. Western Exploration, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 250 F. Supp.3d 718, 750-751.

    Since approving the plan amendments in 2015, the Forest Service has gathered information and determined that the conservation benefits of Forest Service plans in Nevada and other states can be improved. That is, through repeated scoping, close collaboration with state and other federal agencies, and internal review, the Forest Service has identified proposed changes in the text of the greater sage-grouse plan amendments which would improve their clarity and efficiency and better align them with the Bureau of Land Management and state plans.

    The substantive requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) that are applicable to the amendments are in sections 219.8(a) and (b) (ecological and social and economic sustainability), 219.9 (diversity of plant and animal communities), and 219.10(a) (integrated resource management for ecosystem services and multiple use) have been incorporated into the proposed amendment.

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the proposed action is to incorporate new information and to improve the clarity, efficiency, and implementation of greater sage-grouse plans, including better alignment with BLM and state plans, in order to benefit greater sage-grouse conservation on the landscape scale. The need for further plan amendments is that the Forest Service has gained new information and understanding from new science, as well as having received approximately 55,000 comments from the 2017 Notice of Intent, approximately 8,700 comments from the 2018 Supplemental NOI, and comments from within-agency scoping and monitoring and from coordinating with the Western Governors' Association Sage Grouse Task Force.

    Proposed Action and Alternatives

    The Forest Service analyzed three alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not amend current land management plans. This alternative retains sagebrush focal areas and all other aspects of the plans. Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative, is the proposed action and makes modifications to the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the Preferred Alternative makes modifications to land management plans within the issue areas of: Habitat management area designation, including designating sagebrush focal areas as Priority Habitat Management Areas compensatory mitigation and net conservation gain; minerals plan components and waivers; exceptions and modifications; desired conditions; livestock grazing guidelines; adaptive management; treatment of invasive species; and changes to clarify text and eliminate errors and redundancies. Alternative 3, the State of Utah Alternative, incorporates all aspects of Alternative 2, with the addition of two additional modifications to plans within the state of Utah. Specifically, the Forest Service would remove the General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) designation from Forest Service lands in Utah and would also remove the Anthro Mountain management area from habitat management area designation on the Ashley National Forest.

    The Draft EIS analyzes the reasonably foreseeable effects of these changes. The entire text of the Draft EIS can be found on the Intermountain Region home page: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r4/home/?cid=stelprd3843381.

    Responsible Officials

    The responsible officials who would approve plan amendments are the Regional Foresters for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions.

    Public Comment Opportunity

    The public is encouraged to comment on the Draft EIS and proposed plan amendments. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

    Dated: September 6, 2018. Allen Rowley, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21619 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission Telephonic Business Meeting.

    DATES:

    Friday, October 12, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting to take place by telephone.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Walch, phone: (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to the public by telephone only.

    Participant access instructions: Listen-only, toll-free: 1-800-682-0995; Conference ID 911-9595. Please dial in 5-10 minutes prior to the start time.

    Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda II. Business Meeting A. Presentation by Louisiana Advisory Committee Chair on the Committee's recently released report, Barriers to Voting in Louisiana B. Presentation by New Mexico Advisory Committee Chair on the Committee's recently released report, Elder Abuse in New Mexico C. Presentation by Colorado Advisory Committee Member on the Committee's recently released report, Colorado Constitution's No Aid to Sectarian Institutions Clause and its Impact on Civil Rights D. Management and Operations • Staff Director's Report III. Adjourn Meeting Dated: October 3, 2018. Brian Walch, Director, Communications and Public Engagement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21910 Filed 10-3-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 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: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: 2020 Census New Construction Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.

    Form Number(s): NC-F-100.

    Type of request: Regular submission.

    Number of respondents: varies.

    Estimated number of respondents invited to the program: 32,000.

    Estimated number of respondents who review the materials: 6,550.

    Average Hours per Response: Varies.

    Program invitation: 1 hour.

    Participant material review: 47 hours.

    Burden hours: Varies.

    Program invitation: 32,000 hours.

    Participant material review: 307,850 hours.

    Stage of review Estimated number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated time per response (hours) Total estimated hour burden
    Program Invitation 32,000 1 32,000 Participant Material Review 6,550 47 307,850 Total 339,850

    Needs and Uses: The 2020 Census New Construction Program is one of the seven voluntary geographic partnership programs that collect geographic boundaries and residential addresses to update the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing database. In order to deliver questionnaires, locate residences, and tabulate statistics by localities, the Census Bureau must have accurate addresses and boundaries. The Census Bureau also uses its geographic database to link demographic data from surveys and the decennial census to locations and areas, such as cities, congressional and legislative districts, and counties.

    The census block is the geographic building block for all Census Bureau geographic boundaries. Geographic programs such as the Redistricting Data Program update the boundaries of census blocks. The addresses collected in the 2020 Local Update of Census Addresses Operation (LUCA), the New Construction Program, and other geocoding processes place households in a specific census block.

    While the geographic programs differ in requirements, time frame, and participants, the New Construction Program and the other geographic programs all follow the same basic process:

    1. The Census Bureau invites eligible participants to the program.

    2. If they elect to participate in the program, participants receive program materials, in this case, respondent guides, address templates, spatial data in PDF or shapefile format, and/or free customized mapping software.

    3. Participants review the materials and submit their addresses in the Census Bureau's predefined format.

    4. The Census Bureau updates its address list with updates from participants.

    5. The Census Bureau uses its address list to conduct the 2020 Census and tabulate statistics.

    The purpose of the New Construction Program is to account for new housing units, group quarters (GQs), and transitory locations for which construction is in progress during or after March 1, 2018 1 and completion is expected by Census Day, April 1, 2020. The Census Bureau collects city-style addresses for the newly built housing units, GQs, and transitory locations in blocks where the Census Bureau plans to mail the 2020 Census questionnaires and households are expected to use a self-response mode to complete the census.

    1 In response to a public comment on the 60-Day Federal Register Notice (FRN), the Census Bureau will accept new addresses from respondents from March 1, 2018 instead of March 2019.

    The Census Bureau conducts LUCA and the New Construction Program as successive partnership operations to assure the completeness and accuracy of the Census Bureau's address list. These operations allow participating governments the opportunity to provide input to improve the Census Bureau's address list and to ensure accurate and complete enumeration of their communities.

    LUCA and the New Construction Program are complementary, however, there is no dependency on either program for participation in the other.

    • LUCA participants who agree to receive the address list for their jurisdiction receive Title 13 protected materials. Participants review the address list and submit their validated or revised address list to the Census Bureau between spring and summer 2018.

    • The Census Bureau processes and validates the LUCA updates using a combination of independent address sources, such as the United States Postal Service's list of delivery addresses or the 2020 Census Address Canvassing operation. Upon completion of the LUCA address validations by April of 2019, the Census Bureau provides address-level feedback to partners, allowing them to appeal any determination made by the Census Bureau to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) LUCA Appeals Office.

    • In April 2019, the Census Bureau invites tribal, state, and local governments to designate a New Construction liaison to participate in the program. The Census Bureau will publish the list of eligible governments on the New Construction Program website by fall 2018. Eligible governments have addresses in areas of the country where the Census Bureau plans for a self-response enumeration strategy. The addresses in these areas are primarily city-style and mailable formats. The Census Bureau confines the scope of the New Construction Program to the submission of addresses for newly constructed living quarters that began or will begin construction in the year leading up to the census. Between September and October 2019,2 tribal, state, and local governments identify addresses for housing units, GQs, and transitory locations for which construction is in progress during or after March 1, 2018 and that are expected to be closed to the elements (final roof, windows, and doors) and therefore potentially inhabitable by Census Day, April 1, 2020. No other updates, including streets or boundaries, will be accepted.

    2 The Census Bureau updates the New Construction schedule in the 30-Day FRN. In the previously published 60-Day FRN, participants were expected to complete this stage between June and August 2019.

    Through the New Construction Program, the Census Bureau improves the accuracy and completeness of the address list used to conduct the 2020 Census by utilizing the local knowledge of tribal, state, and local governments. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-430) strengthened the Census Bureau's partnership capabilities with participating governments by expanding the methods the Census Bureau uses to collect address information from participants.

    The New Construction Program does not provide Title 13 protected addresses to participants, however, when participants submit address data for new housing to be included in the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will protect the submitted data under Title 13, U.S.C. Section 9, which provides for the confidential treatment of census-related information, including individual address and structure coordinates. Participation in the New Construction Program is voluntary.

    The New Construction Program includes four phases:

    1. New Construction Program Invitation Phase.

    2. New Construction Program Participant Review Materials.

    3. New Construction Program Address Updates.

    4. Closeout.

    New Construction Program Invitation Phase

    The Census Bureau will mail the New Construction Program invitation letter and registration form in April 2019 to approximately 32,000 eligible participants that include federally recognized American Indian tribal governments with reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands, states, and local governments. Based on the 2010 Census New Construction Program, the Census Bureau estimates 6,550 out of the 32,000 invited governments will participate. To participate, interested governments must designate a New Construction liaison and respond to the invitation package by completing and returning the registration form to the Census Bureau by July 19, 2019. Participants must also identify the format of the maps or spatial data that they wish to receive from the Census Bureau.

    The Census Bureau collects the registration form from the government that wants to participate in the program and/or the reasons for non participation from those who cannot participate. Additionally, the Census Bureau collects the contact information of the official responding to the New Construction invitation and the person designated as the liaison. To prepare and submit their list of addresses, the New Construction Program liaisons can opt to receive:

    • The Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) and/or Census Bureau spatial data (downloadable or on CD/DVD).

    • Reference PDF maps on CD/DVD.

    Participants may also use their own software to create a computer-readable list of addresses in the prescribed format. Participants use the Census Bureau provided maps or spatial data as a reference for assigning census tract and block codes (geocodes) for each submitted address. The estimated time burden for the invitation stage is one hour per participant.

    New Construction Program Participant Review Materials

    In September 2019, the Census Bureau will deliver review materials to registered governments. New Construction liaisons will receive the materials in the format that they selected on the registration form. Participating governments are required to submit full address data for qualifying structures, including individual unit numbers for multiunit structures (e.g., Apt. 1, Apt. 2, Unit 1, and Unit 2), and geographic information such as the census tract and block numbers, or geographic coordinates.

    The typical New Construction Program Participant Review Materials package contains the following:

    • Cover Letter.

    • Address List Template.

    • GUPS Quick Start Guide.

    • Digital Quick Start Guide.

    • GUPS Digital Respondent Guide.

    • Digital Respondent Guide.

    • Read-me.txt file for GUPS.

    • Read-me.txt file for Digital.

    • Partnership Shapefiles.

    Participants must submit their New Construction Program address list to the Census Bureau within 45 calendar days of receipt of the New Construction Program review materials. The New Construction Program addresses must be returned in the Census Bureau's predefined format, and each address must be geocoded or assigned to the census tract and block in which it is located as shown on the New Construction Program PDF or digital (shapefile) maps. This stage occurs in September 2019. The average estimated time burden to review, add, and submit the New Construction Program address list to the Census Bureau is 47 hours per participant.

    New Construction Program Address Updates

    From September through November 2019, the Census Bureau processes all files received from participants. Files that are submitted in the proper format and contain addresses with complete geocoding data are compared with the Census Bureau's census address list, extracted from the Master Address File. The Census Bureau verifies whether the addresses received were already in the Master Address File and mails decennial census forms to any participant-supplied addresses that were not in the census address list. The census enumeration process determines the final housing unit status and population for each unit.

    Closeout

    The Census Bureau provides a closeout email to governments that registered to participate and provided updates. Participating governments will not receive detailed feedback from the Census Bureau. In addition, the Census Bureau sends a thank you email or letter to governments that provided updates after the deadline. This documentation notifies them of the receipt of their submission but also informs the governments that the Census Bureau cannot use the submission for the New Construction Program. Closeout occurs between December 2019 and January 2020.

    Affected Public: Tribal, state, and local governments.

    Frequency: Once a decade.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C., Section 141(a).

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.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.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21698 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Chemical Weapons Convention Provisions of the Export Administration Regulations

    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: Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Title: Chemical Weapons Convention Provisions of the Export Administration Regulations.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0117.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 42.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 70.

    Estimated Time per Response: 36 Minutes.

    Needs and Uses: The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is a multilateral arms control treaty that seeks to achieve an international ban on chemical weapons (CW). The CWC prohibits, the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and direct or indirect transfer of chemical weapons. This collection implements the following export provision of the treaty in the Export Administration Regulations:

    Schedule 1 notification and report: Under Part VI of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to notify the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international organization created to implement the CWC, at least 30 days before any transfer (export/import) of Schedule 1 chemicals to another State Party. The United States is also required to submit annual reports to the OPCW on all transfers of Schedule 1 Chemicals.

    Schedule 3 End-Use Certificates: Under Part VIII of the CWC Verification Annex, the United States is required to obtain End-Use Certificates for exports of Schedule 3 chemicals to States that are not Party to the CWC to ensure the exported chemicals are only used for the purposes not prohibited under the Convention.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. 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].

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21696 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 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: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Annual Capital Expenditures Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0782.

    Form Number(s): ACE-1(S), ACE-1(M), ACE-1(L), ACE-2.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 70,127.

    Average Hours per Response: 2 hours and 16 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 159,134.

    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2018 through 2020 Annual Capital Expenditures Survey (ACES). This survey collects data on fixed assets and depreciation, sales and receipts, capitalized computer software, and capital expenditures for new and used structures and equipment. The ACES is the sole source of detailed comprehensive statistics on actual business spending for private non-farm companies, organizations, and associations operating in the United States. Both employer and nonemployer companies are included in the survey.

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis is the primary Federal user of ACES data. BEA relies on ACES data to refine and evaluate annual estimates of investment in structures and equipment in the national income and product accounts, compile annual input-output tables, and compute gross domestic product by industry. The Federal Reserve Board uses these data to improve estimates of investment indicators for monetary policy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses these data to improve estimates of capital stocks for productivity analysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services use these data for developing estimates of investment in private health care structures and equipment as a part of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. Industry analysts use these data for market analysis, economic forecasting, identifying business opportunities, product development, and business planning.

    Planned changes from the previous ACES are the elimination of detailed capital expenditures by type of structure and type of equipment. These data are collected in years ending in -2 and -7, concurrently with the Economic Census. They are not in scope of this notice, which covers ACES data collection for 2018 through 2020.

    The Census Bureau also plans to add questions on the dollar value of new and used robotics expenditures beginning with the 2018 survey. These questions will gauge prevalence of robotics use by detail North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 131 and 182.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.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.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21697 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-61-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone 29—Louisville, Kentucky; Application for Subzone, United Parcel Service, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, requesting subzone status for the facility of United Parcel Service, Inc (UPS), located in Louisville, Kentucky. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on October 1, 2018.

    The proposed subzone (176 acres) is located at 8100 Air Commerce Drive, Louisville. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 14, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 29, 2018.

    A copy of the application 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 FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21724 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Procedures for Submitting Rebuttals and Surrebuttals Requests for Exclusions From and Objections to the Section 232 National Security Adjustments of Imports of Steel and Aluminum AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security. U.S. Department of 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 December 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 6616, 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 Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    On September 11, 2018, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a second interim final rule, Revisions to the Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamations Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States and Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States; and the filing of Objections to Submitted Exclusion Requests for Steel and Aluminum. This second interim final rule that was published by BIS, on behalf of the Secretary, made changes to the two supplements added in the March 19 rule: Supplement No. 1 to Part 705—Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 Adjusting Imports of Steel Articles into the United States; and to Supplement No. 2 to Part 705—Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 to Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States.

    This collection of information gives U.S. Companies the opportunity to submit rebuttals to objections received on posted exclusion requests and also allows U.S. companies the opportunity to submit surrebuttals for objections they submitted that receive rebuttals under the Section 232 exclusion process.

    Adding a rebuttal and surrebuttal process is an important step in further improving the exclusion request and objection process for requesting exclusions from the remedies instituted by the President. These voluntary rebuttals and surrebuttals will allow the U.S. Government to better evaluate whether an exclusion request should be granted based on the information provided in an exclusion request and taking into account any objections to a submitted exclusion request, rebuttals, and surrebuttals. Many commenters on the March 19 rule, referenced above, requested the Department make this type of a change to ensure that the process was fair and the Department had all of the relevant information when an objection to an exclusion request received a rebuttal or a surrebuttal was received.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted Electronically.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0141.

    Form Number(s): 0694-0141.

    Type of Review: Regular Submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 62,823.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 62,823.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Presidential Proclamations 9704 and 9705.

    This information collection request may be viewed on the U.S. Department of Commerce website and the Department's responses to clause to exclusion requests at reginfo.gov http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    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.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21695 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-878] Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on the affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing a countervailing duty order (CVD) on stainless steel flanges from India.

    DATES:

    Applicable October 5, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan Mullen or Chelsey Simonovich, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5260 or (202) 482-1979, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on August 16, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of stainless steel flanges from India.1

    1See Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 FR 40748 (August 16, 2018) (Final Determination) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    On September 28, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determination, pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from India.2 Further, the ITC determined that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of stainless steel flanges from India.

    2See Letter to Gary Taverman, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from David S. Johanson, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding Stainless Steel Flanges from India (September 28, 2018) (ITC Letter).

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is stainless steel flanges from India. For a complete description of the scope of this order, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Countervailing Duty Order

    As stated above, on September 28, 2018, in accordance with sections 705(b)(1)A(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of stainless steel flanges from India.3 Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing this countervailing duty order. Because the ITC determined that imports of stainless steel flanges from India are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from India, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to assessment of countervailing duties.

    3See ITC Letter.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of stainless steel flanges from India. Countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after January 23, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.4

    4See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Affirmative and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 83 CFR 3118 (January 23, 2018) (Preliminary Determination) and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. However, as described further below, countervailing duties will not be assessed on merchandise entered, or withdrawn for consumption, during the period of time between the expiration of provisional measures and the publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of stainless steel flanges from India, as further described below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the subsidy rates listed below.5 The all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed below, as appropriate.

    5See section 706(a)(3) of the Act.

    Company Subsidy
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Bebitz Flanges Works Private Limited 256.16 Echjay Forgings Private Limited 4.92 All Others 4.92
    Provisional Measures

    Section 703(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination on January 23, 2018. As such, the four-month period beginning on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination ended on May 22, 2018. Furthermore, section 707(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of the publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act and our practice, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after May 22, 2018, the date the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

    Critical Circumstances

    With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of stainless steel flanges from India, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated countervailing duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise ordered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 25, 2017 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination), but before January 23, 2018 (i.e., the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to stainless steel flanges from India pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The term “stainless steel” used in this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess the approximate shape of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial forging or like operations. These machining processes may include, but are not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are unfinished stainless steel flanges that have undergone some machining processes. The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2) threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind, generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5 and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A351.

    The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if performed in the country of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges.

    Merchandise subject to the order is typically imported under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). While HTS subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-21732 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-908] Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Applicable October 5, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christian Llinas, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4877.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 19, 2008, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on SHMP from China.1 On June 1, 2018, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on SHMP from China, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On June 8, 2018, Commerce received a notice of intent to participate from ICL Specialty Products, Inc. and Innophos, Inc. (collectively, the Petitioners) as domestic interested parties, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).3

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 14772 (March 19, 2008) (Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 83 FR 25436 (June 1, 2018).

    3See Petitioners' Letter, “Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China: Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated June 8, 2018.

    On July 2, 2018, we received a complete substantive response for the review from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).4 We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties with respect to the order covered by this sunset review, nor was a hearing requested. Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce is conducting an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order.

    4See Petitioners' Letter, “Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP) from China: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review of the Antidumping Order,” dated July 2, 2018.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is SHMP. For a complete description of the scope of this order, see the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.5

    5See Memorandum, “Second Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order was revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Results of Sunset Review

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on SHMP from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be the weighted-average dumping margins up to the following weighted-average dumping margin: 188.05.

    Notification to Interested Parties

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

    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: September 28, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. History of the Order V. Legal Framework VI. Discussion of the Issues 1. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping 2. Magnitude of the Margins Likely To Prevail VII. Final Results of Sunset Review VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-21730 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-067] Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).

    DATES:

    Applicable October 5, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Johnson at (202) 482-4929 or Irene Gorelik at (202) 482-6905, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On May 17, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination and invited interested parties to comment.1 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2

    1See Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 22948 (May 17, 2018) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China” (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is April 1, 2017, through September 30, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are forged steel fittings from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” at Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    During the course of this investigation and the concurrent investigations of forged steel fittings from China (CVD), Italy and Taiwan, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 3 and a Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 to address these comments. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttals submitted to the records of this investigation and the concurrent investigations of forged steel fittings from China (CVD), Italy and Taiwan for consideration in the final determinations, and our accompanying discussion and analysis of them, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum, issued on July 23, 2018, concurrent with the final determination in the LTFV investigation of forged steel fittings from Taiwan.5 See Appendix I for the final scope of the investigation.

    3See Memorandum to the File, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated March 7, 2018 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    4See Memorandum to the File, “Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,” dated May 7, 2018 (Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    5See Memorandum, “Forged Steel Fittings from China, Italy and Taiwan: Final Scope Determination Decision Memorandum,” dated July 23, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum); see also, Memorandum to the File, “Placing Carbon Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fitting Scope Information Ruling on the Record,” dated September 19, 2018.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    For the final determination Commerce continues to rely upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences (AFA), for the China-wide entity, including the single entity comprising Jiangsu Haida Pipe Fittings Group Company Ltd., Haida Pipe Co., Ltd., and Yancheng L&W International Co., Ltd. (collectively, Haida), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Separate Rates

    For the final determination, we continue to find that 15 exporters are entitled to a separate rate, as noted below. In the Preliminary Determination, we assigned, as the separate rate, the margin calculated for Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co., Ltd. (Both-Well), the sole mandatory respondent for which we preliminarily calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin, consistent with our practice.6 For the final determination, we continue to assign the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Both-Well to the exporters that are entitled to a separate rate.

    6See Preliminary Determination, 82 FR at 22949-22950, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 15-16.

    China-Wide Entity

    For the final determination, we continue to find that the China-wide entity, which includes certain Chinese exporters and/or producers that did not respond to Commerce's requests for information, failed to provide necessary information, failed to provide information in a timely manner, and significantly impeded this proceeding by not submitting the requested information. We also continue to find that the China-wide entity failed to cooperate. As a result, we continue to determine for the China-wide entity an estimated weighted-average dumping margin on the basis of AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. In the Preliminary Determination, Commerce based the AFA rate for the China-wide entity on the petition margin of 142.72 percent.7 For this final determination, we continue to rely on AFA in determining the rate for the China-wide entity and, as AFA, we continue to select the petition margin of 142.72 percent as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity (including Haida), as corroborated in the Preliminary Determination.

    7Id. at 22950 and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 21.

    Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, 8 Commerce stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.9

    8See Initiation Notice, 82 FR at 50618.

    9See Enforcement and Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, “Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries” (April 5, 2005) (Policy Bulletin 05.1), available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

    Final Determination

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    10 The China-wide entity includes: (1) Beijing Better Products International Ltd.; (2) Dalian Newshow Pipeline Industry Co.; (3) G&T Industry Holding Ltd.; (4) Shanxi Baolongda Forging Company Ltd.; (5) Shaanxi Fenry Flanges and Fittings Co., Ltd.; (6) Shenzhen Front Valve Co., Ltd.; (7) Qingdao Eathu Casting and Forging Co., Ltd.; (8) Gaoyou Huaxing Petroleum Pipe Manufacture Co., Ltd.; and (9) the single entity comprising Jiangsu Haida Pipe Fittings Group Company Ltd., its affiliated producer Haida Pipe Co., Ltd., and its affiliated reseller Yancheng L&W International Co., Ltd.

    Exporter Producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co., Ltd Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co., Ltd 8.00 Dalian Guangming Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd Yancheng Jiuwei Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd 8.00 Dalian Guangming Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd Yancheng Manda Pipe Industry Co., Ltd 8.00 Dalian Guangming Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd Yancheng Haohui Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd 8.00 Dalian Guangming Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd Jiangsu Haida Pipe Fittings Group Co., Ltd 8.00 Eaton Hydraulics (Ningbo) Co., Ltd Eaton Hydraulics (Ningbo) Co., Ltd 8.00 Eaton Hydraulics (Luzhou) Co., Ltd Eaton Hydraulics (Luzhou) Co., Ltd 8.00 Eaton Hydraulics (Luzhou) Co., Ltd Luzhou City Chengrun Mechanics Co., Ltd 8.00 Eaton Hydraulics (Luzhou) Co., Ltd Eaton Hydraulics (Ningbo) Co., Ltd 8.00 Jiangsu Forged Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd Jiangsu Forged Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd 8.00 Jinan Mech Piping Technology Co., Ltd Jinan Mech Piping Technology Co., Ltd 8.00 Jining Dingguan Precision Parts Manufacturing Co., Ltd Jining Dingguan Precision Parts Manufacturing Co., Ltd 8.00 Lianfa Stainless Steel Pipes & Valves (Qingyun) Co., Ltd Lianfa Stainless Steel Pipes & Valves (Qingyun) Co., Ltd 8.00 Ningbo Long Teng Metal Manufacturing Co., Ltd Ningbo Long Teng Metal Manufacturing Co., Ltd 8.00 Ningbo Save Technology Co., Ltd Ningbo Save Technology Co., Ltd 8.00 Q.C. Witness International Co., Ltd Ningbo HongTe Industrial Co., Ltd 8.00 Q.C. Witness International Co., Ltd Cixi Baicheng Hardware Tools, Ltd 8.00 Qingdao Bestflow Industrial Co., Ltd Yancheng Boyue Tube Co., Ltd 8.00 Xin Yi International Trade Co., Limited Yancheng Jiuwei Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd 8.00 Xin Yi International Trade Co., Limited Yancheng Manda Pipe Industry Co., Ltd 8.00 Xin Yi International Trade Co., Limited Yancheng Haohui Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd 8.00 Xin Yi International Trade Co., Limited Jiangsu Haida Pipe Fittings Group Co., Ltd 8.00 Xin Yi International Trade Co., Limited Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 8.00 Xin Yi International Trade Co., Limited Shanghai Lon Au Stainless Steel Materials Co., Ltd 8.00 Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd 8.00 Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd Yancheng Jiuwei Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd 8.00 Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd Yancheng Manda Pipe Industry Co., Ltd 8.00 Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd Yancheng Haohui Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd 8.00 Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd Jiangsu Haida Pipe Fittings Group Co., Ltd 8.00 Yuyao Wanlei Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co., Ltd Yuyao Wanlei Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co., Ltd 8.00 China-Wide Entity 10 142.72
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of forged steel fittings from China, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 17, 2018, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above as follows: (1) For the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third-county exporters of merchandise under consideration not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese producer/exporter combination (or the China-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of forged steel fittings, no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

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

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbon and alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings, unions, and outlets. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.

    While these fittings are generally manufactured to specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350 and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings made to these specifications.

    The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of products included in applicable standards, and does not reference an exclusive manufacturing process. Forged steel fittings are not manufactured from casting. Pursuant to the applicable specifications, subject fittings may also be machined from bar stock or machined from seamless pipe and tube.

    All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily expressed in pounds of pressure/PSI, e.g., 2,000 or 2M; 3,000 or 3M; 6,000 or 6M; 9,000 or 9M), wall thickness, and whether or not heat treated.

    Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, butt weld outlets, nipples, and all fittings that have a maximum pressure rating of 300 pounds of pressure/PSI or less.

    Also excluded are fittings certified or made to the following standards, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350 and ASTM A182:

    • American Petroleum Institute (API) 5CT, API 5L, or API 11B • Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) J476, SAE J514, SAE J516, SAE J517, SAE J518, SAE J1026, SAE J1231, SAE J1453, SAE J1926, J2044 or SAE AS 35411 • Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) certified electrical conduit fittings • ASTM A153, A536, A576, or A865 • Casing Conductor Connectors 16-42 inches in diameter made to proprietary specifications • Military Specification (MIL) MIL-C-4109F and MIL-F-3541 • International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO6150-B

    To be excluded from the scope, products must have the appropriate standard or pressure markings and/or be accompanied by documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard or pressure, e.g., “API 5CT” mark and/or a mill certification report.

    Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Changes from the Preliminary Determination IV. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Application of the Special Rule for Multinational Corporations (MNC Rule) to the Calculation for Both-Well Comment 2: Surrogate Country Selection Comment 3: Exclusion of Import Data With Quantities of Zero Comment 4: Conversion of GTA Data from FOB to CIF Basis Comment 5: Assignment of Total Adverse Facts Available to Haida Comment 6: Correction of Ministerial Error V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-21729 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-068] Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China).

    DATES:

    Applicable October 5, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Smith or Janae Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0238, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 14, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination.1 The selected mandatory respondents in this investigation are Beijing Bell Plumbing Mfg., Ltd. (Beijing Bell) and Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings, Co., Ltd. (Both-Well). In the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce aligned the final CVD determination with the final antidumping duty (AD) determination. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now October 1, 2018. On May 25, 2018, Commerce issued its Post-Preliminary Analysis.2

    1See Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 83 FR 11170 (March 14, 2018) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, “Post-Preliminary Analysis of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China,” dated May 25, 2018 (Post-Preliminary Analysis).

    A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    3See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are forged steel fittings from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    During the course of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping investigations of forged steel fittings from China, Italy, and Taiwan, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 4 and a Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 5 to address these comments. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttals submitted to the records of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping investigations of forged steel fittings from China, Italy, and Taiwan for consideration in the final determinations, and our accompanying discussion and analysis of them, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum, issued on July 23, 2018, concurrent with the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of forged steel fittings from Taiwan.6 See Appendix I for the final scope of the investigation.

    4See Memorandum to the File, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated March 7, 2018 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    5See Memorandum to the File, “Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,” dated May 7, 2018 (Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    6See Memorandum, “Forged Steel Fittings from China, Italy and Taiwan: Final Scope Determination Decision Memorandum,” dated July 23, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum); see also, Memorandum to the File, “Placing Carbon Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fitting Scope Information Ruling on the Record,” dated September 19, 2018.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in May 2018, we conducted verification of the questionnaire response submitted by Both-Well, the information submitted by the Government of China (GOC) with respect to one program (Provision of Special Bar Quality Bar for Less Than Adequate Remuneration), and the no-shipment claim submitted by Beijing Bell.7 We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and financial records, and original source documents.

    7See Commerce Memoranda, “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of the Government of the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 25, 2018 (GOC Verification Report); “Verification of Beijing Bell Plumbing Mfg., Ltd.'s Claim of No Sales of Subject Merchandise to the U.S. Market During the Period of Investigation: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 28, 2018 (Beijing Bell Verification Report); and “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings, Co., Ltd.: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China,” dated August 7, 2018 (Both-Well Verification Report).

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    Methodology

    Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e. , a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.8 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    8See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    In making this final determination, Commerce relied, in part, on facts available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. Additionally, as discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, because the GOC did not act to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for information, we drew adverse inferences, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.9 For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    9See Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, minor corrections presented at verification, and our verification findings, we made certain changes to Both-Well's subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(l)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a subsidy rate for Both-Well, a producer/exporter of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation. Based on our verification findings, we determine that the other mandatory respondent in this investigation, Beijing Bell, did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of this investigation.10 Therefore, we did not calculate a subsidy rate for Beijing Bell.

    10 See Beijing Bell Verification Report at 4-7.

    Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    In this investigation, Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Both-Well that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Because Both-Well is the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation and its calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely under section 776 of the Act, the estimated weighted-average rate calculated for Both-Well is the rate assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

    Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Company Subsidy
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings, Co., Ltd 13.41 All-Others 13.41
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after July 11, 2018, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from March 14, 2018, through July 10, 2018.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbon and alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings, unions, and outlets. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.

    While these fittings are generally manufactured to specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings made to these specifications.

    The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of products included in applicable standards, and does not reference an exclusive manufacturing process. Forged steel fittings are not manufactured from casting. Pursuant to the applicable specifications, subject fittings may also be machined from bar stock or machined from seamless pipe and tube.

    All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily expressed in pounds of pressure/PSI, e.g., 2,000 or 2M; 3,000 or 3M; 6,000 or 6M; 9,000 or 9M), wall thickness, and whether or not heat treated.

    Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, butt weld outlets, nipples, and all fittings that have a maximum pressure rating of 300 pounds of pressure/PSI or less.

    Also excluded are fittings certified or made to the following standards, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182:

    • American Petroleum Institute (API) API 5CT, API 5L, or API 11B • Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) SAE J476, SAE J514, SAE J516, SAE J517, SAE J518, SAE J1026, SAE J1231, SAE J1453, SAE J1926, J2044 or SAE AS 35411 • Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) certified electrical conduit fittings • ASTM A153, A536, A576, or A865 • Casing Conductor Connectors 16-42 inches in diameter made to proprietary specifications • Military Specification (MIL) MIL-C-4109F and MIL-F-3541 • International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO6150-B

    To be excluded from the scope, products must have the appropriate standard or pressure markings and/or accompanied by documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard or pressure, e.g. , “API 5CT” mark and/or a mill certification report.

    Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Analysis of Programs VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Provision for Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR): Appropriate Benchmark Comment 2: Provision for Special Bar Quality(SBQ) Bar for LTAR: Whether Respondent's Input Is Comparable to SBQ Bar Comment 3: SBQ Bar for LTAR: Market Distortion Analysis Comment 4: Affiliated Party Sales Comment 5: Removing Value-Added Tax (VAT) From Reported Freight Data Comment 6: Removing VAT From Reported Electricity Data Comment 7: Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Concerning Electricity VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-21734 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-449-804, A-455-803, A-560-811, A-570-860, A-822-804, A-823-809, A-841-804] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Belarus, the People's Republic of China (China), Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Applicable October 5, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keith Haynes, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5139.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 1, 2018, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the third sunset reviews of the antidumping duty Orders1 on rebar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On June 12, 2018, Commerce received notices of intent to participate from the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (a domestic interested party) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).3 RTAC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of rebar.4

    1See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001) (collectively, Orders). On August 9, 2007, Commerce suspended the antidumping duty investigation and signed a suspension agreement on rebar from Korea. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from South Korea: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 44830 (August 9, 2007).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 83 FR 25436 (June 1, 2018).

    3See letters from RTAC, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated June 12, 2018 (China NOITP); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Ukraine: Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated June 12, 2018 (Ukraine NOITP); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus: Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated June 12, 2018 (Belarus NOITP); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Indonesia: Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated June 12, 2018 (Indonesia NOITP); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia: Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated June 12, 2018 (Latvia NOITP); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Moldova: Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated June 12, 2018 (Moldova NOITP); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Poland: Notice of Intent to Participate,” dated June 12, 2018 (Poland NOITP).

    4See China NOITP at 1-2; Ukraine NOITP at 1-2; Belarus NOITP at 1-2; Indonesia NOITP at 1-2; Latvia NOITP at 1-2; Moldova NOITP at 1-2; Poland NOITP at 1-2.

    On June 12, 2018, Commerce received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested party within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).5 We did not receive any responses from respondent interested parties in these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), Commerce conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the Orders.

    5See letters from RTAC, “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from the People's Republic of China: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated July 2, 2018 (China Substantive Response); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated July 2, 2018 (Belarus Substantive Response); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Indonesia: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated July 2, 2018 (Indonesia Substantive Response); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated July 2, 2018 (Latvia Substantive Response); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Moldova: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated July 2, 2018 (Moldova Substantive Response); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Poland: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated July 2, 2018 (Poland Substantive Response); “Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Ukraine: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated July 2, 2018 (Ukraine Substantive Response).

    Scope of the Orders

    There are existing antidumping duty orders on rebar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine.6

    6See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, the People's Republic of China, and Ukraine: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 78 FR 43858 (July 22, 2012) (Second Sunset Continuation Order).

    The products covered by the Orders are all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating.

    HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in these sunset reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.7 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    7See Commerce's memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Steel concrete reinforcing bars from the People's Republic of Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Final Results of Reviews

    Pursuant to section 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the Orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 114.53 percent for Belarus, 133.00 percent for China, 71.01 percent for Indonesia, 16.99 percent for Latvia, 232.86 percent for Moldova, 52.07 percent for Poland, and 41.69 percent for Ukraine.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

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

    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CR 351.218.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21731 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-839] Forged Steel Fittings From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of forged steel fittings from Italy are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).

    DATES:

    Applicable October 5, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Bowen at (202) 482-0768 or Brian Smith at (202) 482-1766, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 17, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination and invited interested parties to comment.1 As no interested party submitted comments, we have made no changes to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in the Preliminary Determination.

    1See Forged Steel Fittings from Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 22954 (May 17, 2018) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are forged steel fittings from Italy. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” at the Appendix to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    During the course of this investigation and the concurrent investigations of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China) and Taiwan, Commerce received numerous scope comments from interested parties. Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 2 and a Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum 3 to address these comments. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttals submitted to the records of this investigation and the concurrent investigations of forged steel fittings from China and Taiwan for consideration in the final determinations, and our accompanying discussion and analysis of them, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum, issued July 23, 2018, concurrent with the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of forged steel fittings from Taiwan.4

    2See Memorandum, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated March 7, 2018 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    3See Memorandum, “Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,” dated May 17, 2018 (Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    4See Memorandum, “Forged Steel Fittings from China, Italy and Taiwan: Final Scope Determination Decision Memorandum,” dated July 23, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum); see also, Memorandum to the File, “Placing Carbon Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fitting Scope Information Ruling on the Record,” dated September 19, 2018.

    Verification

    As stated in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Officine Nicola Galperti e Figlio S.p.A. (Galperti) and Pegasus S.R.L. (Pegasus) each claimed that it did not produce or export to the United States forged steel fittings from Italy during the POI.5 Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on July 19-23, 2018, we conducted verification of these companies' claims using standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting records and original source documents. As a result of the verification, we confirmed that neither Galperti nor Pegasus produced or sold subject merchandise during the POI.6 As explained further below, mandatory respondents, M.E.G.A. S.p.A. (MEGA) and I.M.L. Industria Meccanica Ligure S.p.A. (IML), withdrew from participation in the investigation; therefore, we did not verify the information on the record with respect to either company.7

    5See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 5.

    6See Memorandum, “Verification of Officine Nicola Galperti e Figlio S.p.A.,” and Memorandum, “Verification of Pegasus S.R.L.,” both dated August 27, 2018.

    7See Letter from MEGA, “Forged Steel Fittings from Italy: Notice of M.E.G.A. S.p.A. Declining Participation in On-Site Verification,” dated July 2, 2018 (MEGA's Notice of Non-Participation); and Letter from IML, “I.M.L. S.p.A. Italy will not participate,” dated April 18, 2018 (IML's Notice of Non-Participation).

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    In the Preliminary Determination, we based the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for both MEGA and IML on facts available with an adverse inference (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a)(1), 776(a)(2)(A)-(C), and 776(b) of the Act, because those respondents failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in responding to our requests for information.8 Specifically, MEGA failed to respond fully to our requests for information regarding its reported cost reconciliation,9 and IML submitted a notice of non-participation after failing to submit sections B, C, D, and supplemental section A questionnaire responses.10 As stated in the Preliminary Determination, we provided MEGA an opportunity to remedy its deficient cost reporting, and upon receiving a complete supplemental questionnaire response, we notified MEGA that we intended to verify MEGA's information.11 However, MEGA subsequently filed a letter declining participation in the intended on-site verification.12

    8See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 5.

    9Id. at 7-8.

    10Id. at 8-9. See also IML's Notice of Non-Participation.

    11See Preliminary Determination at 83 FR 22955.

    12See MEGA's Notice of Non-Participation.

    No parties filed comments on our Preliminary Determination with respect to MEGA and IML, and there is no new information on the record that would cause us to reverse our preliminary AFA determination. With respect to MEGA, in the Preliminary Determination, we relied on sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A)-(B) of the Act because MEGA had, at that point, failed to provide an adequate cost reconciliation in response to our requests for such information. After the Preliminary Determination, as explained above, MEGA provided adequate responses to our requests for information for its cost reconciliation, but then refused to participate in verification.13 In light of MEGA's refusal to participate in verification, we now determine that selection from among the facts otherwise available is warranted under section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, because MEGA significantly impeded the proceeding by refusing to participate in verification, and section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, because MEGA provided information that could not be verified.

    13Id.

    Our finding with respect to IML remains the same as in the Preliminary Determination. No changes have been made to the record since the Preliminary Determination with regards to IML.

    Accordingly, we continue to find that the use of an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act is warranted with respect to MEGA and IML, because MEGA and IML have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with our requests for information by withdrawing from participation in the investigation. In selecting an appropriate AFA rate, we continue to assign to MEGA's and IML's entries of subject merchandise the highest dumping margin alleged in the Petition, 80.20 percent,14 which has been corroborated to the extent practicable within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.15

    14See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China, Italy, and Taiwan, Volume IV, dated October 5, 2017 (Petition); see also Letter from the petitioners, “Response to Second Supplemental Question,” dated October 17, 2017 (Petition Amendment) at Exhibit IV-18; and Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Forged Steel Fittings from Italy; A-475-839,” dated October 25, 2017 (Initiation Checklist) at 9.

    15See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at10-11.

    All-Others Rate

    As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, we assigned the simple average of the dumping margins alleged in the Petition, 49.43 percent,16 as the “All-Others” rate, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. We made no changes to the selection of this rate for this final determination.

    16See Petition and Petition Amendment; see also Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 11-12.

    Final Determination

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • M.E.G.A. S.p.A 80.20 I.M.L. Industria Meccanica Ligure S.p.A 80.20 All-Others 49.43
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of forged steel fittings from Italy, as described in the Appendix to this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 17, 2018, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination.

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    Disclosure

    The estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this investigation are based on AFA. As these estimated weighted-average dumping margins are based on the rates calculated in the Petition Amendment, and because we made no changes to these rates since the Preliminary Determination, no disclosure of calculations is necessary for this final determination.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of forged steel fittings, no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

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

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbon and alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees, crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings, unions, and outlets. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.

    While these fittings are generally manufactured to specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings made to these specifications.

    The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of products included in applicable standards, and does not reference an exclusive manufacturing process. Forged steel fittings are not manufactured from casting. Pursuant to the applicable specifications, subject fittings may also be machined from bar stock or machined from seamless pipe and tube.

    All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily expressed in pounds of pressure/PSI, e.g., 2,000 or 2M; 3,000 or 3M; 6,000 or 6M; 9,000 or 9M), wall thickness, and whether or not heat treated.

    Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, butt weld outlets, nipples, and all fittings that have a maximum pressure rating of 300 pounds of pressure/PSI or less.

    Also excluded are fittings certified or made to the following standards, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182:

    • American Petroleum Institute (API) API 5CT, API 5L, or API 11B • Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) SAE J476, SAE J514, SAE J516, SAE J517, SAE J518, SAE J1026, SAE J1231, SAE J1453, SAE J1926, J2044 or SAE AS 35411 • Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) certified electrical conduit fittings • ASTM A153, A536, A576, or A865 • Casing Conductor Connectors 16-42 inches in diameter made to proprietary specifications • Military Specification (MIL) MIL-C-4109F and MIL-F-3541 • International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO6150-B

    To be excluded from the scope, products must have the appropriate standard or pressure markings and/or accompanied by documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard or pressure, e.g., “API 5CT” mark and/or a mill certification report.

    Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060. They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-21728 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: November 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Product(s) NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8455-00-NIB-0139—Name Tape, Embroidered, USAF, Tigerstripe 8455-00-NIB-0140—Service Tape, Embroidered, USAF, Tigerstripe 8455-00-NIB-0141—Name Tags, Plastic, Engraved, USAF, Blue Mandatory for: 100% of the requirement of the U.S. Air Force Mandatory Source of Supply: Lions Industries for the Blind, Inc., Kinston, NC Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE AIR FORCE, FA3016 502 CONS CL JBSA Distribution: C-List Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Product(s) NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8410-00-NIB-0002—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 2 Long 8410-00-NIB-0003—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 4 Long 8410-00-NIB-0004—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 18 X-Short 8410-00-NIB-0005—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 20 X-Short 8410-00-NIB-0006—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 20 Short 8410-00-NIB-0007—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 20 Long 8410-01-536-2974—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 2 Short 8410-01-536-2977—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 2 Regular 8410-01-536-2980—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 4 X-Short 8410-01-536-2982—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 4 Short 8410-01-536-2994—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 4 Regular 8410-01-536-3000—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 6 X-Short 8410-01-536-3760—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 6 Short 8410-01-536-3763—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 6 Regular 8410-01-536-3769—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 8 X-Short 8410-01-536-3772—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 8 Short 8410-01-536-3776—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 8 Regular 8410-01-536-3779—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 6 Long 8410-01-536-3782—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 8 Long 8410-01-536-3784—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 10 X-Short 8410-01-536-3787—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 10 Short 8410-01-536-3789—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 10 Regular 8410-01-536-3792—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 10 Long 8410-01-536-3793—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 12 X-Short 8410-01-536-3795—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 12 Short 8410-01-536-3797—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 12 Regular 8410-01-536-3799—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 12 Long 8410-01-536-3800—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 14 X-Short 8410-01-536-3803—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 14 Short 8410-01-536-3804—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 14 Regular 8410-01-536-3805—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 14 Long 8410-01-536-3807—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 16 X-Short 8410-01-536-3808—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 16 Short 8410-01-536-3812—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 16 Regular 8410-01-536-3814—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 16 Long 8410-01-536-3816—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 18 Short 8410-01-536-3819—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 18 Regular 8410-01-536-3822—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 18 Long 8410-01-536-3825—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 20 Regular 8415-00-NIB-0489—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 X-Long 8415-00-NIB-0490—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 X-Short 8415-00-NIB-0491—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 X-Short 8415-00-NIB-0492—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 48 X-Short 8415-00-NIB-0493—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 48 X-Long 8415-00-NIB-0494—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 50 X-Long 8415-01-535-4170—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 X-Short 8415-01-536-4134—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 Short 8415-01-536-4170—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 X-Short 8415-01-536-4178—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 Regular 8415-01-536-4180—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 Long 8415-01-536-4182—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 X-Short 8415-01-536-4184—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 Short 8415-01-536-4188—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 Regular 8415-01-536-4189—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 Long 8415-01-536-4192—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 X-Long 8415-01-536-4193—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 X-Short 8415-01-536-4197—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 Short 8415-01-536-4224—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 Regular 8415-01-536-4227—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 Long 8415-01-536-4237—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 X-Long 8415-01-536-4239—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 X-Short 8415-01-536-4241—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 Short 8415-01-536-4367—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 Regular 8415-01-536-4369—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 Long 8415-01-536-4571—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 X-Long 8415-01-536-4572—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 X-Short 8415-01-536-4573—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 Short 8415-01-536-4574—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 Regular 8415-01-536-4576—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 Long 8415-01-536-4577—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 X-Long 8415-01-536-4578—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 X-Short 8415-01-536-4581—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 Short 8415-01-536-4583—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 Regular 8415-01-536-4584—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 Long 8415-01-536-4585—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 X-Long 8415-01-536-4586—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 Short 8415-01-536-4588—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 50 X-Short 8415-01-536-4590—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 Regular 8415-01-536-4591—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 Long 8415-01-536-4592—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 X-Long 8415-01-536-4593—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 Short 8415-01-536-4596—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 Regular 8415-01-536-4600—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 Long 8415-01-536-4606—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 X-Long 8415-01-536-4639—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 48 Short 8415-01-536-4640—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 48 Regular 8415-01-536-4651—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 48 Long 8415-01-536-4674—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 50 Short 8415-01-536-4682—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 50 Regular 8415-01-536-4712—Coat, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 50 Long 8410-00-NIB-0008—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 2 X-Short 8410-00-NIB-0009—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 2 Long 8410-00-NIB-0010—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 18 X-Short 8410-00-NIB-0011—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 20 X-Short 8410-00-NIB-0012—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 20 Short 8410-00-NIB-0015—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 4 Long 8410-00-NIB-0016—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 22 X-Short 8410-00-NIB-0017—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 22 Short 8410-01-536-2711—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 2 Regular 8410-01-536-2714—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 4 X-Short 8410-01-536-2715—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 4 Regular 8410-01-536-2718—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 6 X-Short 8410-01-536-2719—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 6 Short 8410-01-536-2720—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 6 Regular 8410-01-536-2721—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 6 Long 8410-01-536-2723—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 8 X-Short 8410-01-536-2725—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 8 Short 8410-01-536-2734—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 8 Regular 8410-01-536-2736—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 8 Long 8410-01-536-2739—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 10 X-Short 8410-01-536-2740—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 10 Short 8410-01-536-2742—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 10 Regular 8410-01-536-2744—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 10 Long 8410-01-536-2746—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 12 X-Short 8410-01-536-2748—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 12 Short 8410-01-536-2749—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 12 Regular 8410-01-536-2752—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 12 Long 8410-01-536-2754—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 14 X-Short 8410-01-536-2756—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 14 Short 8410-01-536-2760—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 14 Regular 8410-01-536-2761—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 14 Long 8410-01-536-2765—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 16 X-Short 8410-01-536-2766—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 16 Short 8410-01-536-2770—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 16 Regular 8410-01-536-2771—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 16 Long 8410-01-536-2773—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 18 Short 8410-01-536-2774—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 18 Regular 8410-01-536-2778—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 18 Long 8410-01-536-2780—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 20 Regular 8410-01-536-2783—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 20 Long 8410-01-536-2785—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 22 Regular 8410-01-536-2801—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 4 Short 8410-01-NIB-0014—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 22 Long 8415-00-NIB-0495—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 X-Short 8415-00-NIB-0496—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 X-Long 8415-00-NIB-0497—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 X-Short 8415-00-NIB-0498—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 Long 8415-00-NIB-0499—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 X-Short 8415-00-NIB-0500—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 Short 8415-00-NIB-0501—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 X-Long 8415-00-NIB-0502—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 X-Long 8415-01-536-3759—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 28 Short 8415-01-536-3774—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 28 Regular 8415-01-536-3777—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 28 Long 8415-01-536-3791—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 28 X-Long 8415-01-536-3794—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 30 Short 8415-01-536-3809—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 30 X-Short 8415-01-536-3817—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 30 Regular 8415-01-536-3821—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 30 Long 8415-01-536-3823—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 30 X-Long 8415-01-536-3826—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 X-Short 8415-01-536-3830—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 Short 8415-01-536-3833—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 Regular 8415-01-536-3836—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 Long 8415-01-536-3844—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 32 X-Long 8415-01-536-3846—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 X-Short 8415-01-536-3849—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 Short 8415-01-536-3855—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 Regular 8415-01-536-3869—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 Long 8415-01-536-3874—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 34 X-Long 8415-01-536-3880—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 X-Short 8415-01-536-3890—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 X-Short 8415-01-536-3893—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 Short 8415-01-536-3903—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 Regular 8415-01-536-3905—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 Long 8415-01-536-3912—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 36 X-Long 8415-01-536-3916—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 X-Short 8415-01-536-3920—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 Short 8415-01-536-3927—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 Regular 8415-01-536-3935—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 Long 8415-01-536-4021—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 38 X-Long 8415-01-536-4067—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 Short 8415-01-536-4071—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 Regular 8415-01-536-4073—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 Long 8415-01-536-4075—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 40 X-Long 8415-01-536-4077—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 Short 8415-01-536-4081—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 Regular 8415-01-536-4088—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 42 Long 8415-01-536-4102—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 Regular 8415-01-536-4103—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 Short 8415-01-536-4109—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 44 Long 8415-01-536-4111—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 Regular 8415-01-536-4121—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 46 Long Mandatory Sources of Supply: Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc., Miami, FL 8410-01-536-2709—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Woman's, Camouflage, 2 Short 8415-01-536-3758—Trousers, Airman's Battle Uniform, USAF, Man's, Camouflage, 28 X-Short Mandatory Sources of Supply: ReadyOne Industries, Inc., El Paso, TX Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc., Miami, FL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7045-01-269-8115—Tape, Electronic Data Processing 7045-01-321-0642—Tape, Electronic Data Processing Mandatory Source of Supply: North Central Sight Services, Inc., Williamsport, PA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7110-01-657-7729—Whiteboard, Customizable Surface, Magnetic Backing, Aluminum Frame, 47.5″ x 35″ 7110-01-657-7733—Whiteboard, Customizable Surface, Magnetic Backing, Aluminum Frame, 37.5″ x 23″ 7110-01-657-7738—Whiteboard, Customizable Surface, Magnetic Backing, Aluminum Frame, 12″ x 20.5″ Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6515-00-NIB-0227—Aloud Audio Labels Mandatory Source of Supply: Central Association for the Blind & Visually Impaired, Utica, NY Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, Strategic Acquisition Center NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8465-00-001-6471—(Nylon cloth) Mandatory Sources of Supply: Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL Georgia Industries for the Blind, Bainbridge, GA Envision, Inc., Wichita, KS RLCB, Inc., Raleigh, NC, PA Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8445-01-242-1009—Necktab, Womens Shirt Mandatory Source of Supply: BSW, Inc., Butte, MT Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21736 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action deletes products and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Date deleted from the Procurement List: November 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Deletions

    On 8/31/2018 (83 FR 170), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-484-0012—Paper Holder & Micro Note Holder Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS Admin Svcs Acquisition Br (2, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8010-00-935-6609—Enamel, Lacquer, Acrylic, Gloss White 8010-00-935-7064—Enamel, Lacquer, Acrylic, Gloss Red Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, St. Louis, MO Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 10738—Holder, Pot Lid and Utensil, Includes Shipper 20738 MR 10739—Herb Stripper, Includes Shipper 20739 MR 10737—Snack Container, Licensed, Includes Shipper 20735 Mandatory Source of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-417-1220—Toner, Cartridges, New Mandatory Source of Supply: Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS Admin Svcs Acquisition Br (2, New York, NY Services Service Type: Linen Management Service Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: Chesapeake Service Systems, Inc., Chesapeake, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Food Service Attendant Service Mandatory for: U.S. Navy Cargo Handling and Port Group, Williamsburg, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: VersAbility Resources, Inc., Hampton, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Administrative Service Mandatory for: Quantico Marine Corps Base—Systems Command, 2033 Barnett Ave., Quantico, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: Didlake, Inc., Manassas, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Mail and Messenger Service Mandatory for: Naval Engineering Field Activity Chesapeake: Atlantic Division, Washington Navy Yard Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM), 851 Sicard Street NE, Washington, DC Mandatory Source of Supply: ServiceSource, Inc., Oakton, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Michigan Area Office, 307 South Harbor Street, Grand Haven, MI Mandatory Source of Supply: Kandu Industries, Inc., Holland, MI Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W072 ENDIST Detroit Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard: Buildings 153 & 170, Kittery, ME Mandatory Source of Supply: Northern New England Employment Services, Portland, ME Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Navy Crane Center Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: National Personnel Records Center: 111 Winnebago Street, St. Louis, MO Mandatory Source of Supply: Challenge Unlimited, Inc., Alton, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory for: Vancouver Army Barracks, Vancouver, WA Mandatory Source of Supply: Relay Resources, Portland, OR Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC CTR-FT DIX (RC) Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21735 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket No. AFD 1485PCT] Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Foreign Patent Rights Available AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of availability of foreign patent rights associated with International Patent Application No. PCT/US17/023215, published as WO 2017/0023215, entitled FAST BREAK NEEDLE FOR RAPID GUIDEWIRE-ASSISTED ACCESS.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit requests for information to the ORTA, 60th MDG, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535; Facsimile: (228) 376-0128; or Mr. John Tupin, (707) 423-7206. Include Docket No. AFD 1485PCT in the subject line of the message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    ORTA, 60th MDG, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535; Facsimile: (228) 376-0128; Mr. John Tupin, (707) 423-7206; or Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The claimed vascular access disassembly needle assembly enables rapid insertion of a guidewire into the needle and subsequent rapid removal of the access needle off the guidewire by facile disassembly of the needle. The disassembling needle assembly includes a needle portion wherein the needle breaks apart by splitting along at least one seam that extends from the proximal to the distal end to allow removal of the guide wire. Various mechanical features are described that can facilitate the separation of the needle body along at least one seam. Once one or more seams are separated, the needle body may be removed from the guide wire without the need to withdraw the needle along the length of the guide wire, which permits preloading of expanders and other medical devices onto the guidewire.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21603 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket No. AFD 1563PCT] Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Foreign Patent Rights Available AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of availability of foreign patent rights associated with International Patent Application No. PCT/US17/036023, published as WO 2017/0214069, entitled FLOW RATE CONTROL DEVICE FOR VARIABLE INTRA-AORTIC OCCLUSION.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit requests for information to the ORTA, 60th MDG, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535; Facsimile: (228) 376-0128; or Mr. John Tupin, (707) 423-7206. Include Docket No. AFD 1563PCT in the subject line of the message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    ORTA, 60th MDG, 101 Bodin Circle, Travis AFB, CA 94535; Facsimile: (228) 376-0128; Mr. John Tupin, (707) 423-7206; or Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The claimed endovascular variable aortic control catheter is configured to augment upstream blood pressure and regulate downstream blood flow for patients in shock. The device includes a catheter-based system having a proximal hand piece for controlled deployment of the device through a delivery sheath. A collapsible, wire framework supports an expandable and collapsible occlusion barrier. The wire framework and occlusion barrier expand to fit within the lumen of the aorta. Various movable elements are used to adjust an adjustable passageway to regulate controlled anterograde blood flow.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

    Henry Williams, Civ, DAF, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21606 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket No. AFD 1507PCT] Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Foreign Patent Rights Available AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of availability of foreign patent rights associated with International Patent Application No. PCT/US17/037509, published as WO 2017/0222895, entitled BENDABLE, CREASABLE, AND PRINTABLE BATTERIES WITH ENHANCED SAFETY AND HIGH TEMPERATURE STABILITY—METHODS OF FABRICATION, AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit requests for information to the ORTA, Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials & Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/RX), 2977 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433; Facsimile: (937) 656-4831; or Ms. Sunita Chavan, (937) 904-4635. Include Docket No. AFD 1507PCT in the subject line of the message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    ORTA, Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials & Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/RX), 2977 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433; Facsimile: (937) 656-4831; Ms. Sunita Chavan (937) 904-4635; or Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The claimed bendable, creasable, and printable battery technology includes novel formulations for composite electrolytes, and current collectors that are suitable for use in high temperature environments.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.

    Henry Williams, Civ, DAF, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21604 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces will take place.

    DATES:

    Open to the public, Friday, October 19, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    One Liberty Center, 875 N Randolph Street, Suite 1432, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dwight Sullivan, 703-695-1055 (Voice), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is DAC-IPAD, One Liberty Center, 875 N Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Website: http://dacipad.whs.mil/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: In section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291), as modified by section 537 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), Congress tasked the DAC-IPAD to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces. This will be the tenth public meeting held by the DAC-IPAD. For its first session, the Committee will receive testimony from a retired Service member who was accused of sexual assault and from a Marine Corps defense highly qualified expert (HQE) on the effect of sexual assault investigations on accused Service members. Next, the Committee will receive testimony from three civilian sexual assault investigators regarding their perspectives on making probable cause determinations and opening and closing sexual assault investigations. The Committee will receive a presentation from the chair of the DAC-IPAD Case Review Working Group on the working group's initial findings and recommendations stemming from its review of fiscal year 2017 sexual assault investigative case files. The Committee will then receive a briefing from DAC-IPAD staff regarding three recommendations made by its predecessor sexual assault advisory committee, the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) that the Department of Defense General Counsel has requested the DAC-IPAD examine. Next, the Committee will conduct final deliberations for its assessment of the military's expedited transfer policy. For its final sessions, the Committee will receive a briefing from its Data Working Group staff on the status of its sexual assault case adjudication data collection project for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, and a briefing on section 547 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which requires the Secretary of Defense, through the DAC-IPAD, to conduct a study every two years reporting on the number of instances in which a sexual assault victim was accused or received disciplinary action for collateral misconduct related to allegations of sexual assault committed against that victim.

    Agenda 9:00 a.m.-9:10 a.m. Public Meeting Begins—Welcome and Introduction; 9:10 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Effects of Sexual Assault Investigations on Accused Service Members; 10:30 a.m.-10:40 a.m. Break; 10:40 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Perspectives of Civilian Sexual Assault Investigators; 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Lunch; 1:10 p.m.-1:50 p.m. Case Review Working Group Presentation and Committee Deliberations on Initial Findings and Recommendations Related to Sexual Assault Investigative Case File Reviews; 1:50 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Briefing and Committee Deliberations on Judicial Proceedings Panel Recommendations Related to Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Referred to the DAC-IPAD for Examination; 2:30 p.m.-3:50 p.m. Committee Deliberations on Expedited Transfer—Final Assessment; 3:50 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Break; 4:00 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Data Working Group Update; 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m. Briefing and Committee Deliberations on Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA Required Collateral Misconduct Study; 4:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Public Comment; 5:00 p.m. Public Meeting Adjourned.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. Visitors are required to sign in at the One Liberty Center security desk and must leave government-issued photo identification on file and wear a visitor badge while in the building. Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) holders who do not have authorized access to One Liberty Center must provide an alternate form of government-issued photo identification to leave on file with security while in the building. All visitors must pass through a metal detection security screening. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the DAC-IPAD at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. In the event the Office of Personnel Management closes the government due to inclement weather or for any other reason, please consult the website for any changes to the public meeting date or time.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Committee about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the DAC-IPAD at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Committee members for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the DAC-IPAD at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the DAC-IPAD operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. Oral statements from the public will be permitted, though the number and length of such oral statements may be limited based on the time available and the number of such requests. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 4:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 2018, in front of the Committee members.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21655 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lake Ralph Hall Regional Water Supply Reservoir Project, Fannin County, TX AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Fort Worth District has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the construction of the Lake Ralph Hall Regional Water Supply Reservoir Project in Fannin County, TX, proposed by the Upper Trinity Regional Water District (UTRWD). This action requires authorization from USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for construction and operation of the proposed project. The proposed project is a regional water supply project intended to provide approximately 34,050 acre-feet (AF) per year of new water for 20 water providers, special districts, and municipalities in Denton County and small portions of Dallas, Collin, Grayson, Wise and Cooke counties to the extent that Denton County Customers' service areas extend outside the County. Construction of the reservoir and support facilities would result in permanent direct impacts to waters of the U.S. of approximately 8 acres of wetlands and 384 acres of other waters including streams, impoundments, and ponds. The proposed project pipeline will cross 59 streams with 11,893 lineal feet of temporary impact as well as 0.4 acres of stock tanks.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted until November 21, 2018. Oral and/or written comments may also be presented at the Public Hearing.

    ADDRESSES:

    A Public Hearing will be held Thursday, October 25, 2018 starting at 5:30 p.m. at the H.L. Milton Sports Complex, 601 W Mill Street, Ladonia, TX 75449.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandler J. Peter, EIS Project Manager, at 817-886-1731 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Draft EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Corps' regulations for NEPA implementation (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 230 and 325, Appendices B and C). The Corps, Fort Worth, Regulatory Branch is the lead federal agency responsible for the Draft EIS and information contained in the EIS serves as the basis for a decision regarding issuance of a Section 404 permit. It also provides information for federal, state and local agencies having jurisdictional responsibility for affected resources.

    The purpose of the Draft EIS is to provide decision-makers and the public with information pertaining to the Proposed Action and alternatives, and to disclose environmental impacts and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts. UTRWD proposes to construct Lake Ralph Hall (including principal and emergency spillways, dam, and reservoir) with a conservation pool storage capacity of approximately 160,235 AF. Construction of a new raw water pipeline from the proposed Lake Ralph Hall to the Tom Harpool Water Treatment Plant is also proposed, as well as a new balancing reservoir and pump station.

    The purpose for the project is to provide additional firm annual yield to the 20 water providers and communities to address anticipated water demands associated with projected growth.

    In addition to the Proposed Action, the Draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative. Other alternatives were evaluated but not carried forward for detailed consideration, including water supplied from five new (undeveloped) reservoirs; securing supplies from other existing sources, Oklahoma, additional Dallas Water Utilities Supply, the Gulf of Mexico, Cypress Creek Basin, groundwater imports and precipitation enhancement. In addition, alternative dam alignments and conservation pool sizes were considered.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission have participated as cooperating agencies in the formulation of the Draft EIS.

    Copies of the Draft EIS will also be available for review at:

    1. Ladonia City Hall, 100 Center Plaza, Ladonia, TX 75449.

    2. Wolfe City Public Library, 102 TX-11, Wolfe City, TX 75496.

    3. Commerce Public Library, 1210 Park Street, Commerce, TX 75428.

    4. Honey Grove Library, 500 N 6th Street, Honey Grove, TX 75446.

    5. Bonham Public Library, 305 E 5th Street, Bonham, TX 75418.

    6. Greenville Public Library, 1 Lou Finney Lane, Greenville, TX 75401

    7. Upper Trinity Regional Water District, 900 North Kealy Street, Lewisville, TX 75067.

    8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth Regulatory Office, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102.

    Send written comments regarding the Proposed Action and Draft EIS to Chandler J. Peter, EIS Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District—Regulatory Division, 819 Taylor Street, Room 3A37, P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 or via email: [email protected]. Requests to be placed on or removed from a mailing list for the Final EIS should also be sent to this address.

    Electronic copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained from the Fort Worth Regulatory Division or its website at: https://www.swf.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permitting/Proposed-Lake-Ralph-Hall/.

    Stephen L. Brooks, Chief, Regulatory Division, Fort Worth District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21538 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration Availability of the Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI) and Bonneville Financial Assistance Instructions (BFAI) AGENCY:

    Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of document availability.

    SUMMARY:

    Copies of the Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI), which contain the policy and establish the procedures that BPA uses in the solicitation, award, and administration of its purchases of goods and services, including construction, are available in printed form or at the following internet address: http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/business/bpi.

    Copies of the Bonneville Financial Assistance Instructions (BFAI), which contain the policy and establish the procedures that BPA uses in the solicitation, award, and administration of financial assistance instruments (principally grants and cooperative agreements), are available in printed form or available at the following internet address: http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/business/bfai.

    ADDRESSES:

    Unbound copies of the BPI or BFAI may be obtained by sending a request to the Head of the Contracting Activity, Routing CGP-7, Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nicholas M. Jenkins, Head of the Contracting Activity; direct telephone (503) 230-5498; or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    BPA was established in 1937 as a Federal Power Marketing Agency in the Pacific Northwest. BPA operations are financed from rate payer revenues rather than annual appropriations. BPA's purchasing operations are conducted under 16 U.S.C. 832 et seq. and related statutes. Pursuant to these special authorities, the BPI is promulgated as a statement of purchasing policy and as a body of interpretative regulations governing the conduct of BPA purchasing activities, and reflects BPA's private sector approach to purchasing the goods and services that it requires. BPA's financial assistance operations are conducted under 16 U.S.C. 832 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 839 et seq. The BFAI express BPA's financial assistance policy. The BFAI also comprise BPA's rules governing implementation of the principles set forth in 2 CFR part 200.

    BPA's solicitations and contracts include notice of applicability and availability of the BPI and the BFAI, as appropriate, for offerors to obtain information on particular purchases or financial assistance transactions.

    Signed in Portland, Oregon, on September 6, 2018 Nicholas M. Jenkins, Manager, Purchasing/Property Governance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21725 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [EERE-2018-16577] Understanding Catalyst Production and Development Needs at National Laboratories AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Request for information; reopening of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document reopens the public comment period for submitting comments, data and information on the RFI entitled “Understanding Catalyst Production and Development Needs at National Laboratories” published on August 2, 2018. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2018.

    DATES:

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is reopening the comment period for “Understanding Catalyst Production and Development Needs at National Laboratories” published on August 2, 2018. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2018 and is reopened for 15 days until October 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to [email protected] Responses must be provided as attachments to an email. Include “Understanding Catalyst Production and Development RFI” as the subject of the email. It is recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding 25MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word (.docx) attachment to the email, and 12 point font, 1 inch margins. Only electronic responses will be accepted. The complete RFI document is located at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions may be addressed to Jim Spaeth, (720) 356-1784, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 2, 2018 (83 FR 37806), the DOE posted on its website a RFI to solicit feedback from industry and the public (including but not limited to research organizations, manufacturing organizations, catalyst manufacturers, and catalyst research consortia), academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other biofuels and bioproducts stakeholders on “catalyst productions capability for biochemical and thermochemical processes.” Specifically, DOE seeks information to help identify and understand additional areas of research, capabilities, and yet-to be-addressed challenges pertinent to production scale-up challenges (typically in multi-kilogram quantities of novel catalysts used in technology development and engineering solutions for the efficient conversion of lignocellulosic, waste, and algal feedstocks to produce biofuels and bioproducts). The RFI provided for the written submission of comments by September 14, 2018. By this notice, DOE is reopening the public comment period to all additional time for the public to provide data responsive to DOE's detailed inquiries regarding the RFI.

    DOE has determined that a reopening of the public comment period is appropriate to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments for DOE's consideration. Thus, DOE is reopening the comment period by 15 days, until October 22, 2018. DOE will consider any comments received by midnight of October 22, 2018 to be timely submitted.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2018. Jonathan Male, Director, Bioenergy Technologies Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21726 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-130-000.

    Applicants: Mankato Energy Center II, LLC.

    Description: Mankato Energy Center II, LLC Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator status.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5012.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2630-002; ER16-1914-002.

    Applicants: NGP Blue Mountain I LLC, Patua Acquisition Company, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status NGP Blue Mountain I LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-459-003.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Pursuant to August 31, 2018 Letter Order re: OVEC Integration to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2025-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: DEC-Central Power EPC PPSA Compliance Filing to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2496-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Rate Schedules to add new DOE Reliability Services Agreement to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5138.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2497-000.

    Applicants: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC—Reactive Service Update to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2498-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-09-27 2018 Interconnection Process Enhancements Amendment to be effective 11/27/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2499-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2880R2 Rattlesnake Creek Wind Project GIA to be effective 9/7/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5004.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2500-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2236R10 Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2501-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PowerSouth NITSA Amendments (Crumptonia, Pintlala, Enterprise & Oliver DPs) to be effective 11/27/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5053.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2502-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distrib Serv Agmt Ridgetop Energy, LLC and Pacific Crest Power, LLC to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2503-000.

    Applicants: Avista Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Avista Corp FERC Rate Schedule T1145 to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5090.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2504-000.

    Applicants: Willow Springs Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Filing of Desert Flower Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 10/14/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    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 28, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21741 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2492-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: FTS Master Tenant 2, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of FTS Master Tenant 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 18, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 28, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21739 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2516-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Willow Springs Solar, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Willow Springs Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 22, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21740 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2518-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Black Hills Electric Generation, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Black Hills Electric Generation, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 22, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21743 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-131-000.

    Applicants: Willow Springs Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Willow Springs Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: EG18-132-000.

    Applicants: Cypress Creek Fund 12 Tenant, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Cypress Creek Fund 12 Tenant, LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-370-001.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: SCE Compliance Filing Amended Appendix XI to TO Tariff, ER18-370 to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2448-001.

    Applicants: Robindale Retail Power Services, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Addendum to Market-Based Rate Notice of Change in Status to be effective 9/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2495-001.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to SA 907 Orion Wind E&P to be effective 9/19/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2505-000.

    Applicants: Willow Springs Solar, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Rattlesnake Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 10/14/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2506-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE Filing to Update Eff. Date of Previously Accepted Revisions to Sec III.14 to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2507-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Amendment Filing (Exhibit K-9—remove OVEC from SERTP) to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5165.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2508-000.

    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Att K Appendix 11 Revision to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2509-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Joint OATT Amendment: OVEC's Withdrawal from SERTP to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5170.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2510-000.

    Applicants: The Potomac Edison Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Incentive Rate Application for PJM RTEP Project 9A of The Potomac Edison Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2511-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline—NorthWestern Corporation Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2512-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: WI Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan Rev 3 to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5198.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2513-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-09-28_Compliance Filing to Address Self-Fund EL15-68; EL15-36; ER16-696 to be effective 7/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2514-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-09-28_Attachment FF Revisions to TMEP to be effective 11/28/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5229.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2515-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of MBR Tariff under Tariff ID 28 to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5232.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2516-000.

    Applicants: Willow Springs Solar, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 10/14/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2517-000.

    Applicants: Sunbury Generation LP.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Addendum to Market-Based Rate Notice of Change in Status to be effective 9/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    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 28, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21744 Filed 10-4-18; 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-133-000.

    Applicants: Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-764-017; ER14-1927-005; ER12-2498-017; ER12-2499-017; ER12-1566-011; ER11-3987-012; ER17-382-002; ER17-383-002; ER17-384-002; ER12-199-014; ER18-855-001; ER18-1416-001.

    Applicants: CED White River Solar, LLC, CED White River Solar 2, LLC, Alpaugh 50, LLC, Alpaugh North, LLC, Copper Mountain Solar 2, LLC, Mesquite Solar 1, LLC, CED Ducor Solar 1, LLC, CED Ducor Solar 2, LLC, CED Ducor Solar 3, LLC, Coram California Development, L.P., Panoche Valley Solar, LLC, CED Wistaria Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Consolidated Edison, Inc. subsidiaries.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5265.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-454-001; ER13-1422-007; ER18-2325-000.

    Applicants: Sunbury Generation LP, Seward Generation, LLC, Ebensburg Power Company.

    Description: Supplement to August 28, 2018 Market-Based Rate Notice of Change in Status of Sunbury Generation LP, et al.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5263.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2518-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Electric Generation, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 11/28/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5250.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2519-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline—Reserve Energy Service to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2520-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-09-28 Aliso Canyon Gas-Electric Coordination Phase 4 Amendment to be effective 11/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5261.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Reserve Energy Service under Tariff ID 28 to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2-000.

    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: October 2018 Membership Filing to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-3-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Inactive Tariff Records under Tariff ID 28 to be effective 10/2/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-4-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3095R1 Missouri River Energy Services NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-5-000.

    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ComEd submits revisions to OATT, Att. H-13A re: FAS 109 Recovery to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-6-000.

    Applicants: Delmarva Power & Light Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Delmarva submits revisions OATT, Att. H-3D re: FAS 109 Recovery to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-7-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Obsidian Renewables E&P Agmt to be effective 12/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-8-000.

    Applicants: Sweetwater Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR, Waivers, Blanket Authority, Confidential & Expedited Action to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-9-000.

    Applicants: Mankato Energy Center II, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR Authority and Initial Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-10-000.

    Applicants: Potomac Electric Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Potomac Electric submits revisions to OATT, Att. H-9A re: FAS 109 Recovery to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-11-000.

    Applicants: Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC Application for MBR Authority to be effective 11/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5232.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-12-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline—South Dakota OATT to be effective 10/2/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-13-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Owner Rate Case TO20 Formula to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5238.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-14-000.

    Applicants: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: BGE submits revisions to OATT, Att. H-2A re: FAS 109 Recovery to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5259.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    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: October 1, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21742 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-990-002.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Settlement—2018—Compliance Filing to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1226-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1227-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (Pioneer Oct-Dec 2018) to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5053.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1228-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (APS Oct 2018) to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1229-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2—Neg Rate Agmt—BKV Operating, LLC SP338105 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1230-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate—Keyspan release to Emera 797565 to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1231-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Energy Plus 797550, 797551, 797574 to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1232-000.

    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: MNUS FRQ 2018 Filing to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1233-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 10-1-2018 Formula-Based Negotiated Rates to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1234-000.

    Applicants: Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.

    Description: Annual Operational Purchases and Sales Report of Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1235-000.

    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Annual Operational Purchases and Sales Report of Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1236-000.

    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-28-18 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5005.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1237-000.

    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-28-18 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5006.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1238-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Gas Storage Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-28-18 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5007.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1239-000.

    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 9-28-18 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5008.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1240-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Cherokee AGL—Replacement Shippers—Oct 2018 to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1241-000.

    Applicants: EdgeMarc Energy Holdings, LLC,EM Energy Ohio, LLC,EM Energy Pennsylvania, LLC.

    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver, et al. of EdgeMarc Energy Holdings, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 9/27/18.

    Accession Number: 20180927-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1242-000.

    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2018 October Negotiated Rate Amendments to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1243-000.

    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1244-000.

    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Final Accounting of Auxiliary Installation to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1245-000.

    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: ANR George Franklin Neg Rate Agmt to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1246-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: DETI—2018 Annual EPCA to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1247-000.

    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: WISE Neg Rate/NC Agmts 1 of 3 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1248-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: DETI—2018 Annual TCRA to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1249-000.

    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Semi-Annual Fuel and Losses Retention Adjustment—Winter 2018 Rate to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1250-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Atlanta Gas 8438 to various shippers eff 10-1-18) to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1251-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (EM Energy OH 35451 to BP 37473) to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1252-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (RE Gas 34955 to JERA 37469) to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1253-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Carolina Gas Transmission.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: DECG—2018 FRQ and TDA Report to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1254-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Marubeni Amendment—Cameron Access to be effective 9/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5166.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1255-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2018-09-28 E2W (6) to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1256-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: No Fuel Segment Update Filing to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1257-000.

    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: GT&C Section 42 Tracker Filing 2018 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1258-000.

    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Filing to be effective 10/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1259-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20180928 Negotiated Rate Filing to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number: 20180928-5241.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/18.

    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: October 1, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21745 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0241; FRL-9985-18-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for Contaminant Occurrence Data in Support of EPA's Fourth Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; EPA ICR No. 2574.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Information Collection Request for Contaminant Occurrence Data in Support of the EPA's Fourth Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations” (EPA ICR No. 2574.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed, voluntary information collection as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. This is a request for approval of a new collection.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before December 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0421, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kesha Forrest, (202) 564-3632, or Nicole Tucker, (202) 564-1946, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division (4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; email address: [email protected] or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Abstract: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires that the EPA review existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) no less often than every six years. This routine evaluation is referred to as the “Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations” or simply, the “Six-Year Review.” Throughout the Six-Year Review process, the EPA reviews and assesses new data to determine risks to human health posed by regulated drinking water contaminants and identifies NPDWRs which may be appropriate for revision.

    The EPA completed and published review results for the first Six-Year Review cycle (1996-2002) on July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42908). The occurrence assessments for the first Six-Year Review were based on compliance monitoring from a cross-section of 16 states, collected from 1993 to 1997, which were voluntarily provided by the states.

    The EPA completed and published review results for the second Six-Year Review cycle (2003-2009) on March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15500). The occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six-Year Review are based on data collected between 1998 and 2005, voluntarily submitted by states and other drinking water primary enforcement (primacy) agencies (i.e., the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or an eligible Indian tribe).

    The EPA completed and published review results for the third Six-Year Review cycle (2010-2016) on January 11, 2017 (82 FR 3518). The occurrence assessments conducted for the third Six-Year Review are based on contaminant occurrence and treatment techniques data collected between 2006 and 2011, voluntarily submitted by states and other drinking water primacy agencies.

    The EPA created this new ICR to continue to engage states and other drinking water primacy agencies in data collection efforts. For this ICR, the EPA is soliciting states and other primacy agencies to (voluntarily) provide historical compliance monitoring (contaminant occurrence) data for community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) to the Agency in support of the fourth Six-Year Review. The EPA is requesting contaminant occurrence and treatment techniques data collected from 2012 to 2018 for all regulated chemical, radiological, and microbial contaminants, including data collected for the Revised Total Coliform Rule, newly promulgated since the third Six-Year Review information collection.

    The compliance monitoring records for this information collection (including all results for analytical detections and non-detections) provide the data needed to conduct statistical estimates of national occurrence for regulated contaminants and evaluate treatment technique information associated with the control of pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection byproducts. The national occurrence estimates and information on treatment techniques will support the SDWA section 1412(b)(9) mandate that requires the EPA to review the existing NPDWRs and determine whether revisions are appropriate. In addition, SDWA section 1445(g) requires the EPA to maintain a national drinking water contaminant occurrence database (i.e., the National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD)), using occurrence data for both regulated and unregulated contaminants in public water systems (PWSs). This data collection will provide new occurrence data on regulated contaminants to maintain the NCOD.

    It is in the interest of the EPA to minimize the burden on states (and other drinking water primacy agencies) by allowing submission of data in virtually any electronic format, and to provide states that use the Safe Drinking Water Information System State Versions (SDWIS/State) with extraction scripts if requested.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: States and other drinking water primacy agencies.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: The EPA is issuing this ICR as a one-time request for states and other drinking water primacy agencies to voluntarily submit historical, compliance monitoring data for the fourth Six-Year Review, to meet the SDWA statutory requirements. In addition, this data collection will provide new occurrence data on regulated contaminants to maintain the NCOD required by the SDWA.

    Estimated number of respondents: 56 (total).

    Frequency of response: One time only.

    Total estimated burden: 765 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 13.7 hours per state (or other water drinking water primacy agency).

    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements, which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Total estimated cost: $43,000 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    Dated: September 28, 2018. Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21751 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9041-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 09/24/2018 Through 09/28/2018 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20180227, Draft, USACE, TX, Lake Ralph Hall Regional Water Supply Reservoir Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/21/2018, Contact: Chandler J. Peter 817 886 1731 EIS No. 20180228, Draft, USFS, UT, Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Land Management Plan Amendments (LMPA) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions, Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2019, Contact: John Shivik 801-625-5667 EIS No. 20180229, Draft, FERC, TX, Port Arthur Liquefaction Project, Texas Connector Project, and Louisiana Connector Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/19/2018, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-3372 EIS No. 20180230, Final Supplement, DOE, CA, Supplemental to the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission Line Project, Review Period Ends: 11/05/2018, Contact: Julie Ann Smith, Ph.D. 202-586-7668 EIS No. 20180231, Draft, NMFS, WA, Changes to Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Areas and Boundaries of the Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area, Comment Period Ends: 11/19/2018, Contact: Gretchen Hanshew 206-526-6147 EIS No. 20180232, Draft, BLM, WA, San Juan Islands National Monument Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2019, Contact: Lauren Pidot 503-808-6297 Dated: October 1, 2018. Robert Tomiak, Director, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21685 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0613; FRL-9985-05-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Implementation of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Implementation of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,” (EPA ICR No. is 0824.07, OMB Control No. 2040-0008) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before December 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0613. (our preferred method), by email to: [email protected] or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Kovatch, Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division, mail code 4504T, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and, Watersheds, mail code 4501T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0399; fax number: 202-566-1147; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: With limited exceptions, ocean dumping—the transportation of any material for the purpose of dumping in ocean waters—is prohibited except in compliance with a permit issued under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). EPA is responsible for issuing ocean dumping permits for all materials except dredged material. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for issuing ocean dumping permits for dredged material using EPA's environmental criteria, though for federal projects, the USACE may apply the environmental criteria directly in lieu of the permit process. Ocean dumping permits for dredged material are subject to EPA review and concurrence. EPA is also responsible for designating and managing ocean sites for the disposal of wastes and other materials, and establishing Site Management and Monitoring Plans for ocean disposal sites. EPA collects or sponsors the collection of information for the purposes of permit issuance, reporting of emergency dumping to safety of life at sea, compliance with permit requirements, including general permits for burial at sea, for transportation and disposal of vessels, and for ocean disposal of marine mammal carcasses.

    EPA collects this information to ensure that ocean dumping is appropriately regulated and will not harm human health and the marine environment, based on applying the Ocean Dumping Criteria. The Ocean Dumping Criteria consider, among other things: The environmental impact of the dumping; the need for the dumping; the effect of the dumping on esthetic, recreational, or economic values; land-based alternatives to ocean dumping; and the adverse effects of the dumping on other uses of the ocean. The Ocean Dumping Criteria are codified in 40 CFR parts 227-228. To meet U.S. reporting obligation under the London Convention, an international treaty on ocean dumping, EPA also reports some of this information in the annual United States Ocean Dumping Report.

    EPA uses ocean dumping information to make decisions regarding whether issue, deny, as well as to impose conditions on ocean dumping permits issued by EPA in order to ensure consistency with the Ocean Dumping Criteria. EPA uses monitoring and reporting data from permittees to assess compliance with ocean dumping permits, including associated monitoring activities.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents/affected entities may include any private person or entity, or state, local, or foreign governments.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit, specifically permit authorization and/or compliance with permits required under MPRSA sections 102 and 104, 33 U.S.C. 1402 & 1404, and implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 220-229.

    Estimated number of respondents: 2,768 respondents per year.

    Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies for application and reporting requirements for different permits. Other than the general permit for transportation and disposal of vessels, response is required once for each permit application, whether a single notification to EPA or a permit application. Depending on the type of MPRSA permit, a permit application would be required prior to expiration if the permittee seeks re-issuance: General permit (once every seven years), special permit (once every three years), and research permit (once every 18 months).

    Total estimated burden: The public reporting and recordkeeping burdens for this collection of information are estimated to be 3,497 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: Annual costs are estimated to be $380,376, which includes $184,503 for labor and $195,874 for capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in estimates: There is no significant increase in the burden. There is an increase of 1 hour in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to a change in the program requirements and reflects updated reporting burden estimates. Specifically, since the issuance of the current ICR, EPA issued an additional general permit under the MPRSA for the transport and disposal of marine mammal carcasses in ocean waters under specified conditions. The estimates in the supporting information reflect the increase associated with the general permit, which was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2016 [81 FR 87928].

    Dated: September 27, 2018. John Goodin, Acting Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21750 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594; FRL-9985-17-OW] Request for Nominations of Drinking Water Contaminants for the Fifth Contaminant Candidate List AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting nominations of chemical and microbial contaminants that are not currently regulated, for possible inclusion on the fifth drinking water Contaminant Candidate List. The EPA requests that nominations include information showing the nominated contaminant is known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and indicating the nominated contaminant may require regulation due to the potential for adverse effects on the health of persons.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received on or before December 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. You may also submit comments by mail or hand delivery to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. More information about comment submissions and CBI specific to the nomination process is included in Section III of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this notice and/or inquiries regarding the EPA's fifth drinking water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5) nominations, please contact Kesha Forrest, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-3632; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This notice does not impose any requirements on anyone; it only requests nominations for the drinking water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and provides information on how the public can submit nominations to the EPA.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594. Publicly available docket materials are accessible either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (see the ADDRESSES section of this notice).

    II. Background A. What is the CCL?

    The CCL is a list of contaminants that are currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations, that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The EPA uses this list of unregulated contaminants to prioritize research and data collection efforts to help the Agency determine whether to regulate a specific contaminant. The SDWA requires that the EPA publish the CCL every five years (SWDA § 1412(b)(1)). The EPA is also required to consult with the scientific community, including the Science Advisory Board, and provide notice and opportunity for public comment prior to publication of the final CCL.

    The SDWA also requires the EPA to determine whether to regulate at least five contaminants from the CCL every five years (SWDA § 1412(b)(1)). To regulate a contaminant, the SDWA specifies the EPA must determine that:

    1. The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;

    2. The contaminant is known to occur, or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur, in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and

    3. In the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.

    B. What contaminants were listed on the previous Contaminant Candidate List?

    The fourth CCL (CCL 4) was published on November 17, 2016 (81 FR 81099). CCL 4 included 97 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbial contaminants. The list includes, among others, chemicals used in commerce, pesticides, biological toxins, disinfection byproducts, pharmaceuticals, and waterborne pathogens. The list of contaminants included on CCL 4, and other information regarding the CCL, can be found on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/ccl and in the Federal Register notice for the final CCL 4 (81 FR 81099, November 17, 2016).

    C. Why is the EPA soliciting contaminant nominations?

    The EPA is conducting an evaluation of potential contaminants for inclusion on the draft CCL 5. The EPA is requesting public nominations for contaminants that are not currently regulated, to ensure that contaminants that may not be typically identified as part of the EPA's CCL process are considered. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2001) and National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC, 2004) recommended to the EPA that the CCL be a data-driven, step-wise approach to classifying contaminants. These experts also recognized the importance of providing an additional pathway for the public to identify new and emerging contaminants for the EPA to further evaluate. A public nomination process allows the EPA to consider new and emerging contaminants that might not otherwise be considered because new information may exist that the EPA is unaware of and/or the information may not have been widely reported or recorded.

    III. The EPA CCL Nomination Process

    This contaminant nomination process is the first opportunity for the public to make nominations for contaminants to be considered for the CCL 5. The EPA will also accept nominations during the notice and comment period following the EPA's publication of the draft CCL 5 in the Federal Register.

    A. How can stakeholders, agencies, industry, and the public nominate contaminants for the CCL 5?

    Interested parties can nominate chemicals, microbes, or other materials for consideration on the CCL 5 by sending information electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, or by hand delivery (see the ADDRESSES section of this notice). Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Submit comments that contain CBI only by mail or hand delivery, and clearly mark the part of or all the information that you claim to be CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a non-CBI copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 2.

    When submitting a nomination, it is preferred that the nominators include a name, affiliation, phone number, mailing address, and email address; however, this information is not required and nominations can be submitted anonymously. The nominator should also address the following questions for each contaminant nominated to the CCL:

    1. What is the contaminant's name, CAS number, and/or common synonym (if applicable)? Please do not nominate a contaminant that is already subject to a national primary drinking water regulation.

    2. What are the data that you believe support the conclusion that the contaminant is known or anticipated to occur in public water systems? For example, provide information that shows measured occurrence of the contaminant in drinking water or measured occurrence in sources of drinking water or provide information that shows the contaminant is released in the environment or is manufactured in large quantities and has a potential for contaminating sources of drinking water. Please provide the source of this information with complete citations for published information (i.e., author(s), title, journal, and date) or contact information for the primary investigator.

    3. What are the data that you believe support the conclusion that the contaminant may require regulation? For example, provide information that shows the contaminant may have an adverse health effect on the general population or that the contaminant is potentially harmful to subgroups that comprise a meaningful portion of the population (such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, or others). Please provide the source of this information with complete citations for published information (i.e., author(s), title, journal, and date) or contact information for the primary investigator.

    B. How do I submit nominations in hard copy?

    You may submit nominations by mail or hand delivery. To allow full consideration of your nomination, please ensure that your nominations are received or postmarked by midnight December 4, 2018. The address for submittal of nominations by mail or hand delivery is listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    C. What will happen to my nominations after I submit them?

    The EPA will evaluate the information available for the nominated contaminants to determine the appropriateness of inclusion on the CCL 5. The EPA does not intend to respond to the nominations directly or individually. The EPA will summarize the nominations received when the draft CCL 5 list is published in the Federal Register.

    IV. References

    Copies of these documents are found at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594.

    NAS 2001. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. 2001. Classifying Drinking Water Contaminants for Regulatory Consideration. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. Available at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309074088/html/index.html. NDWAC 2004. National Drinking Water Advisory Council. National Drinking Water Advisory Council Report on the CCL Classification Process to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 18, 2004. Available at https://www.epa.gov/ccl/national-drinking-water-advisory-council-report-ccl-classification-process.
    Dated: September 27, 2018. David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21748 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9985-16-Region 4] Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of North Carolina AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of intended approval.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the State of North Carolina is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. North Carolina has adopted drinking water regulations for the Revised Total Coliform Rule. EPA has determined that North Carolina's regulations are no less stringent than the federal rule and the revision otherwise meets applicable Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Therefore, EPA intends to approve this revision to the State of North Carolina's Public Water System Supervision Program.

    DATES:

    Any interested person may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by November 5, 2018, to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 4 street address shown below. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by November 5, 2018, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on November 5, 2018. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: the name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding legal holidays) at the following offices: Public Water Supply Section, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 512 North Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604; and the Drinking Water Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale Froneberger, EPA Region 4, Drinking Water Section, by mail at the Atlanta street address given above, by telephone at (404) 562-9446, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The State of North Carolina has submitted a request that EPA approve a revision to the State's Safe Drinking Water Act Public Water System Supervision Program to include the authority to implement and enforce the Revised Total Coliform Rule. For the request to be approved, EPA must find the state regulations codified at Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 18C to be no less stringent than the federal rule codified at 40 CFR part 141. EPA reviewed North Carolina's application using the federal statutory provisions (Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act), federal regulations (at 40 CFR parts 141 and 142), state regulations, state policies and procedures for implementing the rule, regulatory crosswalk, and EPA regulatory guidance to determine whether the request for revision is approvable. EPA determined that the North Carolina regulations are no less stringent than the corresponding federal rule and the revision otherwise meets applicable Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Therefore, EPA intends to approve this revision. If EPA does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this approval shall become final and effective on November 5, 2018.

    Authority:

    Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142.

    Dated: September 25, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21752 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0586; FRL-9983-38] A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the availability of a document: A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization. The document lays out EPA's near-term approach for identifying potential chemicals for prioritization, the initial step in evaluating the safety of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The document also includes a longer-term risk-based approach for considering the larger TSCA active chemical universe. EPA is opening a public docket to accept comments on this approach, which will inform a public meeting to be held in early 2019. This docket will remain open until November 15, 2018. In a related but separate action, EPA is opening 74 public dockets, one for each of the 73 remaining chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that have not received manufacturer requests for EPA evaluation and an additional general docket for chemicals not on the Work Plan. These dockets will be open until December 1, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information on A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization document contact: Susanna Blair, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-4371; 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, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including chemical manufacturers, processors and users, consumer product companies, non-profit organizations in the environmental and public health sectors, state and local government agencies, and members of the public interested in the environmental and human health assessment and regulation of chemical substances. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is taking three actions: Announcing the availability of a document, announcing the opening of a docket to accept comments on the longer-term strategy described in the document, and announcing the opening of chemical-specific public dockets and a general docket to collect information on potential candidate chemicals for prioritization for risk evaluation under TSCA.

    This Notice announces the availability of a document: A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization. The document lays out EPA's near-term approach for identifying potential chemicals for prioritization, the initial step in evaluating the safety of existing chemicals under TSCA. The document also includes a longer-term approach for considering the larger TSCA active chemical universe. The document is available at EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/prioritizing-existing-chemicals-risk-evaluation.

    EPA is opening a public docket to accept comments on this longer-term approach, which will inform a public meeting to be held in early 2019. This docket, identified by docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0659, will remain open until November 15, 2018.

    In a separate but related action, EPA is opening 74 public dockets, one for each of the 73 remaining chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that have not received manufacturer requests for EPA evaluation and an additional general docket for chemicals not on the Work Plan. These dockets will be open until December 1, 2019. More details about these dockets is in Unit II.B.

    C. What is the Agency's authority for this action?

    As amended in June 2016, TSCA requires that EPA prioritize and evaluate existing chemical substances and manage identified risks (15 U.S.C. 2605). This Notice is issued pursuant to the authority in TSCA section 6(b), 15 U.S.C. 2605(b).

    II. Background

    The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, amending the TSCA of 1976, was signed into law on June 22, 2016. The amendments required that EPA establish procedures for prioritizing and evaluating risks from existing chemical substances. EPA announced its final procedures on June 22, 2017 (see https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/federal-register-notice-procedures-prioritization), and the final procedural rule addressing the prioritization process published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2017 (82 FR 33753) (FRL-9964-24).

    A. A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization

    The document described in this Notice lays out EPA's near-term approach for identifying potential chemicals for prioritization, the initial step in evaluating the safety of existing chemicals under TSCA. Building on the Agency's commitment to work with the public to select the next chemicals for risk evaluation, this approach reflects public input received at a December 2017 meeting (82 FR 51415) (FRL-9970-34) and through the public docket for that meeting (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0587). By December 2019, EPA must designate at least 20 chemical substances as High-Priority for risk evaluation, and 20 chemical substances as Low-Priority for which risk evaluation is not currently warranted.

    The information set forth in the document, A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization, describes the general approaches EPA may consider for identifying existing chemicals as potential candidates for prioritization. The goal of these approaches is to identify potential candidates from which EPA will select candidates for prioritization, consistent with its regulations at 40 CFR 702.5.

    The document describes the near-term approach that EPA anticipates using to inform the identification of potential candidates for the initial 20 High-Priority and 20 Low-Priority chemical substances that must be identified pursuant to TSCA section 6(b)(2)(B). The document also presents a longer-term approach that EPA is considering. EPA encourages public comments on these approaches and has opened dockets to receive public comments.

    The document presents internal guidance for EPA, and neither constitutes rulemaking by EPA nor can be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. It provides recommendations and does not impose any legally binding requirements. Similarly, statements about what EPA expects or intends to do reflect general principles to guide EPA's activities and not judgments or determinations as to what EPA will do in any particular case.

    B. Dockets To Collect Information on Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization for Risk Evaluation

    As explained in the Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act Final rule published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2017 (82 FR 33753) (FRL-9964-24), EPA intends to foster a dialogue with stakeholders by publishing a notice explaining why it chose to initiate the prioritization process on particular chemical substances and to seek relevant information from the public. In support of that intention, EPA is opening 74 public dockets, one for each of the 73 remaining chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that have not received manufacturer requests for EPA evaluation and an additional general docket for the public to suggest chemicals EPA should prioritize for risk evaluation.

    By providing the public with a venue for submitting use, hazard, and exposure information on these chemicals, EPA is facilitating the sharing of information by stakeholders and the general public that could update the information EPA currently has on the chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. EPA will use this data to inform TSCA prioritization and risk evaluation for these chemicals.

    EPA is also opening dockets for input on chemicals not on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. EPA expects that the dockets will increase transparency of the process.

    The list of chemical dockets is in this section. Additional information, such as the docket numbers for each chemical, the chemical's Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number, and the EPA points of contact can be found at http://www.epa.govADDURLXXX. EPA is opening these dockets to receive information from the public. Information should be submitted by December 1, 2019. When you submit your information, please identify the docket identification (ID) number associated with the relevant chemical. Additional instructions on providing information or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available in each docket and at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. When preparing and submitting your information, see the tips at http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#tips.

    The chemicals as listed on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments and the respective docket numbers are:

    • Acetaldehyde (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0497).

    • Acrylonitrile (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0449).

    • tert-Amyl methyl ether (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0463).

    • Antimony and Antimony Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0470).

    • Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0472).

    • Barium Carbonate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0473).

    • Benzenamine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0474).

    • Benzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0475).

    • Bisphenol A (BPA) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0500).

    • 1,3-Butadiene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0451).

    • Butanamide, 2,2′-[(3,3′- dichloro[1,1′- biphenyl]- 4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N- (4-chloro-2,5 dimethoxyphenyl)-3-oxo- (Pigment Yellow 83) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0477).

    • Butanamide, 2-[(4- methoxy-2-nitrophenyl) azo]-N-(2- methoxyphenyl)-3-oxo- (Pigment Yellow 65) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0478).

    • Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0501).

    • 4-sec-Butyl-2,6-di-tert- butylphenol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0495).

    • Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0479).

    • Chromium and Chromium Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0480).

    • Cobalt and Cobalt Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0481).

    • Creosotes (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0502).

    • Cyanide Compounds (Limited to dissociable compounds) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0482).

    • Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0503).

    o-Dichlorobenzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0444).

    p-Dichlorobenzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0446).

    • 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0494).

    • 3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0493).

    • 1,1-Dichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0426).

    • 1,2-Dichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0427).

    • trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0465).

    • 1,2-Dichloropropane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0428).

    • Dicyclohexyl phthalate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0504).

    • Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0433).

    • Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0434).

    • Di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- diisodecyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0435).

    • Di-isononyl phthalate (DINP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- diisononyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0436).

    • 1,2-Dimethoxyethane (Monoglyme) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0429).

    • 2-Dimethylaminoethanol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0489).

    • Di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dioctyl ester) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0437).

    • Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- octahydro-2,3,5,5- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0483).

    • Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- octahydro-2,3,8,8- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0484).

    • Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0485).

    • Ethanone, 1- (1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8- tetramethyl-2- naphthalenyl)- (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0486).

    • Ethylbenzene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0487).

    • Ethylene dibromide (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0488).

    • bis(2-Ethylhexyl) adipate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0499).

    • 2-Ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5- tetrabromobenzoate (TBB) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0491).

    • bis(2-Ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0498).

    • Formaldehyde (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0438).

    • 2,5-Furandione (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0471).

    • 1-Hexadecanol (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0469).

    • 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8- hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0430).

    • 2-Hydroxy-4-(octyloxy) benzophenone (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0492).

    • Lead and Lead Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0452).

    • Long-chain chlorinated paraffins (C18-20) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0439).

    • Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (C14-17) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0440).

    • 4,4′-Methylene bis(2- chloroaniline) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0464).

    • 4,4′-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0462).

    • Molybdenum and Molybdenum Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0453).

    • Naphthalene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0454).

    • 2- Naphthalenecarboxylic acid, 4-[(4-chloro-5- methyl-2-sulfophenyl) azo]-3-hydroxy-, calcium salt (1:1) (Pigment Red 52) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0460).

    • Nickel and Nickel Compounds (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0455).

    • N-Nitroso- diphenylamine (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0456).

    • Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NP/NPEs) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0442).

    • Octamethylcyclotetra- siloxane (D4) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0443).

    • 4-tert-Octylphenol (4-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)- phenol) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0496).

    • p,p′- Oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0457).

    • Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0458).

    • Phthalic anhydride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0459).

    • Styrene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0461).

    • Tribromomethane (Bromoform) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0466).

    • 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0421).

    • Triglycidyl isocyanurate (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0467).

    • Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0476).

    • Vinyl chloride (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0448).

    m-Xylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0441).

    o-Xylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0445).

    p-Xylene (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0447).

    In addition, EPA is interested in the public's input on chemicals not on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments for consideration as potential candidates for prioritization under TSCA. EPA welcomes the submittal of information to the docket that would support the consideration of the chemicals suggested, such as information on use, hazard, and exposure. EPA is opening docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0592 for this purpose.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: September 27, 2018. Jeffery T. Morris, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21747 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION RIN 3064-ZA02 Request for Information on FDIC Communication and Transparency AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and Request for Information.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC is seeking comments and information from interested parties on the FDIC's communication methods and related initiatives to promote efficiency and increase transparency.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-ZA02, by any of the following methods:

    Agency website: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency website.

    Email: [email protected] Include the RIN 3064-ZA02 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street NW building (located on F Street) on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    Public Inspection: All comments received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/—including any personal information provided—for public inspection. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226 by telephone at (877) 275-3342 or (703) 562-2200.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tanya Otsuka, Counsel, (202) 898-6816, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FDIC is responsible for maintaining stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system by insuring deposits, examining and supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection, making large and complex financial institutions resolvable, and managing receiverships. In order to accomplish this mission, the FDIC must be able to communicate efficiently and effectively with financial institutions. As described further below, the FDIC is soliciting comment on how to streamline and improve communication with insured depository institutions.

    Overview of Request for Information

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC” or “Agency”) is issuing this request for information to seek public input on how to make the FDIC's communication with insured depository institutions (IDIs) more effective, streamlined, and clear. While the FDIC's communication with financial institutions is essential to fulfill its statutory mandate, the FDIC recognizes that the amount of information the Agency provides to banks can create challenges for institutions. For example, staying current on relevant communications may be particularly difficult for community banks.

    Accordingly, the FDIC is soliciting comment on how to maximize efficiency and minimize burden associated with obtaining information on FDIC laws, regulations, policies, and other materials relevant to IDIs.

    Current Forms of Communication

    The FDIC uses many forms of communication to inform IDIs about regulations, policies and guidance, industry data and educational materials, and other news and updates. Some forms of communication may be used to disseminate more than one type of information, and some materials may be distributed through multiple channels. These forms of communication include, but are not limited to:

    Regulations, Policies, Procedures, and Guidance Federal Register: The FDIC publishes in the Federal Register proposed and final rules, requests for information, and other notices, including statements of policy and certain guidance or interpretations.1

    1 The FDIC posts documents published in the Federal Register chronologically on the FDIC website. See https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Unified Agenda: Twice each year through the Unified Agenda process, the FDIC makes available an agenda of regulations to inform the public of its regulatory actions and to enhance public participation in the rulemaking process.2 The agenda contains information about FDIC's current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations under review, and completed rulemakings.

    2 Publication of the agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    Financial Institution Letters (FILs): The FDIC uses FILs to distribute information to all or a subset of FDIC-insured institutions, which letters are also posted on the FDIC website in chronological order. FILs may announce new regulations and policies, new FDIC publications, and a variety of other matters of principal interest to those responsible for operating a bank or savings association. Statements of Policy: The FDIC may use statements of policy to advise the public prospectively of the manner in which the FDIC proposes to exercise its authorities or view certain matters under applicable law. • Examination Manuals • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) or Questions and Answers (Q&As) • Memoranda • Supervisory Guidance Documents, Statements, and Advisories • FDIC Open Board Meetings News and Updates • Press Releases • FDIC Consumer News • Annual Reports • Newsletters (e.g., Regional Newsletters, Money Smart News) • Consumer Alerts • Regulatory Calendar Industry Data, Educational Materials, and Outreach • Quarterly Banking Profile • Studies (e.g., FDIC Community Banking Study) • White Papers • Surveys (e.g., National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households) • FDIC Videos, Webcasts, Webinars • Roundtables • Industry Conferences • Advisory Committee Meetings • Community Outreach Program/Listening Tours • Industry Conference Calls • Supervisory Insights • FDIC Brochures • Community Bank Resource Kit General Communication FDIC.gov website 3

    3https://www.fdic.gov.

    • Social Media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube) • Email subscriptions • RSS Feeds Direct Communication • Hotlines (e.g., 1-877-ASK-FDIC) • Assistance forms (e.g., Business Assistance Form, Deposit Insurance Form, Interagency Appraisal Complaint Form, Potential Franchise Bidder Contact Form) • Email Boxes (e.g., [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]) • FDICconnect: The FDIC communicates directly with banks through FDICconnect, the secure internet channel for FDIC-insured institutions to conduct business and exchange information with the FDIC. • Reports of Examination • Letters • Emails • Telephone calls • In-Person Meetings • Compliance Reviews • Assessment Quarterly Certified Statement Invoice packet Suggested Topics for Commenters

    To reduce burden for institutions and others seeking information, both in terms of expending fewer resources to find relevant information and decreasing the amount of information that needs to be reviewed, the FDIC is seeking input on how best to streamline and improve communication with the industry. The FDIC encourages comments from all interested members of the public, including but not limited to insured depository institutions, other financial institutions or companies, individual depositors and consumers, consumer groups, and other members of the financial services industry. Please be as specific as possible to allow the FDIC to evaluate comments more effectively.

    In addition to general feedback on the FDIC's communication, transparency, and related initiatives described above, the FDIC also requests input on the following more specific topics and questions related to the FDIC's communication and transparency:

    Efficiency

    1. How effective are the FDIC's current forms of communication, including those listed above? Which methods are the most effective? Which are the least effective? Are there other methods of communication the FDIC should consider?

    2. Is it clear to IDIs which communication is supervisory in nature and which is purely informational?

    3. Is the FDIC communicating through too many different forms and channels? Is the FDIC communicating too much information? Should some forms and channels of communication be eliminated?

    4. How can the FDIC better streamline and organize its communication with IDIs in order to distribute important information more efficiently?

    5. How appropriate is the timing and frequency of communication?

    Ease of Access

    1. Is FDIC information readily available and easy to find? If not, how can the FDIC make it easier to receive and find information?

    2. How can the FDIC improve the FDIC.gov website? Does the website search function provide helpful and relevant results? What aspects of the FDIC.gov website are most helpful?

    3. Are there other forms of technology the FDIC should use to communicate with IDIs?

    4. What is the most effective way for the FDIC to organize or flag communications that are relevant to community banks?

    5. The FDIC provides an opportunity for institutions and their consumer compliance personnel to opt in to receive email alerts when the FDIC's Compliance Examination Manual (CEM) is updated or revised. Are there additional ways that the FDIC should consider communicating about CEM updates and revisions? Are there other areas or contexts where email alerts from the FDIC would be helpful?

    6. The FDIC engages in a variety of initiatives with institutions interested in acquiring failed institutions and assets, including outreach events that provide information on how the FDIC markets assets and how interested parties can bid on assets offered for sale, as well as asset purchaser workshops marketed extensively to minority- and women-owned investors and companies interested in learning about the process for failed bank asset sales. Are there additional ways that the FDIC should consider communicating with institutions interested in acquiring failed institutions and assets?

    Content

    1. Which types of communication are best suited for informing IDIs about new policy initiatives, new laws and regulations, new guidance, new background or educational materials, news and other updates?

    2. The FDIC is looking at ways to improve the process for disseminating information through FILs. The FDIC staff has reviewed all outstanding FILs issued between 1995 and 2017 to determine which ones should be archived, which should be preserved, and whether any could be combined with others to streamline the information provided to the industry. The removal of certain outdated FILs will reduce the amount of information supervised institutions need to review and make it easier to update and streamline documents that communicate supervisory expectations to the industry going forward. Should FILs be organized chronologically, by topic, by applicable regulation, or by institution size? Are FILs preferable to other forms of communication? Should the FDIC distinguish FILs that communicate regulations and policy from FILs that may be merely informational?

    Dated at Washington, DC, on October 1, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21704 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination of Receiverships

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law.

    Notice of Termination of Receiverships Fund Receivership name City State Termination date 10165 Peoples First Community Bank Panama City FL 10/1/2018 10401 Blue Ridge Savings Bank, Inc Asheville NC 10/1/2018 10459 First United Bank Crete IL 10/1/2018

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on October 1, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21675 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate Receivership

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for the institution listed below intends to terminate its receivership for said institution.

    Notice of Intent To Terminate Receivership Fund Receivership name City State Date of
  • appointment
  • of receiver
  • 10451 Georgia Trust Bank Buford GA 07/20/2012

    The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on October 1, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21676 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan 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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 November 5, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Comments can also be sent electronically to or [email protected]

    1. Bay-Vanguard, MHC and BV Financial, Inc., both of Sparrows Point, Maryland; to acquire voting shares of Kopernik Bank, Baltimore, Maryland.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 2, 2018. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21712 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 29, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. HSBC Holdings plc, London, England; HSBC Overseas Holdings (UK) Limited, London, England; HSBC North America Holdings Inc., New York, New York; and HSBC USA, Inc., New York, New York; to engage de novo through a newly formed entity, The Consortium, LLC, in data processing activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(14) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 1, 2018. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21658 Filed 10-4-18; 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 November 1, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. JBNV Holding Corp., Sparks, Nevada; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Kirkwood Bancorporation of Nevada, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Kirkwood Bank of Nevada, both of Las Vegas, Nevada.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 1, 2018. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21643 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 172 3016] A & O Enterprises Inc and Aaron K. Roberts; 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 22, 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: “A & O Enterprises Inc” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/aoenterprisesivbarsconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “A & O Enterprises Inc; File No. 1723016” 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:

    Thomas Carter (214-979-9372) or James Golder (214-979-9376), Southwest Region, Federal Trade Commission, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2150, Dallas, TX 75201.

    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 20, 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 22, 2018. Write “A & O Enterprises Inc; File No. 1723016” 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/aoenterprisesivbarsconsent 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 “A & O Enterprises Inc; File No. 1723016” 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 22, 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 A & O Enterprises Inc, a corporation, doing business as iV Bars Incorporated and iV Bars, and Aaron K. Roberts, also known as Aaron Keith (“respondents”). The proposed consent order (“order”) has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement, and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter involves respondents' advertising, promotion and sale of intravenous drip cocktails (“iV Cocktails”), including the Myers Cocktail, which contain a mixture of water, vitamins, minerals and amino acids. According to the FTC complaint, respondents made false or unsubstantiated representations that their iV Cocktails are effective treatments for cancer, angina, cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, fibromyalgia and neurodegenerative disorders, and that their cocktails produce fast, lasting results, are safe for all ages and cause no side effects. The FTC also alleges that respondents falsely represented that their iV Cocktails are clinically or scientifically proven to effectively treat the enumerated diseases and produce fast, lasting results. The complaint alleges that respondents' actions constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices and the making of false advertisements, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

    The order is designed to prevent respondents from engaging in similar acts or practices in the future. It includes injunctive relief to address these alleged violations and to prohibit similar and related conduct.

    • The order defines “covered product” to mean any intravenous therapy, including all of respondents' iV Cocktails, and any intramuscular injection.

    • Part I of the order prohibits express or implied claims that any covered product: (1) Is an effective treatment for cancer, angina, cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, fibromyalgia, or neurodegenerative disorders; (2) produces fast, lasting results; or (3) cures, mitigates, or treats any disease, unless the claim is supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence that is sufficient in quality and quantity, based on standards generally accepted by experts in the relevant area. It further requires that such substantiation include a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled human clinical trial.

    • Part II of the order prohibits express or implied health benefit, efficacy, safety, or side effects claims for any covered product, unless the representation is non-misleading, and, at the time the representation is made, proposed respondents possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that is sufficient in quality and quantity to support the claim, based on standards generally accepted by experts in the area. It further provides that such substantiation must include a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled human clinical trial, when experts generally require such human clinical testing to substantiate the representation.

    • Part III of the order prohibits respondents, in connection with the advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any covered product, from misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, that they assembled physicians, biochemists, or physiologists to create, test or approve the products, or that they maintain a research facility, including an iV Bars Research Lab.

    • Part IV of the order prohibits respondents, in connection with the advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any product or service, from making any misrepresentation about the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or other research, or that any product or service is scientifically or clinically proven to produce any benefit.

    • Part V of the order requires that respondents, with regard to any human clinical test or study upon which they rely to substantiate any claim covered by the order, must preserve all underlying data and documents generally accepted by experts in the field as relevant to an assessment of the test.

    • Part VI of the order provides that nothing in the order prohibits respondents from making a representation for any drug that is approved in labeling for such drug under any tentative final or final monograph promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration, or under any new drug application approved by the FDA.

    Parts VII through XI are reporting and compliance provisions. Part VII mandates that respondents acknowledge receipt of the order and, for 10 years, distribute the order to certain employees and agents and secure acknowledgments from recipients of the order. Part VIII requires that respondents submit compliance reports to the FTC one year after the order's issuance and submit additional reports when certain events occur. Part IX requires that, for 10 years, respondents create certain records and retain them for at least 5 years. Part X provides for the FTC's continued compliance monitoring of respondents' activity during the order's effective dates. Part XI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after 20 years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or order, or to modify in any way the order's terms.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21749 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, (BSC, OPHPR) AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, (BSC, OPHPR). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates up to 80 people. Public participants should pre-register for the meeting as described below. Members of the public that wish to attend this meeting in person should pre-register by submitting the following information by email, facsimile, or phone (see contact person for more information) no later than 12:00 noon (EDT) on Wednesday, October 22, 2018:

    • Full Name • Organizational Affiliation • Complete Mailing Address • Citizenship • Phone Number or Email Address

    The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting via Adobe Connect. Pre-registration is required by clicking the links below.

    WEB ID: October 29, 2018 (1500 Seats) https://adobeconnect.cdc.gov/e7gc21b4wp1/event/registration.html.

    WEB ID: October 30, 2018 (1500 Seats) https://adobeconnect.cdc.gov/e5j7o9ulmi8/event/registration.html.

    Dial in number: 888-603-9747; Participant code: 3564724 (100 Seats).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on October 29, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-to 5:00 p.m., EDT and October 30, 2018, 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m., EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B3, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dometa Ouisley, Office of Science and Public Health Practice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop D-44, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone: (404) 639-7450; Fax: (404) 471-8772; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose: This Board is charged with providing advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH), the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Director, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), concerning strategies and goals for the programs and research within OPHPR, monitoring the overall strategic direction and focus of the OPHPR Divisions and Offices, and administration and oversight of peer review for OPHPR scientific programs. For additional information about the Board, please visit: http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/science/counselors.htm.

    Matters to be Considered: The agenda for day one of the meeting will include discussions that will cover briefings and BSC deliberation on the following topics: Interval updates from the OPHPR Director and OPHPR Divisions and Offices; Presentation on Private Sector and PH Emergency Preparedness & Response Collaboration; and updates from the Biological Agent Containment working group.

    Day two of the meeting will cover briefings and BSC deliberation on the following topics: Preparedness updates from Liaison representatives; CDC's Public Health Data Strategy and Data Preparedness initiatives; and updates on Pandemic Flu Activities and Planning Updates. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Sherri Berger, Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21702 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority

    Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 83 FR 6179-6185, dated March 14, 2018) is amended to reflect the details of the reorganization of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This reorganization is being undertaken to enhance CDC's role in leading business strategies, strategic and risk management, and fiscal integrity activities, as well as increase the visibility of agency wide management and customer services.

    Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:

    Delete in its entirety the functional statement for the Office of the Director (CAJ1), Office of the Chief Operating Officer (CAJ), and insert the following:

    Office of the Director (CAJ1). (1) Manages and directs the activities and functions of the Office of the Chief Operating Officer; (2) provides guidance and support in the conduct of agency-wide business services and management activities performed for or by CIOs; (3) participates in the development of CDC's priority areas, goals, and objectives; (4) advises and assists the CDC Director and other key officials on all aspects of business services activities and functions; (5) oversees operation of the Working Capital Fund; and (6) oversees governance of the Agency's labor management activities.

    After the functional statement for the Freedom of Information Act Office (CAJ12), insert the following:

    Strategic Business Initiatives Unit (CAJ13). (1) Evaluates and conducts agency-wide enterprise risk monitoring and management; (2) develops and executes the annual Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act program review; (3) conducts special reviews and appraises the adequacy and effectiveness of agency-wide practices and operations; (4) coordinates responses to Office of the Inspector General hotline and other agency special reviews; (5) administers the Federal Advisory Committee Act program; (6) develops, coordinates, and formalizes CDC operational policies; (7) oversees the agency's records management program; and (8) manages CDC's delegations of authority and organizational structure and functions.

    Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the Budget Operations Services Branch (CAJEVJ), Office of Financial Resources (CAJE), and insert the following:

    Budget Control and Compliance Services Branch (CAJEVJ). (1) Conducts agency-level budget functions, financial data analysis, and reporting; (2) assists the Office of Budget Services in providing budgetary information for business decision-making support surrounding public health; (3) conducts ongoing reviews of budget systems used to support the agency's financial management activities; (4) provides ongoing budget control support for all CDC/ATSDR funds; (5) reports compliance of laws, regulations, and decisions to the Director, Office of Budget Services; (6) provides information to the Director, Office of Budget Services related to funds control management for the agency's budget; (7) assists in the review of Congressional bill language to identify and properly account for earmarks and other directed programs; (8) assists in fulfilling HHS and OMB reporting requirements; (9) calculates agency-level funding authority during continuing resolution periods, as required; and (10) provides guidance and advice to the CDC CFO and the Director, Office of Budget Services, on issues related to use of CDC appropriations and other matters concerning budgetary policy, law and regulations.

    Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the Infectious Disease Budget Execution Services Branch (CAJEVK), and insert the following:

    Budget Planning and Analytics Services Branch (CAJEVK). (1) Assists in developing plans to execute agency-level budget; (2) ensures changes and plans are in compliance with decisions and agency direction; (3) assists CIOs in establishing an agency-level planning budget to forecast annual funding and prepare spend plans for the upcoming fiscal year; (4) conducts ongoing reviews of budget systems used to support the agency's financial planning activities; (5) provides budgetary support for salary related costs including labor distribution system; (6) coordinates cross-cutting and ad hoc analysis of agency resources and funds; (7) provides support for international budget execution and analysis; (8) manages standard reoccurring reporting on special initiatives HHS; and (9) provides surge support for emergencies, outbreaks, and special initiatives.

    Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the Public Health Scientific Services Budget Execution Services Branch (CAJEVL), and insert the following:

    Training, Development, and Specialized Funding Budget Execution Services Branch (CAJEVL). (1) Develops, coordinates, and tracks budget execution related training for CDC personnel including the development of various budget certification programs; (2) develops and maintains agency budget execution standard operating procedures, guidance, and job-aids; (3) provides guidance and training support for special funding types such as Interagency Agreements (IAAs), gifts, CRADAs, user fees, etc.; (4) establishes and maintains systems to facilitate the processing of special funding types; (5) assists in developing reports for various funding types and coordinates with Program Resource Management and Budget Execution Support teams; and (6) supports process improvement and workforce development initiatives including performance management designed to support optimal budget execution.

    Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the Office of the Director, OSTLTS, and Occupational Safety and Health Budget Execution Services Branch (CAJEVM), and insert the following:

    Budget Execution Services Branch 1 (CAJEVM). (1) Provides the legal and regulatory expertise and support to execute CDC's budget within the framework of HHS, OMB, and Congressional regulations, and policies of CDC OD; (2) manages the expectations agreed upon in the Budget Execution Services Service Level Agreement; (3) promotes structured, ongoing partnerships with CIOs; (4) supports programs with funds management including funds certification; (5) provides the leadership and guidance for spend plan creation and administration, in compliance with all federal guidelines and policies, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act; (6) provides the overall analysis of spend plans to advise programs on future spending decisions; (7) assists program officials in developing sub-allocation of CIO, and/or Division ceilings; (8) communicates and shares knowledge with programs and CDC's budget analyst community; and (9) performs cost-benefit analysis to review financial requests and makes recommendations for future-year budget.

    Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the Non-Communicable Disease, Injury, and Environmental Health Budget Execution Services Branch (CAJEVN), and insert the following:

    Budget Execution Services Branch 2 (CAJEVN). (1) Provides the legal and regulatory expertise and support to execute CDC's budget within the framework of HHS, OMB, and Congressional regulations, and policies of CDC OD; (2) manages the expectations agreed upon in the Budget Execution Services Service Level Agreement; (3) promotes structured, ongoing partnerships with CIOs; (4) supports programs in with funds management including funds certification; (5) provides the leadership and guidance for spend plan creation and administration, in compliance with all federal guidelines and policies, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act; (6) provides the overall analysis of spend plans to advise programs on future spending decisions; (7) assists program officials in developing sub-allocation of CIO, and/or Division ceilings; (8) communicates and shares knowledge with programs and CDC's budget analyst community; and (9) performs cost-benefit analysis to review financial requests and makes recommendations for future-year budget.

    Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the Global Health Budget Execution Services Branch (CAJEVP), and insert the following:

    Budget Execution Services Branch 3 (CAJEVP). (1) Provides the legal and regulatory expertise and support to execute CDC's budget within the framework of HHS, OMB, and Congressional regulations, and policies of CDC OD; (2) manages the expectations agreed upon in the Budget Execution Services Service Level Agreement; (3) promotes structured, ongoing partnerships with CIOs; (4) supports programs with funds management including funds certification; (5) provides the leadership and guidance for spend plan creation and administration, in compliance with all federal guidelines and policies, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act; (6) provides the overall analysis of spend plans to advise programs on future spending decisions; (7) assists program officials in developing sub-allocation of CIO, and/or Division ceilings; (8) communicates and shares knowledge with programs and CDC's budget analyst community; and (9) performs cost-benefit analysis to review financial requests and makes recommendations for future-year budget.

    Delete in their entirety the title and functional statement for the Preparedness, Response, and Office of the Chief Operating Officer Budget Execution Services Branch (CAJEVQ), and insert the following:

    Budget Execution Services Branch 4 (CAJEVQ). (1) Provides the legal and regulatory expertise and support to execute CDC's budget within the framework of HHS, OMB, and Congressional regulations, and policies of CDC OD; (2) manages the expectations agreed upon in the Budget Execution Services Service Level Agreement; (3) promotes structured, ongoing partnerships with CIOs; (4) supports programs with funds management including funds certification; (5) provides the leadership and guidance for spend plan creation and administration, in compliance with all federal guidelines and policies, such as the Anti-Deficiency Act; (6) provides the overall analysis of spend plans to advise programs on future spending decisions; (7) assists program officials in developing sub-allocation of CIO, and/or Division ceilings; (8) communicates and shares knowledge with programs and CDC's budget analyst community; and (9) performs cost-benefit analysis to review financial requests and makes recommendations for future-year budget.

    After the functional statement for the Office of the Director (CAJ1), Office of the Chief Information Officer (CAJR), and insert the following:

    Technology Modernization and Solutions Office (CAJR15). The mission of the Technology and Modernization Office (TMSO) is to bring out innovation, agility, and resilience of OCIO's information technology throughout the portfolio lifecycle. To carry out its mission, TMSO: (1) Leads, plans, and manages CDC's information technology (IT) budget development and review processes; (2) advances the field of public health information technology for the Agency through applied research and innovation; (3) coordinates the development and implementation of OCIO enterprise portfolio and investment strategy; (4) establishes, implements and communicates a comprehensive and integrated framework for CDC enterprise architecture; (5) identifies needs and resources for new initiatives and assigns responsibilities for their development; (6) provides centralized information technology portfolio services; and (7) coordinates the development of a research agenda for information technology and public health collaboration.

    Enterprise Information Technology Portfolio Office (CAJR152). (1) Plans and directs the capital planning investment Control processes including investment selection, control and evaluation, business case analyses, lifecycle reviews, portfolio development, performance measures, and investment prioritization procedures; (2) develops and monitors earned value management analyses of project cost, schedule and deliverable commitments; (3) provides guidance to program and project managers on the use of the tools for preparing investment documentation that meet CDC, HHS, and OMB requirements; (4) develops CDC IT strategic and tactical plans; (5) provides guidance to program and project managers on technology business management; (6) leads development of the enterprise architecture and transition strategies; (7) collaborates with CDC staff to develop business process models for CDC public health functions; (8) develops and maintains a shared services catalog to promote reuse of existing resources; (9) supports CDC information resource governance structures including common processes, tools, techniques; (10) identifies needs and develops strategies and approaches to acquire and manage enterprise statistical software licenses; and (11) develops internal cost allocation methods and coordinates allocation of costs for annual license renewal payments.

    Informatics Innovation Unit (CAJR153). (1) Collaborates with CDC programs and the broader public health community to develop innovative technologies and techniques to positively impact public health practice; (2) transitions new technology-based solutions, standards, and techniques to programs for deployment and implementation; (3) provides consultation, evaluation, guidance, and support in the use of new informatics solutions; (4) rapidly define problems, create prototypes, conduct pilot projects, and examine and test hypotheses to support information technology solutions; (5) participates and represents the agency on technology innovation committees, workgroups, organizations, and councils, within CDC and with other federal agencies; (6) provides education to fellows, colleagues, and partners on emerging information technology tools, techniques, and methodologies; and (7) provides regular updates to leadership as to the status of all projects in the technology innovation laboratory.

    Office of Business Operations (CAJR16). (1) Manages OCIO centralized internal accounting services, and budget services; (2) provides guidance, oversight, and coordination in the internal areas of organizational and human capital management, continual process improvement, policy, performance, communication, budget formulation, enterprise risk management, administrative management and internal acquisition services; (3) provides expertise in interpreting applicable laws, regulations, policies, and offers guidance, direction, and coordination in resolving issues; (4) advises and assists the CDC Chief Information Officer, OCIO office directors, and senior staff on all matters regarding internal business service operations; (5) maintains internal controls; (6) coordinates and manages operationally focused project teams; (7) provides leadership and strategic support in the determination of long-term operational needs; (8) provides collaboration and centralized consolidation of Office reporting requirements; (9) provides strategic planning and coordination of OCIO transformation projects and initiatives; and (10) manages and implements special projects sponsored by OCIO leadership.

    Policy, Performance and Communications Activity (CAJR162). (1) Provides leadership, oversight, and guidance for OCIO Enterprise Risk Management; (2) identifies systemic operational risks and issues and communicates them to OCIO leadership for consideration, mitigation and issue resolution; (3) provides leadership, coordination, and collaboration on OCIO issues management and triaging, and ensures the process of ongoing issues identification, management and resolution; (4) establishes OCIO business performance metrics and coordinates reviews to ascertain status on meeting the metrics; (5) conducts business analytics and reporting on performance data collected from other OCIO offices and sections; (6) provides reporting for annual planning meetings, annual reports, data calls, end-of-year coordination, and ad-hoc requests; (7) leads OCIO performance management, including the development of strategic plans, performance metrics, dashboards, and Quarterly Program Review materials; (8) manages and coordinates the development of organizational and CDC-wide information technology policies to support CDC's public health science and programs; (9) manages and responds to Congressional inquiries and media requests as it relates to support of CDC's information technology policies; (10) serves as the point of contact for the policy analysis, technical review and final clearance of executive correspondence and policy documents that require approval from the Chief Information Officer, OCIO Leadership Team, or officials; (11) provides coordination and oversight for internal and external OCIO communications; (12) provides communications support for executive presentations, messages, and meetings; (13) ensures accurate and consistent information dissemination, including Freedom Of Information Act requests and Executive Secretariat controlled correspondence; (14) ensures consistent application of CDC correspondence standards and styles; and (15) provides leadership, technical assistance, and consultation in establishing best practices in internal and external business communication and implements external communication strategies to promote and protect OCIO and the agency's brand (e.g. employee communications, intranet, internet and other communication platforms).

    Management Services Activity (CAJR163). (1) Provides budgetary information for business decision-making support surrounding information technology investments in support of the agency's mission and goals; (2) provides OCIO spend plan validation, remediation, and analysis; (3) prepares annual OCIO budget formulation and budget justifications; (4) ensures budget plans and changes are in compliance with decisions and agency direction; (5) plans, develops, manages, and conducts oversight of CDC's information services contracts; (6) coordinates and facilitates OCIO contracts use including requirements development, specifications, performance needs, quality assurance and service delivery, and contract administration; (7) provides guidance and assistance to programs on the various aspects of the contracts to meet their requirements; (8) coordinates and manages annual contract forecasting activities; (9) participates with senior management in program planning, policy determinations, evaluations, and decisions concerning escalation points for acquisitions and financial management; (10) conducts policy analysis, tracking, review and clearance as it relates to acquisitions and financial management to support CDC's public health science and programs; (11) provides workforce and human capital management oversight and direction for all OCIO components including employee relations; (12) gathers and analyzes information concerning OCIO workforce challenges and/or opportunities for leadership awareness, strategic planning, and operational improvement; (13) collects and analyzes data from employee viewpoint surveys and other sources to inform OCIO leadership and future initiatives; and (14) provides and oversees the delivery of OCIO-wide administrative management and support services in the areas of fiscal management, personnel, travel, records management, internal controls, and other administrative services.

    Enterprise Data Office (CARG). (1) Develops, promotes, implements, and evaluates data science approaches for improved research of large and complex data sets; (2) maintains and leverages data acquired from multiple sources; (3) develops and implements solutions, often with partners and collaborators, to strengthen information systems and reporting; (4) develops and implements computer-based decision support tools and mobile applications that help to inform better decision-making; and (5) collaborates with other CDC programs to develop and promote informatics solutions for improving data management, practice, and preparedness; and (6) promotes a multidisciplinary approach (which includes statistics, analytics, data management, informatics, and evaluation sciences) to assure that the CDC programs, information systems, and data serve public health program objectives.

    Delete in their entirety the titles and functional statements for the Enterprise Information Technology Portfolio Office (CAJR12), Acquisition Program Management Office (CAJR14), and the Management Analysis and Services Office (CAJRC).

    Delete in its entirety the title and functional statement for Informatics Innovation Unit (CPNC12), Office of the Director (CPN1), Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CPN).

    This reorganization was approved by the Director, CDC.

    Robert Redfield, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21670 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

    Name of Committee: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)—PAR 15-352, Occupational Safety and Health Training Projects.

    Date: December 05, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. EST.

    Place: Teleconference.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    For Further Information Contact: Michael Goldcamp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Programs, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, West Virginia, 26505, (304) 285-5951; [email protected]

    The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Sherri Berger, Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21700 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). This meeting is open to the public, is limited only by room seating available, (120). The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting via teleconference at 800-857-9838, passcode: 5325685; 100 teleconference lines are available.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on November 15, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EST, and November 16, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027 and teleconference at 800-857-9838, passcode: 5325685.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Stone, M.A., HICPAC, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, NCEZID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop A-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone (404) 639-4045. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Time will be available for public comment. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed below. The deadline for receipt of written public comment is November 1, 2018. All requests must contain the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the speaker, as well as the topic being addressed. Written comments should not exceed one single-spaced typed page in length and delivered in 3 minutes or less. Members of the public who wish to provide public comments should plan to attend the public comment session at the start time listed. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. Registration is required to attend in person or on the phone. Interested parties must be processed in accordance with established federal policies and procedures and may register at www.cdc.gov/hicpac.

    Purpose: The Committee is charged with providing advice and guidance to the Director, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP), the Director, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), the Director, CDC, and the Secretary, Health and Human Services, regarding (1) the practice of healthcare infection prevention and control; (2) strategies for surveillance, prevention, and control of infections, antimicrobial resistance, and related events in settings where healthcare is provided; and (3) periodic updating of CDC guidelines and other policy statements regarding prevention of healthcare-associated infections and healthcare-related conditions.

    Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include updates on CDC's activities for prevention of healthcare-associated infections. It will also include updates from the following HICPAC workgroups: The Healthcare Personnel Guideline Workgroup; the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Workgroup; the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) Guideline Workgroup; and the Products and Practices Workgroup. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Sherri Berger, Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21701 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)—CK19-001, Identification, Surveillance, and Control of Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases in Uganda.

    Date: January 3, 2019.

    Time: 12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m., (EST).

    Place: Teleconference, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Room 1080, 8 Corporate Square Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30329.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    For Further Information Contact: Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, (404) 718-8833, [email protected]

    The Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Sherri Berger, Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21688 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Delegation of Authority

    Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), without authority to redelegate, the authority vested in the Director, CDC, under Section 2695, Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-131), and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-87), as amended.

    This delegation became effective on August 27, 2018. I hereby affirm and ratify any actions taken that involve the exercise of the authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of this delegation.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Robert R. Redfield, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21672 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1704-N] Medicare Program; Town Hall Meeting on the FY 2020 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On Payments AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a Town Hall meeting in accordance with section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to discuss fiscal year (FY) 2020 applications for add-on payments for new medical services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). Interested parties are invited to this meeting to present their comments, recommendations, and data regarding whether the FY 2020 new medical services and technologies applications meet the substantial clinical improvement criterion.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: The Town Hall Meeting announced in this notice will be held on Tuesday, December 4, 2018. The Town Hall Meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (e.s.t.) and check-in will begin at 8:30 a.m. e.s.t.

    Deadline for Registration for Participants (not Presenting) at the Town Hall Meeting: The deadline to register to attend the Town Hall Meeting is 5:00 p.m., e.s.t. on Monday, November 26, 2018.

    Deadline for Requesting Special Accommodations: The deadline to submit requests for special accommodations is 5:00 p.m., e.s.t. on Monday, November 19, 2018.

    Deadline for Registration of Presenters at the Town Hall Meeting: The deadline to register to present at the Town Hall Meeting is 5:00 p.m., e.s.t. on Monday, November 19, 2018.

    Deadline for Submission of Agenda Item(s) or Written Comments for the Town Hall Meeting: Written comments and agenda items for discussion at the Town Hall Meeting, including agenda items by presenters, must be received by 5:00 p.m. e.s.t. on Monday, November 19, 2018.

    Deadline for Submission of Written Comments after the Town Hall Meeting for consideration in the FY 2020 IPPS proposed rule: Individuals may submit written comments after the Town Hall Meeting, as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice, on whether the service or technology represents a substantial clinical improvement. These comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. e.s.t. on Friday, December 14, 2018, for consideration in the FY 2020 IPPS proposed rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: The Town Hall Meeting will be held in the main Auditorium in the central building of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services located at 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    In addition, we are providing two alternatives to attending the meeting in person—(1) there will be an open toll-free phone line to call into the Town Hall Meeting; or (2) participants may view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live stream technology or webinar. These options are discussed in section II.B. of this notice.

    Registration and Special Accommodations: Individuals wishing to participate in the meeting must register by following the on-line registration instructions located in section III. of this notice or by contacting staff listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Individuals who need special accommodations should contact staff listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Submission of Agenda Item(s) or Written Comments for the Town Hall Meeting: Each presenter must submit an agenda item(s) regarding whether a FY 2020 application meets the substantial clinical improvement criterion. Agenda items, written comments, questions or other statements must not exceed three single-spaced typed pages and may be sent via email to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Joshua, (410) 786-6050, [email protected]; or Michael Treitel, (410) 786-4552, [email protected].

    Alternatively, you may forward your requests via email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Add-On Payments for New Medical Services and Technologies Under the IPPS

    Sections 1886(d)(5)(K) and (L) of the Social Security Act (the Act) require the Secretary to establish a process of identifying and ensuring adequate payments to acute care hospitals for new medical services and technologies under Medicare. Effective for discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2001, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish (after notice and opportunity for public comment) a mechanism to recognize the costs of new services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). In addition, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(vi) of the Act specifies that a medical service or technology will be considered “new” if it meets criteria established by the Secretary (after notice and opportunity for public comment). (See the fiscal year (FY) 2002 IPPS proposed rule (66 FR 22693, May 4, 2001) and final rule (66 FR 46912, September 7, 2001) for a more detailed discussion.)

    In the September 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 46914), we noted that we evaluated a request for special payment for a new medical service or technology against the following criteria in order to determine if the new technology meets the substantial clinical improvement requirement:

    • The device offers a treatment option for a patient population unresponsive to, or ineligible for, currently available treatments.

    • The device offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition in a patient population where that medical condition is currently undetectable or offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition earlier in a patient population than allowed by currently available methods. There must also be evidence that use of the device to make a diagnosis affects the management of the patient.

    • Use of the device significantly improves clinical outcomes for a patient population as compared to currently available treatments. Some examples of outcomes that are frequently evaluated in studies of medical devices are the following:

    ++  Reduced mortality rate with use of the device.

    ++  Reduced rate of device-related complications.

    ++  Decreased rate of subsequent diagnostic or therapeutic interventions (for example, due to reduced rate of recurrence of the disease process).

    ++  Decreased number of future hospitalizations or physician visits.

    ++  More rapid beneficial resolution of the disease process treatment because of the use of the device.

    ++  Decreased pain, bleeding or other quantifiable symptoms.

    ++  Reduced recovery time.

    In addition, we indicated that the requester is required to submit evidence that the technology meets one or more of these criteria.

    Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Act requires that as part of the process for evaluating new medical services and technology applications, the Secretary shall do the following:

    • Provide for public input regarding whether a new service or technology represents an advance in medical technology that substantially improves the diagnosis or treatment of Medicare beneficiaries before publication of a proposed rule.

    • Make public and periodically update a list of all the services and technologies for which an application is pending.

    • Accept comments, recommendations, and data from the public regarding whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement.

    • Provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS as to whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement before publication of a proposed rule.

    The opinions and presentations provided during this meeting will assist us as we evaluate the new medical services and technology applications for FY 2020. In addition, they will help us to evaluate our policy on the IPPS new technology add-on payment process before the publication of the FY 2020 IPPS proposed rule.

    II. Town Hall Meeting Format and Conference Call/Live Streaming Information A. Format of the Town Hall Meeting

    As noted in section I. of this notice, we are required to provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS concerning whether the service or technology represents a substantial clinical improvement. This meeting will allow for a discussion of the substantial clinical improvement criteria for each of the FY 2020 new medical services and technology add-on payment applications. Information regarding the applications can be found on our website at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html.

    The majority of the meeting will be reserved for presentations of comments, recommendations, and data from registered presenters. The time for each presenter's comments will be approximately 10 to 15 minutes and will be based on the number of registered presenters. Individuals who would like to present must register and submit their agenda item(s) via email to [email protected] by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    In addition, written comments will also be accepted and presented at the meeting if they are received via email to [email protected] by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. Written comments may also be submitted after the meeting for our consideration. If the comments are to be considered before the publication of the FY 2020 IPPS proposed rule, the comments must be received via email to [email protected] by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    B. Conference Call, Live Streaming, and Webinar Information

    For participants who cannot attend the Town Hall Meeting in person, an open toll-free phone line will be made available. Continue to check our website at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html for updated dial-in number and instructions.

    Also, there will be an option to view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live streaming technology or webinar. Information on the option to participate via live streaming technology or webinar will be provided through an upcoming listserv notice and posted on the New Technology website at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html. Continue to check the website for updates.

    C. Disclaimer

    We cannot guarantee reliability for live streaming technology or a webinar.

    III. Registration Instructions

    The Division of Acute Care in CMS is coordinating the meeting registration for the Town Hall Meeting on substantial clinical improvement. While there is no registration fee, individuals planning to attend the Town Hall Meeting in person must register to attend.

    Registration may be completed on-line at the following web address: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html. Select the link at the bottom of the page “Register to Attend the New Technology Town Hall Meeting”. After completing the registration, online registrants should print the confirmation page(s) and bring it with them to the meeting.

    If you are unable to register on-line, you may register by sending an email to [email protected]. Please include your name, address, telephone number, email address and fax number. If seating capacity has been reached, you will be notified that the meeting has reached capacity.

    IV. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    Because this meeting will be located on Federal property, for security reasons, any persons wishing to attend the meeting must register by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. Please allow sufficient time to go through the security checkpoints. If you are attending the Town Hall Meeting in person, we suggest that you arrive at 7500 Security Boulevard no later than 8:30 a.m. e.s.t. so that you will be able to arrive promptly for the meeting.

    Security measures include the following:

    • Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

    Note:

    The REAL ID Act established minimum security standards for license issuance and production and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for certain purposes driver's licenses and identification cards from states not meeting the Act's minimum standards. We encourage the public to visit the DHS website at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id prior to the new technology town hall meeting for updated information.

    • All Foreign National visitor requests must be submitted 12 business days prior to the scheduled visitor to allow for processing./non U.S. citizen.

    • Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.

    • Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.

    Note:

    Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting in person. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.

    All visitors must be escorted in all areas other than the lower level lobby and cafeteria area and first floor auditorium and conference areas in the Central Building. Seating capacity is limited to the first 250 registrants.

    Updated Security Information for In-Person Attendees

    Effective June 1, 2018, Federal Protective Services (FPS) has implemented new security screening procedures at all CMS Baltimore locations to align with national screening standards. Please allow extra time to clear security prior to the beginning of the meeting. Employees, contractors and visitors must place all items in bins for screening, including:

    • Any items in your pockets.

    • Belts, hats, jackets & coats (not suit jackets or sport coats).

    • Purses, laptop computers & cell phones.

    • Larger items (e.g. computer bags) can be placed directly onto the conveyer.

    In the event the metal detector beeps when you walk through:

    • A security guard will run a hand-held metal detector over you. If t