Federal Register Vol. 83, No.199,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 199 (October 15, 2018)

Page Range51815-52114
FR Document

83_FR_199
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 52113 - General Pulaski Memorial Day, 2018PDF
83 FR 52111 - National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, 2018PDF
83 FR 51906 - Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Negotiator Nominations and Schedule of Committee Meetings-Accreditation and InnovationPDF
83 FR 51986 - Sunshine Act Notice of Agency MeetingPDF
83 FR 51986 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency MeetingPDF
83 FR 51982 - Phillip O. Rawlings, Jr., M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
83 FR 51983 - Importer of Controlled Substances RegistrationPDF
83 FR 51983 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambrex High Point, Inc.PDF
83 FR 51983 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Specgx, LLCPDF
83 FR 51953 - Submission for OMB Review; Background Investigations for Child Care WorkersPDF
83 FR 51970 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 51954 - Submission for OMB Review; CDP Supply Chain Climate Change Information RequestPDF
83 FR 51955 - Submission for OMB Review; System for Award Management Registration Requirements for Prime Grant RecipientsPDF
83 FR 51960 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching ProgramPDF
83 FR 51940 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 51952 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 52047 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
83 FR 51987 - Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 51911 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 51910 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 52046 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Petition To Classify Special Immigrant Under INA 203(b)(4) as Employee or Former Employee of the U.S. Government AbroadPDF
83 FR 51842 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins Risk and Technology Review ReconsiderationPDF
83 FR 51940 - Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of Findings for August 2018PDF
83 FR 51941 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active IngredientsPDF
83 FR 51943 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
83 FR 51946 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
83 FR 51951 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 51947 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 51944 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
83 FR 51933 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Northbrook Carolina Hydro II, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
83 FR 51938 - Equitrans, LP; Notice of ApplicationPDF
83 FR 51937 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Northern Lights 2019 Expansion and Rochester ProjectsPDF
83 FR 52050 - Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 51946 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching ProgramPDF
83 FR 51985 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; MeetingPDF
83 FR 51957 - Draft Guideline: Infection Control in Healthcare Personnel: Infrastructure and Routine Practices for Occupational Infection Prevention and Control ServicesPDF
83 FR 51942 - Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, Classified ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 52048 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice Regarding a Hearing for Ongoing Country Practice Reviews of Bolivia, Ecuador, Georgia, Indonesia, Iraq, Thailand, and Uzbekistan and for the Ongoing Country Designation Review of LaosPDF
83 FR 51931 - Energy Conservation Program: Notice of Application From Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co. for a Small Business Exemption From the Department of Energy's Rough Service Lamps Energy Conservation StandardsPDF
83 FR 51840 - Streamlining the Administration of DART Royalty Accounts and Electronic Royalty Payment ProcessesPDF
83 FR 51930 - Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; CancellationPDF
83 FR 51926 - Foreign-Trade Zone 114-Peoria, Illinois; Application for Subzone; Winpak Heat Seal Corporation; Pekin, IllinoisPDF
83 FR 51925 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 116A, Motiva Enterprises LLC, Jefferson and Hardin Counties, TexasPDF
83 FR 51925 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 74; (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; Baltimore, MarylandPDF
83 FR 51927 - Steel Propane Cylinders From the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
83 FR 51929 - Notice of Findings Regarding Non-U.S. Commercial Availability of Satellite Imagery With Respect to IsraelPDF
83 FR 51926 - Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
83 FR 51961 - Pathogen Reduction Technologies for Blood Safety; Public Workshop; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 51836 - Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 51929 - Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License to Dilatant, LLC; Kansas City, MOPDF
83 FR 51949 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 51970 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 51969 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 51958 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 51911 - Implementation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992PDF
83 FR 51936 - Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
83 FR 51938 - Alaska Gasline Development Corporation; Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
83 FR 51934 - Blue Cloud Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 51939 - Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 51936 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 51934 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 52047 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Gauguin: A Spiritual Journey” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 51984 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; America's Promise Job-Driven Grant Program Evaluation; Office of the SecretaryPDF
83 FR 51837 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CAPDF
83 FR 51924 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 51906 - Guidance Regarding the Transition Tax Under Section 965 and Related Provisions; HearingPDF
83 FR 51962 - Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 51963 - Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 51961 - Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 51953 - Information Collection; North Carolina Sales Tax CertificationPDF
83 FR 52042 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 51838 - Safety Zone; Head of the Buffalo Regatta; Buffalo River, Buffalo, NYPDF
83 FR 51838 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MDPDF
83 FR 52049 - NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC); MeetingPDF
83 FR 51979 - Agency Information Collection Activities: General Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations on Federal LandsPDF
83 FR 51979 - Agency Information Collection Activities: State Regulatory Authority: Inspection and EnforcementPDF
83 FR 51923 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 51924 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Nebraska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 51923 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 51937 - SR Millington, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 51935 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 51980 - Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
83 FR 51985 - National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC)PDF
83 FR 51974 - South Carolina; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 51976 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency DeclarationPDF
83 FR 51974 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 51965 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Intramural Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (iCURE) Application-National Cancer InstitutePDF
83 FR 51964 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 51968 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 51967 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 51969 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 51968 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 51968 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 51966 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 51966 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 51969 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 51966 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 51963 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice to Close MeetingPDF
83 FR 51836 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying BenefitsPDF
83 FR 51977 - Hawaii; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 51977 - Nebraska; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 51975 - North Carolina; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 51975 - South Carolina; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 51972 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 51976 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Ready Public Service Advertising (PSA) Campaign Creative Testing ResearchPDF
83 FR 52050 - Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Hilcorp Alaska, LLCPDF
83 FR 51978 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS) Memorandum of Agreement ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 51930 - Defense Business Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 52039 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the First Trust Long Duration Opportunities ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-EPDF
83 FR 51988 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend, Reorganize and Enhance Its Membership, Registration and Qualification RulesPDF
83 FR 52006 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend, Reorganize and Enhance Its Membership, Registration and Qualification Rules and To Make Conforming Changes to Certain Other RulesPDF
83 FR 52039 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 52023 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend, Reorganize and Enhance Its Membership, Registration and Qualification Rules and To Make Conforming Changes to Certain Other RulesPDF
83 FR 52022 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 52005 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 51987 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 51986 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 51923 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
83 FR 51857 - Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 51952 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 51863 - Etoxazole; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 51897 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Jackman, ME, and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Newton Field, MEPDF
83 FR 51903 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Engelhard, NCPDF
83 FR 51927 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 51867 - Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure InvestmentPDF
83 FR 51901 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oscoda, MIPDF
83 FR 51834 - Establishment of Class D and E Airspace, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Austin, TXPDF
83 FR 51833 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wooster, OHPDF
83 FR 51900 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; West Union, IAPDF
83 FR 51895 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Milwaukee, WIPDF
83 FR 51898 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lawrenceville, ILPDF
83 FR 51832 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Reedley, CAPDF
83 FR 51904 - Removal of Regulations on Advance Payments for Goods and Long-Term ContractsPDF
83 FR 51829 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan EnginesPDF
83 FR 51889 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 51823 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
83 FR 51815 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 51825 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 51887 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 51819 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 52051 - Notice of OFAC Implementation of Certain Sanctions Imposed on Two Persons by the Secretary of State Pursuant to the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions ActPDF
83 FR 52056 - Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources ReconsiderationPDF

Issue

83 199 Monday, October 15, 2018 Contents Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Exclusive License, 51923 2018-22283 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Research Service

Army Army Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: Dilatant, LLC, Kansas City, MO, 51929-51930 2018-22362 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 51958-51960 2018-22358 Guidance: Infection Control in Healthcare Personnel: Infrastructure and Routine Practices for Occupational Infection Prevention and Control Services, 51957-51958 2018-22377 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Privacy Act; Matching Programs, 51960-51961 2018-22405 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Kansas Advisory Committee, 51923-51924 2018-22328 Nebraska Advisory Committee, 51924 2018-22329 Ohio Advisory Committee, 51923 2018-22330 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD, 51838 2018-22336 Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA, 51837-51838 2018-22347 Safety Zones: Head of the Buffalo Regatta, Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY, 51838-51840 2018-22337 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 51924-51925 2018-22346
Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress RULES Streamlining the Administration of DART Royalty Accounts and Electronic Royalty Payment Processes, 51840-51842 2018-22372 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: North Carolina Sales Tax Certification, 51953 2018-22341 Meetings: Defense Business Board, 51930 2018-22297 Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council; Cancellation, 51930 2018-22371
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Applications: Specgx, LLC, 51983-51984 2018-22415 Decisions and Orders: Phillip O. Rawlings, Jr., M.D., 51982-51983 2018-22421 Importer of Controlled Substances; Applications: Cambrex High Point, Inc., 51983 2018-22416 Importer of Controlled Substances; Registrations, 51983 2018-22420 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Negotiator Nominations and Schedule of Committee Meetings—Accreditation and Innovation, 51906-51910 2018-22506 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Energy Conservation Program: Application from Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co. for a Small Business Exemption from the Rough Service Lamps Energy Conservation Standards, 51931-51933 2018-22373 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins Risk and Technology Review Reconsideration, 51842-51857 2018-22395 Pesticide Tolerances: Etoxazole, 51863-51867 2018-22279 Pyraclostrobin, 51857-51863 2018-22282 PROPOSED RULES Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration, 52056-52107 2018-20961 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances, 51910-51911 2018-22399 2018-22400 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production, 51940 2018-22404 Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses: Statements of Findings for August 2018, 51940-51941 2018-22394 Pesticide Product Registrations: Applications for New Active Ingredients, 51941-51942 2018-22392 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56: Classified Activities, 51942-51943 2018-22375 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus SAS Airplanes, 51819-51823, 51825-51829 2018-21963 2018-21967 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 51823-51825 2018-21972 Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines, 51829-51832 2018-22009 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 51815-51819 2018-21971 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Wooster, OH, 51833-51834 2018-22178 Establishment of Class D and E Airspace: Austin, TX, 51834-51836 2018-22185 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Reedley, CA, 51832-51833 2018-22169 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 51889-51895 2018-21973 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 51887-51889 2018-21966 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Milwaukee, WI, 51895-51897 2018-22175 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Lawrenceville, IL, 51898-51900 2018-22172 Oscoda, MI, 51901-51903 2018-22192 West Union, IA, 51900-51901 2018-22176 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Revocation of Class E Airspace: Jackman, ME; Newton Field, ME, 51897-51898 2018-22264 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Engelhard, NC, 51903-51904 2018-22257 NOTICES Meetings: NextGen Advisory Committee, 52049-52050 2018-22334 Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, 52050 2018-22382 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 51867-51886 2018-22234 PROPOSED RULES Implementation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 51911-51922 2018-22356 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 51943-51949, 51951-51952 2018-22387 2018-22388 2018-22389 2018-22390 2018-22391 Privacy Act; Matching Program, 51946 2018-22380 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 51949-51951 2018-22361 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems Memorandum of Agreement Applications, 51978-51979 2018-22298 Ready Public Service Advertising Campaign Creative Testing Research, 51976-51977 2018-22301 Emergency Declarations: Hawaii; Amendment No. 1, 51976 2018-22321 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 51972-51974 2018-22302 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Hawaii, 51977 2018-22306 North Carolina, 51975-51976 2018-22304 Major Disaster Declarations: Hawaii; Amendment No. 3, 51974 2018-22320 Nebraska; Amendment No. 1, 51977-51978 2018-22305 South Carolina; Amendment No. 3, 51975 2018-22303 South Carolina; Amendment No. 4, 51974-51975 2018-22322 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Equitrans, LP, 51938-51939 2018-22384 Combined Filings, 51934-51936 2018-22326 2018-22350 2018-22351 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Northern Natural Gas Co.; Northern Lights 2019 Expansion Project and the Rochester Project, 51937-51938 2018-22383 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Blue Cloud Wind Energy, LLC, 51934 2018-22353 Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC, 51939 2018-22352 SR Millington, LLC, 51937 2018-22327 License Transfers; Applications: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Northbrook Carolina Hydro II, LLC, 51933-51934 2018-22385 Meetings: Alaska Gasline Development Corp.; Technical Conference, 51938 2018-22354 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc., 51936-51937 2018-22355 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 51952-51953 2018-22280 2018-22403 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 51952 2018-22281 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pathogen Reduction Technologies for Blood Safety; Public Workshop; Correction, 51961 2018-22364 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 52051-52053 2018-21131 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Reorganizations under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 74, Baltimore, MD, 51925-51926 2018-22368 Subzone Applications: Winpak Heat Seal Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 114, Peoria, IL, 51926 2018-22370 Subzone Expansions; Approvals: Motiva Enterprises LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 116, Port Arthur, TX, 51925 2018-22369 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Background Investigations for Child Care Workers, 51953-51954 2018-22411 CDP Supply Chain Climate Change Information Request, 51954-51955 2018-22408 North Carolina Sales Tax Certification, 51953 2018-22341 System for Award Management Registration Requirements for Prime Grant Recipients, 51955-51957 2018-22407 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

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 51961-51963 2018-22342 2018-22343 2018-22344
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Information Information Security Oversight Office NOTICES Meetings: National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee, 51985 2018-22323 Interior Interior Department See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Guidance Regarding the Transition Tax Under Section 965 and Related Provisions; Hearing, 51906 2018-22345 Removal of Regulations on Advance Payments for Goods and Long-Term Contracts, 51904-51906 2018-22025 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter from the People's Republic of China, 51926-51927 2018-22365 Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 51927-51929 2018-22237 Steel Propane Cylinders from the People's Republic of China and Thailand, 51927 2018-22367 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, 51980-51982 2018-22325 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: America's Promise Job-Driven Grant Program Evaluation, 51984-51985 2018-22348 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: North Carolina Sales Tax Certification, 51953 2018-22341 Meetings: Advisory Council Science Committee, 51985 2018-22379 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See

Information Security Oversight Office

National Council National Council on Disability NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 51985-51986 2018-22511 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 51986 2018-22438 2018-22500 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Intramural Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences Application—National Cancer Institute, 51965-51966 2018-22319 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 51967-51970 2018-22316 2018-22317 2018-22359 2018-22360 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 51964-51965 2018-22318 National Human Genome Research Institute, 51968-51970 2018-22314 2018-22315 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 51966, 51968 2018-22311 2018-22312 2018-22313 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 51969 2018-22310 National Institute of Nursing Research, 51963 2018-22308 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 51966-51967 2018-22309 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Findings Regarding Non-U.S. Commercial Availability of Satellite Imagery with Respect to Israel, 51929 2018-22366 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research, 51986-51987 2018-22286 Proposal Review Panel for Physics, 51987 2018-22401 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans: Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 51836-51837 2018-22307 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline Safety: Special Permit Requests, Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, 52050-52051 2018-22299 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: General Pulaski Memorial Day (Proc. 9804), 52113-52114 2018-22558 National Domestic Violence Awareness Month (Proc. 9803), 52109-52112 2018-22557 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 51987-51988, 52005-52006, 52022-52023 2018-22288 2018-22289 2018-22290 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: MIAX PEARL, LLC, 52039-52042 2018-22293 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 52006-52022 2018-22294 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 52023-52039 2018-22292 NYSE Arca, Inc., 52039 2018-22296 The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 51988-52005 2018-22295 Social Social Security Administration RULES Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence; Correction, 51836 2018-22363 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52042-52046 2018-22339 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52046-52047 2018-22398 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Gauguin: A Spiritual Journey Exhibition, 52047 2018-22349 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 51970-51972 2018-22409 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: General Requirements for Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations on Federal Lands, 51979-51980 2018-22332 State Regulatory Authority: Inspection and Enforcement, 51979 2018-22331 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved: Consumptive Uses of Water, 52047-52048 2018-22402 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Generalized System of Preferences: Hearing for Ongoing Country Practice Reviews of Bolivia, Ecuador, Georgia, Indonesia, Iraq, Thailand, and Uzbekistan and for the Ongoing Country Designation Review of Laos, 52048-52049 2018-22374 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 52056-52107 2018-20961 Part III Presidential Documents, 52109-52114 2018-22558 2018-22557 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.

83 199 Monday, October 15, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0814; Product Identifier 2017-NM-066-AD; Amendment 39-19458; AD 2018-20-24] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by significant changes made to the airworthiness limitations (AWL) related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. This AD requires revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the latest revision of the AWLs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

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

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0814.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0814; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3553; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2017 (82 FR 45743). The NPRM was prompted by significant changes made to the AWLs related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. The NPRM proposed to require revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the latest revision of the AWLs.

In the NPRM, we discussed that we would mandate the latest revision of the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) as of the effective date of the AD for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the effective date of the AD. We also discussed that operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export of certificate of airworthiness issued after the effective date of the AD must comply with the ALS revision specified as part of the approved type design. Since the issuance of the NPRM, Boeing revised the ALS a number of times and added new AWL tasks. In order to mandate the latest ALS revision available as of the effective date of the AD as we originally proposed, we must supplement the NPRM for public comments because new additional AWL tasks in the later ALS revisions expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, the issuance of the AD to address the unsafe condition would be delayed.

Based on those conditions, we have made the following adjustments in this final rule. First, instead of mandating the latest ALS revision, we are mandating Revision January 2017 of the ALS as originally proposed in the NPRM. Second, we have changed the AD applicability to exclude those airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions (later than Revision January 2017) as part of the type design. The change in the AD applicability is intended to avoid the situation discussed in the NPRM where the AD mandates a specific ALS revision for an airplane that was delivered with a later ALS revision as part of the type design. Airplanes outside the AD applicability should use the ALS revision later than Revision January 2017 as part of the type design. Those adjustments we made in the final rule do not expand the scope of the NPRM. We will consider further rulemaking to mandate a later ALS revision for all affected airplanes.

We are issuing this AD to address the development of an ignition source inside the fuel tanks and the flammability exposure of the center fuel tank, which could lead to fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. We are also issuing this AD to address the loss of engine fuel suction feed capability, which could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

Commenter Nick Gianetti supported the NPRM.

Request To Clarify the Provision for Exceptional Short-Term Extensions

Southwest Airlines requested clarification regarding the provision for “exceptional short-term extension” in the service information.

We agree that clarification is necessary. Operators may use an exceptional short-term extension with the concurrence of the appropriate authority, as described in the service information. Exceptional short-term extensions should be used to address uncontrollable or unexpected situations. For any change to the interval of an AWL other than an exceptional short-term extension, approval must be handled under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD. No change to this AD is necessary.

Request To Identify AD 2011-20-07, Amendment 39-16818 (76 FR 60710, September 30, 2011) (“AD 2011-20-07”), as an Affected AD

Boeing stated that AD 2011-20-07 is affected by the proposed AD because it relates to an AWL in the mandated service information. They requested that we identify AD 2011-20-07 as an affected AD under paragraph (b) of the proposed AD.

We acknowledge the commenter's rationale for including AD 2011-20-07 in paragraph (b) of this AD. However, paragraph (b), “Affected ADs,” is intended to include other affected ADs, but not all related ADs. It is primarily used to reference superseded ADs and other ADs that are terminated, in whole or in part, by requirements in a given AD. Although compliance with certain requirements in AD 2011-20-07 affects this AD, the opposite is not true (i.e., this AD does not affect compliance with AD 2011-20-07). Therefore, we have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Specify the Unsafe Condition for Engine Fuel Suction Feed

Boeing stated that the NPRM defines the unsafe condition for fuel tank ignition prevention and fuel tank flammability exposure reduction, but not the unsafe condition related to engine fuel suction feed. Because the proposed AD also requires the incorporation of the AWL for engine fuel suction feed testing, Boeing asserted that the unsafe condition associated with engine fuel suction feed should also be specified, and they proposed wording for the unsafe condition.

We partially agree with the commenter. We agree to specify the unsafe condition associated with engine fuel suction feed, but we disagree with the wording proposed by the commenter because this AD does not mandate repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed system. This AD requires only the incorporation of certain AWLs, not the repetitive operational tests or other procedures specified in them. We have changed paragraph (e) of this AD to include the unsafe condition involving engine fuel suction feed.

Request To Change Wording in the Proposed AD

Boeing requested that we replace the word “latest” with “later” in certain subparagraphs of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD in which multiple compliance times are compared.

We do not agree with the commenter's request because the subparagraphs in question compare three compliance times; therefore, the superlative form “latest” is correct. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Provide a Grace Period in Paragraph (g)(7) of the Proposed AD

Southwest Airlines stated that some airplanes could be out of compliance as of the effective date of the proposed AD because the initial 120-month compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(7) of the proposed AD may already have passed for those airplanes. Southwest Airlines requested that we change paragraph (g)(7) of the proposed AD to specify a grace period.

We agree to specify a grace period for those airplanes that could have passed the required compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(7) of this AD. Therefore, we have changed paragraph (g)(7) of this AD to specify a grace period of 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

Request To Delete Paragraph (h) of the Proposed AD

Boeing stated that some of the wire types listed in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD are not identified in FAA Advisory Circular 43-13-1B for the flammability aspect. Boeing also stated that they do not have arc-track test data for the wires listed in paragraph (h)(1) and therefore cannot accept the use and installation of these wire types on a Boeing product without written FAA approval of the wires. In addition, Boeing stated that it has data for TFE-2X Standard wall, but not for Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Types HO, HP, or HM and can therefore approve or recommend approval of only the TFE-2X Standard wall. Boeing requested that we delete paragraph (h) of the proposed AD or revise it to include an FAA-issued global alternative method of compliance (AMOC) that identifies the material listed in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that if the FAA decides to keep paragraph (h) of the proposed AD as it is, we should state that all materials listed in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD are approved by the FAA.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (h) of this AD allows alternative wire types and sleeving materials for certain wire types and sleeving materials identified in AWL No. 28-AWL-05. AWL No. 28-AWL-05 was originally mandated by AD 2008-10-10, Amendment 39-15516 (73 FR 25986, May 8, 2008) (“AD 2008-10-10”), which was later revised to AD 2008-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16164 (75 FR 1529, January 12, 2010) (“AD 2008-10-10 R1”). Since the issuance of AD 2008-10-10 R1, which will be terminated by this AD, we have received numerous requests for approval of AMOCs from operators and supplemental type certificate (STC) holders (or applicants) to allow the installation of alternative wire types and sleeving. We evaluated certain attributes of those alternative wire types and sleeving for each installation, and issued numerous AMOC approvals for AD 2008-10-10 R1 based on our determination that the installation of those wire types and sleeving would provide an acceptable level of safety. The alternative wire types and sleeving specified in paragraph (h) of this AD were previously approved as an AMOC for AD 2008-10-10 R1. Although paragraph (h) of this AD provides certain allowances, it does not provide approval of alternative wire types and sleeving that are installed as part of an aircraft design change. Each applicant for any design change is responsible to show that the installation of alternative wire types and sleeving identified in paragraphs (h)(l) and (h)(2) of this AD complies with all applicable regulatory requirements, including flammability requirements, as the commenter pointed out. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Specify Additional Wire Type Specifications in Paragraph (h)(1) of the Proposed AD

Delta Airlines (DAL) stated that the military wire specifications identified in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD have been superseded. DAL requested that we revise paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD to identify additional wire type specifications.

We agree with the commenter and have revised paragraph (h)(l) of this AD to identify additional acceptable SAE and military wire type specifications.

Request To Specify Sleeving Thickness

Boeing stated that under AWL No. 28-AWL-05, the wall thickness requirement for TFE-2X sleeving is specified as “standard wall.” Boeing requested that we also specify the wall thickness requirement for Varglas Type HO, HP, and HM, that are allowed as alternative sleeving under paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. As we explained in an earlier comment response, paragraph (h)(2) of this AD provides certain allowances for sleeving material to comply with AWL No. 28-AWL-05, but it does not provide approval of alternative sleeving that is installed as part of an aircraft design change. Each applicant for any design change is responsible to show that the installation of alternative sleeving identified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. This includes substantiation to show that sleeve installation, including the selection of sleeve thickness, is adequate to protect wires from chafing for the life of installation. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Mandate a Later Revision of the Service Information

Boeing stated that Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017, specified by the proposed AD, is under review and subject to update. Boeing requested that we mandate a later revision of the service information.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. As stated in the Discussion section of this AD, we have determined that it is appropriate to require the same ALS revision (Revision January 2017) that was proposed in the NPRM. We have also adjusted the applicability of this AD to exclude those airplanes delivered with a later ALS revision (issued after Revision January 2017) as part of the type design.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the STC ST00830SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.

We concur with the commenter that STC ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017. This service information describes AWLs that include airworthiness limitation instructions (ALI) and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCL) tasks related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 1,850 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-20-24 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19458; Docket No. FAA-2017-0814; Product Identifier 2017-NM-066-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this AD.

(1) AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008) (“AD 2008-06-03”).

(2) AD 2008-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16164 (75 FR 1529, January 12, 2010) (“AD 2008-10-10 R1”).

(3) AD 2008-17-15, Amendment 39-15653 (73 FR 50714, August 28, 2008) (“AD 2008-17-15”).

(4) AD 2011-18-03, Amendment 39-16785 (76 FR 53317, August 26, 2011) (“AD 2011-18-03”).

(5) AD 2013-15-17, Amendment 39-17533 (78 FR 52838, August 27, 2013) (“AD 2013-15-17”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, line numbers 1 through 6899 inclusive.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by significant changes made to airworthiness limitations (AWL) related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. We are issuing this AD to address the development of an ignition source inside the fuel tanks and the flammability exposure of the center fuel tank, which could lead to a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. We are also issuing this AD to address the potential loss of engine fuel suction feed capability, which could result in dual engine flameouts, inability to restart engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information in Section A, including Subsections A.1, A.2, and A.3, of Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017; except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the airworthiness limitation instructions (ALI) tasks are within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(11) of this AD:

(1) For AWL No. 28-AWL-01, “External Wires Over Center Fuel Tank”: Within 120 months after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 120 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-01, whichever is later.

(2) For AWL No. 28-AWL-03, “Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS)—Out Tank Wiring Lightning Shield to Ground Termination”: Within 120 months after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 120 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-03, whichever is later.

(3) For AWL No. 28-AWL-19, “Center Tank Fuel Boost Pump Automatic Shutoff System”: Within 12 months after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, within 12 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, or within 12 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-19, whichever is latest. This AWL does not apply to airplanes that have complied with paragraph (s) of AD 2011-18-03.

(4) For AWL No. 28-AWL-20, “Over-Current and Arcing Protection Electrical Design Features Operation—Boost Pump Ground Fault Interrupter (GFI)”: Within 12 months after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, within 12 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1201, or within 12 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-20, whichever is latest. For airplanes that have complied with paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of AD 2011-20-07, Amendment 39-16818 (76 FR 60710, September 30, 2011), the operational test for left center tank fuel boost pump relay R54 and right center tank fuel boost pump relay R55 does not apply.

(5) For AWL No. 28-AWL-23, “Center Tank Fuel Boost Pump Power Failed On Protection System”: Within 12 months after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, within 12 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1248, or within 12 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-23, whichever is latest. This AWL does not apply to airplanes that have complied with paragraph (s) of AD 2011-18-03.

(6) For AWL No. 28-AWL-24, “Spar Valve Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Actuator—Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical Bond”: Within 72 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, or within 72 months after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-24, whichever is later.

(7) For AWL No. 28-AWL-29, “Full Cushion Clamps and Teflon Sleeving (If Installed) Installed on Out-of-Tank Wire Bundles Installed on Brackets that are Mounted Directly on the Fuel Tanks”: For airplanes having line numbers (L/N) 1 through 1754 inclusive, within 120 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1279, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. For airplanes having L/N 1755 and on, within 120 months after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.

(8) For AWL No. 47-AWL-04, “Nitrogen Generation System—Thermal Switch”: Within 22,500 flight hours after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, within 22,500 flight hours after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-47-1003, or within 22,500 flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-04, whichever is latest.

(9) For AWL No. 47-AWL-06, “Nitrogen Generation System (NGS)—Cross Vent Check Valve”: Within 13,000 flight hours after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, within 13,000 flight hours after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-47-1003, or within 13,000 flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-06, whichever is latest.

(10) For AWL No. 47-AWL-07, “Nitrogen Generation System (NGS)—Nitrogen Enriched Air (NEA) Distribution Ducting Integrity”: Within 6,500 flight hours after the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, within 6,500 flight hours after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-47-1003, or within 6,500 flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-07, whichever is latest.

(11) For AWL No. 28-AWL-101, “Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test”: Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness; or within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101; whichever is later.

(h) Additional Acceptable Wire Types and Sleeving

As an option, when accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the changes specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD are acceptable.

(1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-05 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS 13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following wire types are acceptable: MIL-W-22759/16, SAE AS22759/16 (M22759/16), MIL-W-22759/32, SAE AS22759/32 (M22759/32), MIL-W-22759/34, SAE AS22759/34 (M22759/34), MIL-W-22759/41, SAE AS22759/41 (M22759/41), MIL-W-22759/86, SAE AS22759/86 (M22759/86), MIL-W-22759/87, SAE AS22759/87 (M22759/87), MIL-W-22759/92, and SAE AS22759/92 (M22759/92); and MIL-C-27500 and NEMA WC 27500 cables constructed from these military or SAE specification wire types, as applicable.

(2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-05 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for wire sleeving, the following sleeving materials are acceptable: Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

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

(j) Terminating Actions for Certain AD Requirements

Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of this AD for that airplane:

(1) The revision required by paragraphs (h) and (h)(1) of AD 2008-06-03.

(2) All requirements of AD 2008-10-10 R1.

(3) The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-17-15.

(4) The revision required by paragraph (k) of AD 2011-18-03.

(5) All requirements of AD 2013-15-17.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3553; email: [email protected]

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, Revision January 2017.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

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

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 19, 2018. John P. Piccola, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21971 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0358; Product Identifier 2017-NM-142-AD; Amendment 39-19463; AD 2018-21-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-131, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fan cowl door (FCD) losses during take-off. This AD requires modification and re-identification, or replacement, of certain FCDs, and installation of a placard in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

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

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0358.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0358; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-131, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2018 (83 FR 19648). The NPRM was prompted by reports of FCD losses during take-off. The NPRM proposed to require modification and re-identification, or replacement, of certain FCDs, and installation of a placard in the flight deck.

We are issuing this AD to address in-flight loss of an FCD, which could result in damage to the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0178, dated September 15, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-131, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses during take-off were reported on Airbus A320 family aeroplanes equipped with IAE [International Aero Engines] V2500 engines. Investigations confirmed that in all cases, the FCD were opened prior to the flight and were not correctly re-secured. During the pre-flight inspection, it was not detected that the FCD were not properly latched.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to in-flight loss of an FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.

EASA issued AD 2016-0053 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-13-10, Amendment 39-18940 (82 FR 29371, June 29, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-10”)], requiring modification of the FCD installed on affected aeroplanes, and installation of a placard in the cockpit, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-71-1069 (which in turns refers to Goodrich SB V2500-NAC-71-0331 for FCD modification and re-identification).

The monolithic FCDs, installed on aeroplanes embodying Short Brothers supplemental type certificate (STC) 10029547, are also affected by this potential unsafe condition. Consequently, the STC Holder, trading as Bombardier Short Brothers, developed a modification, similar to the one designed by Airbus, and issued SB V25MFC-71-1003. The modification consists of a new FCD front latch and keeper assembly, having a specific key necessary to un-latch the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless the FCD front latch is safely closed. The key, after removal, must be stowed in the flight deck at a specific location, as instructed in the applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual. The applicable Flight Crew Operating Manual has been amended accordingly. After modification, the FCD is identified with a different Part Number (P/N).

Mixed FCD installation can be found on aeroplanes embodying [EASA] STC 10029547 (i.e., Monolithic FCD and standard production non-Monolithic FCD). For standard production non-Monolithic FCD, Bombardier Short Brothers SB V25MFC-71-1003 specifies to accomplish the instructions of Goodrich SB V2500-NAC-71-0331, as applicable.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification and re-identification of FCD, and installation of a placard in the cockpit.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0358.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) supported the NPRM.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

United Airlines (UAL) requested that the compliance time stated in the proposed AD be extended from 18 months to 36 months to match the compliance time stated in AD 2017-13-10. UAL noted that both the proposed AD and AD 2017-13-10 address the same unsafe condition, but on different FCDs. UAL added that it has a mixture of FCD configurations, which will be subject to different compliance times.

We disagree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time to 36 months. We based the compliance time for this AD on the compliance time required by the EASA MCAI, which was determined by considering the urgency associated with the unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification within a timeframe that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. In addition, the manufacturer recommended that the service bulletin be accomplished no later than March 28, 2019. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier Short Brothers, PLC has issued Service Bulletin V25MFC-71-1003, dated September 28, 2016. The service information describes procedures for installing modified latches on the left and right engine FCDs, and re-identifying the FCDs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 557 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Modification and re-identification (or replacement), and placard installation 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $1,500 $2,180 $1,214,260
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-21-05 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19463; Docket No. FAA-2018-0358; Product Identifier 2017-NM-142-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-131, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes, certificated in any category, if modified by Bombardier Short Brothers, PLC Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST03076NY.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fan cowl door (FCD) losses during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight loss of an FCD, which could result in damage to the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification and Re-Identification of FCDs

    Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the modification and re-identification specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Modify each left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) FCD having a part number listed as “Old Part Number” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (l) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Short Brothers Service Bulletin V25MFC-71-1003, dated September 28, 2016.

    (2) Re-identify each modified FCD with the part number listed as “New Part Number” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (l) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Short Brothers Service Bulletin V25MFC-71-1003, dated September 28, 2016.

    ER15OC18.000 (h) Optional Compliance by Replacement or Installation

    (1) Replacement of the FCDs having a part number listed as “Old Part Number” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (l) of this AD, with the FCDs having the corresponding part number listed as “New Part Number” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (l) of this AD, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (2) Installation on an engine of a LH and RH FCD having a part number approved after the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for that engine only, provided the conditions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD are met.

    (i) The part number is approved using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Bombardier Short Brothers, PLC's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (ii) The installation is accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Bombardier Short Brothers, PLC's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Placard Installation

    For airplanes on which Airbus SAS modification 157718 has not been embodied in production: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, install a placard that specifies the FCD keys stowage location in the flight deck on the box located at the bottom of the 120VU panel, or at the bottom of the coat stowage, as applicable to airplane configuration, using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Bombardier Short Brothers, PLC's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Missing FCD Keys or Placard

    Flights with one or both FCD keys missing from the stowage location in the fight deck, or with the placard (that specifies the FCD keys stowage location) missing or damaged, are permitted for a period not to exceed 10 calendar days from the date of discovery.

    (k) Alternate Location of FCD Keys and Placard

    As an option to paragraph (i) of this AD, an alternate location for the key stowage in the flight deck and installation of a placard for identification of that stowage location are permitted as specified in the operator's FAA-accepted maintenance or inspection program, provided the keys can be retrieved from that flight deck location when needed and the placard installation is done within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (l) Parts Installation Prohibition

    No person may install on any airplane an FCD with a part number identified as “Old Part Number” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (l) of this AD, after the time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For any airplane with an installed FCD having a part number identified as “Old Part Number” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (l) of this AD: After modification of that airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD or as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (2) For any airplane without an installed FCD having a part number identified as “Old Part Number” in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (l) of this AD: After the effective date of this AD.

    (m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Bombardier Short Brothers, PLC's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0178, dated September 15, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0358.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Bombardier Short Brothers Service Bulletin V25MFC-71-1003, dated September 28, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier Short Brothers, PLC, Airworthiness, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast, BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland; telephone +44(0)2890-462469; fax +44(0)2890-468444; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

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

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 20, 2018. John P. Piccola, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21963 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0546; Product Identifier 2017-NM-171-AD; Amendment 39-19461; AD 2018-21-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of multiple in-flight departures of the aft belly fairing access panels. This AD requires modification of the aft belly fairing access panels. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

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

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514 855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0546.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0546; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7330; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28553). The NPRM was prompted by reports of multiple in-flight departures of the aft belly fairing access panels. The NPRM proposed to require modification of the aft belly fairing access panels.

    We are issuing this AD to address in-flight departures of the aft belly fairing access panels, which could result in runway hazards or hazards to people on the ground.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-31, dated September 22, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been multiple in-service occurrences where operators reported in-flight departure of the aft belly fairing access panels, 185CL and/or 186CR. There has been no damage reported to the affected aircraft to date, however departure of the panels in any phase of flight could create runway hazards or a hazard to persons and property on the ground.

    Bombardier Inc. has issued Service Bulletins (SBs) to incorporate new self-locking nutplates with associated hardware (retaining rings and studs) to improve fastener engagement. A bracket has also been added to provide two additional panel attachment points.

    This [Canadian] AD requires the incorporation of these design changes to prevent departure of the two aft belly fairing access panels in flight and the associated risk on the ground.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0546.

    Comments

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

    Request To Include Additional Document in Credit for Previous Actions Paragraph

    Bombardier requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, “Credit for Previous Actions,” be revised to include Bombardier Service Request for Product Support Action 124026 (“SRPSA 124026”). The requester noted that Canadian AD CF-2017-31, dated September 22, 2017, included a statement that incorporation of the actions described in Bombardier SRPSA 124026 on an airplane satisfies the intent of the Canadian AD. The commenter also noted that Bombardier SRPSA 124026 was utilized on a U.S.-registered airplane having number N211PB and serial number 9378.

    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have added paragraph (h)(2) to this AD to provide credit for airplanes on which Bombardier SRPSA 124026 has been incorporated.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin 700-1A11-53-025, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2016;

    • Service Bulletin 700-53-050, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2016;

    • Service Bulletin 700-53-5009, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2016; and

    • Service Bulletin 700-53-6008, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2016.

    This service information describes actions to modify the aft belly fairing access panels by replacing the attachments. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 110 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $2,640 $2,980 $327,800

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-21-03 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19461; Docket No. FAA-2018-0546; Product Identifier 2017-NM-171-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9002 through 9770 inclusive, 9772 through 9781 inclusive, and 9998.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of multiple in-flight departures of the aft belly fairing access panels. We are issuing this AD to address in-flight departures of the aft belly fairing access panels, which could result in runway hazards or hazards to people on the ground.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Access Panel Modification

    Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the aft belly fairing access panels by replacing the attachments, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-050, or 700-53-6008, both Revision 01, both dated December 16, 2016.

    (2) For Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes: Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-53-025, or 700-53-5009, both Revision 01, both dated December 16, 2016.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-53-025, dated July 14, 2016.

    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-050, dated July 14, 2016.

    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-5009, dated July 14, 2016.

    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-6008, dated July 14, 2016.

    (2) Incorporation of Bombardier Service Request for Product Support Action 124026 on an airplane prior to the effective date of this AD meets the intent of paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-31, dated September 22, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0546.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7330; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected]

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

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-050, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2016.

    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-5009, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2016.

    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-53-025, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2016.

    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-53-6008, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2016.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

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

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 2, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21972 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0498; Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-AD; Amendment 39-19465; AD 2018-21-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages not detected by upgraded flight control primary computer (FCPC) software standards. This AD requires upgrading certain FCPCs, which terminates a certain airplane flight manual revision for certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

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

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0498.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0498; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25595). The NPRM was prompted by reports of AOA blockages not detected by upgraded FCPC software standards. The NPRM proposed to require upgrading certain FCPCs, which would terminate a certain airplane flight manual revision for certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to address Alpha protection activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 2015, occurrences were reported of multiple Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages. Investigation results indicated the need for AOA monitoring in order to better detect cases of AOA blockage.

    This condition, if not corrected, could, under specific circumstances, lead to undue activation of the Alpha protection, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed new FCPC software standards for enhanced AOA monitoring and, consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0124 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-25-30, Amendment 39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017) (“AD 2016-25-30”)] to require these software standard upgrades.

    Since EASA AD 2015-0124R3 was issued, it was identified that, for some cases, AOA blockages were not detected by those FCPC software standards. Consequently, new FCPC software standards, as specified in Table 1 of this [EASA] AD, have been developed (Airbus modification (mod) 206412, mod 206413 and mod 206414) to further improve the detection of AOA blockage. Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330-27-3222 and SB A330-27-3223 to implement these mods on in-service aeroplanes. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0246 to require a software standard upgrade of the three FCPCs, either by modification or replacement.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Emergency Procedure, as previously required by EASA AD 2014-0267-E [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-25-52, Amendment 39-18066, (80 FR 3161, January 22, 2015) (“AD 2014-25-52”)] can also be removed for other AOA sensors and FCPC configurations. This [EASA] AD revises paragraph (2) accordingly, also introducing Table 2 for that purpose.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0498.

    Comments

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

    Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) expressed support for the NPRM.

    Request To Change Applicability

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) asked that we further restrict the applicability identified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD by including the effectivity in the referenced service information. Delta stated that operators should be held accountable only for airplanes on which an airworthiness concern exists, and those airplanes correspond to the effectivity of the referenced service information. Delta added that if there are airplanes outside of this effectivity, operators will incur costs to produce and maintain records for those airplanes, regardless of whether or not there is an unsafe condition. Delta asserted that the service information provides a list of production airplanes that will be, or will have been, delivered with the affected software.

    We do agree to clarify the applicability. This AD is applicable to airplanes equipped with certain FCPC and not only to specific airplane manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs). For airplanes equipped with certain FCPC, only those that are in a pre-mod configuration as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD are required to do the upgrade specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Airplanes in a post-mod configuration are not required to do an upgrade; however, they must comply with paragraph (k) of this AD. Paragraph (k) of this AD prohibits the installation of any software or hardware of a standard earlier than one listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD on all airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD. In order for this installation prohibition to be effective, airplanes in a post-mod configuration must be included in the applicability. We are also matching the applicability in the MCAI. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Remove Reference to Group 2 Airplanes

    Delta asked that we remove references to Group 2 airplanes from paragraphs (g) and (k) of the proposed AD, “Definition of Groups” and “Parts Installation Prohibition,” respectively. Delta stated that Group 1 airplanes are those in pre-mod 206412, 206413, or 206414 configuration, as applicable; Group 2 airplanes are those in post-mod 206412, 206413, or 206414 configuration, as applicable. Delta added that Group 2 airplanes are those that do not require modification, since they are already equipped with the FCPC software; therefore, those airplanes should be excluded from the applicability since the unsafe condition does not exist on those airplanes. Delta noted that a Group 1/Group 2 definition is redundant to the applicability paragraph because that paragraph defines only those airplanes on which the unsafe condition exists. Delta also noted that the proposed language in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD would allow continued installation of existing hardware/software before the AD effective date and prohibit removal of the modification after the effective date of the AD.

    We do not agree with the commenter's request. Airplanes in Groups 1 and 2 represent the total of the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of the AD. Group 1 and Group 2 are defined in paragraph (g) of this AD to distinguish one from another, for the purpose of identifying the applicable requirements. Removing the definition of Group 2 airplanes from paragraph (g) of this AD would not remove Group 2 airplanes from the applicability. Airplanes in Group 2 may in the future be subject to the unsafe condition identified in this AD if an earlier standard of software or hardware is installed on that airplane. Therefore, so that Group 2 airplanes remain in an airworthy configuration after the effective date of the AD, paragraph (k) of this AD prohibits the installation of any software or hardware of a standard earlier than that listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Reference to Later Revisions of Service Information

    Delta asked that we change paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow use of subsequent service bulletins. Delta stated that the FCPC software standard has changed approximately every two years. Delta noted that adding the term “or relative later software standard” will allow operators to immediately install the latest software standard without having to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

    We disagree with the commenter's request. In general terms, we are required by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document only if the OFR approved it for “incorporation by reference.” See 1 CFR part 51.

    To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions or later software standards as an AMOC for this AD under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin A330-27-3222, dated February 16, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A330-27-3223, dated June 6, 2017.

    This service information describes procedures for upgrading (by modification or replacement, as applicable) certain FCPCs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplanes in different configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 103 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Modification/replacement 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $26,265

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-21-07 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19465; Docket No. FAA-2018-0498; Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-25-52, Amendment 39-18066 (80 FR 3161, January 22, 2015) (“AD 2014-25-52”); and AD 2016-25-30, Amendment 39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017) (“AD 2016-25-30”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD; all manufacturer serial numbers; equipped with flight control primary computers (FCPCs) having software standard P13/M22 (hardware 2K2), P14/M23 (hardware 2K1), or M23 (hardware 2K0), or earlier standard.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    The software standards specified in paragraph (c) of this AD correspond, respectively, to part number (P/N) LA2K2B100DG0000, P/N LA2K1A100DF0000, and P/N LA2K01500AF0000. All affected airplanes should be equipped with this software, as required by AD 2016-25-30.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages not detected by upgraded FCPC software standards. We are issuing this AD to prevent Alpha protection activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definitions of Groups

    Group 1 airplanes are those in pre-mod 206412, pre-mod 206413, or pre-mod 206414 configuration, as applicable. Group 2 airplanes are those in post-mod (206412, 206413, or 206414, as applicable) configuration.

    (h) Upgrade Flight Control Primary Computer Software

    For Group 1 airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Upgrade (by modification or replacement, as applicable) the three FCPCs, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD.

    ER15OC18.001 (i) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2014-25-52

    For airplanes with an AOA configuration as identified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or as identified in paragraph (m)(2) of AD 2016-12-15, Amendment 39-18564 (81 FR 40160, June 21, 2016) (“AD 2016-12-15”), as applicable: Accomplishing the upgrade required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52, and the airplane flight manual (AFM) procedure required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52 may be removed from the AFM.

    ER15OC18.002 (j) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2016-25-30

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-25-30 for that airplane.

    (k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    Installation of any software or hardware of a version earlier than the one listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD is prohibited, as required by paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0498.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3222, dated February 16, 2017.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3223, dated June 6, 2017.

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

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

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

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 23, 2018. John P. Piccola, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21967 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1116; Product Identifier 2016-NE-32-AD; Amendment 39-19459; AD 2018-21-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-20-06 for certain Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) AS907-1-1A turbofan engines. AD 2017-20-06 required a one-time inspection of the second stage low-pressure turbine (LPT2) blades and, if the blades fail the inspection, the replacement of the blades with a part eligible for installation. This AD continues to require a one-time inspection of the LPT2 blades and, if the blades fail the inspection, the replacement of the blades with a part eligible for installation. This AD was prompted by the need to clarify the Applicability and Compliance sections of AD 2017-20-06. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 9, 2017 (82 FR 46379, October 5, 2017).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; internet: https://myaerospace2.honeywell.com/wps/portal. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1116.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1116; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-20-06, Amendment 39-19063 (82 FR 46379, October 5, 2017), (“AD 2017-20-06”). AD 2017-20-06 applied to certain Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) AS907-1-1A turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2018 (83 FR 4167). The NPRM was prompted by the need to clarify the Applicability and Compliance sections of AD 2017-20-06. The NPRM proposed to continue to require one-time inspection of the LPT2 blades and, if the blades fail the inspection, the replacement of the blades with a part eligible for installation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    Comments

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

    Request To Align the Compliance Requirements With the Service Bulletin (SB)

    Bombardier Aerospace (Bombardier) requested that the compliance requirements of the AD be aligned with Honeywell SB AS907-72-9067, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2017. Bombardier asked that we remove the requirements for measured wear requirements for recording of wear. Bombardier noted that Honeywell SB AS907-72-9067 requires contact between the LPT2 rotor blade Z-gap.

    We disagree. Honeywell SB AS907-72-9067, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2017 and the compliance section of this AD provide the same guidance for measuring and recording wear with a borescope at the LPT2 blade shroud Z-gap. Reported borescope inspections of high-time engines show that blade-to-blade contact at the Z-gap is difficult to measure with a borescope. The FAA and Honeywell agree that the measured wear limit of 0.005″, as defined by the Honeywell Light Maintenance Manual (LMM) AS907-1-1A, 72-00-00, is acceptable for this AD.

    Additionally, the FAA disagrees with the request to remove the requirement for recordings of the borescope inspection. We find that making these recordings with a clean digital image helps us to identify wear characteristics, severity, and cumulative damage of LPT2 blade assembly and to provide future borescope requirements for LPT blade maintenance. We did not change this AD.

    Request To Revise Costs of Compliance

    Bombardier Aerospace requested that we align the cost estimates in this AD with the cost estimates in Honeywell's SB.

    We disagree. The slight differences in costs between the NPRM and Honeywell's SB reflect the additional recording requirements in this AD. We did not change this AD.

    Revision to Applicability

    The intent of the NPRM was to limit the applicability of this AD to affected blades that have more than 8,000 hours since new on November 9, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-20-06). We therefore revised the applicability to refer to “November 9, 2017,” instead of “the effective date of this AD.”

    Conclusion

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Honeywell SB AS907-72-9067, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2017. This SB describes procedures for inspecting the LPT2 blades. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Honeywell SB AS907-72-9067, Revision 0, dated December 12, 2016, which also describes procedures for inspecting the LPT2 blades. We also reviewed the Honeywell LMM AS907-1-1A, 72-00-00, Section 72-05-12, dated May 25, 2016, and Section 72-55-03, dated September 27, 2011, which provide additional guidance for performing borescope inspections.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 40 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Borescope inspection 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 $0 $850 $34,000 Report results of inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 3,400

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We estimate that 40 engines will need this replacement.

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement of the LPT2 blade set 50 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,250 $50,000 $54,250
    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-20-06, Amendment 39-19063 (82 FR 46379, October 5, 2017), and adding the following new AD: 2018-21-01 Honeywell International Inc.: Amendment 39-19459; Docket No. FAA-2017-1116; Product Identifier 2016-NE-32-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-20-06, Amendment 39-19063 (82 FR 46379, October 5, 2017).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) AS907-1-1A turbofan engines with second stage low-pressure turbine (LPT2) rotor blades, part number 3035602-1, installed, that have more than 8,000 hours since new on November 9, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-20-06).

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of loss of power due to failure of the LPT2 blade. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT2 blades. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of one or more engines and loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Within 200 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD, do the following:

    (1) Perform a one-time borescope inspection for wear of the Z gap contact area at the blade tip shroud for each of the 62 LPT2 rotor blades. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 3.B.(1), of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) AS907-72-9067, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2017, to do the inspection.

    (2) If the measured wear and/or fretting of any Z gap contact area is greater than 0.005 inch, replace the LPT2 rotor assembly with a part eligible for installation before further flight.

    (3) Using a borescope, make a clear digital image of the Z gap contact area at the blade tip shroud of the 62 LPT2 rotor blades, and do the following:

    (i) Identify the three Z gap contact areas with the greatest amount of wear and/or fretting.

    (ii) Record the blade position on the LPT2 rotor assembly and the measured wear of the three Z gap contact areas with the greatest amount of wear and/or fretting.

    (iii) Send the results to Honeywell at [email protected] within 30 days after completing these actions.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD if you performed these actions before the effective date of this AD using Honeywell SB AS907-72-9067, Revision 0, dated December 12, 2016.

    (i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Los Angeles ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. You may email your request to: [email protected]

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

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 9, 2017 (82 FR 46379, October 5, 2017).

    (i) Honeywell Service Bulletin AS907-72-9067, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) For Honeywell service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; internet: https://myaerospace2.honeywell.com/wps/portal.

    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 3, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22009 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1200; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-23] RIN 2120-AA66 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Reedley, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Reedley Municipal Airport, Reedley, CA, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action ensures the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at 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 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 this material 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:

    Richard Farnsworth, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone (206) 231-2244.

    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 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Reedley Municipal Airport, Reedley, CA, to support new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 16258; April 16, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1200 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Reedley Municipal Airport, Reedley, CA. 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 71.1. The Class E 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 amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 2 miles east and 4 miles west of the 168° and 348° bearings from the airport extending to 6.1 miles south and 6.5 miles north of the airport, respectively, to accommodate new RNAV standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at Reedley Municipal Airport, Reedley, CA.

    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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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, will 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.

    List 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, and 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. AWP CA E5 Reedley, CA [New] Reedley Municipal Airport, CA (Lat. 36°40′16″ N, long. 119°27′04″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 2 miles east and 4 miles west of the 168° and 348° bearings from the Reedley Municipal Airport extending to 6.1 miles south and 6.5 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 4, 2018. Shawn M. Kozica, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22169 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0370; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wooster, OH AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH. This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Tiverton VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    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 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:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    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 E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 35570; July 27, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0370 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH. 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 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 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, by removing the extension to the east associated with the Smith non-directional radio beacon. The geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Exclusionary language is removed as it is no longer required. And, the name of the city associated with the airport in the airspace description is removed to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.

    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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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 5-6.5.a. 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.

    List 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, and 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. AGL OH E5 Wooster, OH [Amended] Wayne County Airport, OH (Lat. 40°52′29″ N, long. 81°53′18″ W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Wayne County Airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22178 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-9378; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-13] RIN 2120-AA66 Establishment of Class D and E Airspace, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Austin, TX AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX. The FAA conducted an airspace review and determined that airspace redesign is necessary due to the establishment of an air traffic control tower at the airport. Also, an editorial change is made removing the city associated with the airport names in the exiting Class E airspace. This action enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, exclusionary language is added, which was inadvertently left out of the Class D airspace description, and the geographic coordinates are corrected for Lago Vista-Rusty Allen 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 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:

    Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On February 1, 2018, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class D and Class E surface airspace, and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX (83 FR 4613) Docket No. FAA-2017-9378.

    Subsequent to publication, the FAA found the Class C airspace exclusion was omitted from the Class D airspace description for Austin Executive Airport. Also, the geographic coordinates for Lago Vista-Rusty Allen Airport are updated in this rule.

    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Five comments were received in support of the proposal.

    In their comment, AOPA stated that the NPRM did not comply with FAA guidance in FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, because a graphic was not included in the docket. Additionally, AOPA encouraged the FAA to follow their guidance in the Order by making the action effective date coincidental to the sectional chart publication date.

    The FAA has determined AOPA's comments raised no substantive issues with respect to the proposed changes to the airspace addressed in the NPRM. To the extent the FAA failed to follow its policy guidance reference publishing graphics in the docket and establishing the Class D airspace effective date to match the sectional chart date, we note the following.

    Specific to AOPA's comment regarding the FAA already creating a graphical depiction of new or modified airspace overlaid on a Sectional Chart for quality assurance purposes, this is not correct nor required in all cases. During the airspace reviews, airspace graphics may be created, if deemed necessary, to determine if there are any terrain issues, or if cases are considered complex. However, in many cases when developing an airspace amendment proposal, a graphic is not required.

    With respect to AOPA's comment addressing effective dates, FAA Order 7400.2L, paragraph 2-3-7.a.4. states that, to the extent practicable, Class D airspace area and restricted area rules should become effective on a sectional chart date and that consideration should be given to selecting a sectional chart date that matches a 56-day en route chart cycle date. The FAA does consider Class D and E airspace amendment effective dates to coincide with the publication of sectional charts, to the extent practicable; however, this consideration is accomplished after the NPRM comment period ends in the final rule. Substantive comments received to NPRMs, flight safety concerns, management of IFR operations at affected airports, and immediacy of required proposed airspace amendments are some of the factors that must be taken into consideration when selecting the appropriate effective date. After considering all factors, the FAA may determine that selecting an effective date that conforms to a 56-day en route chart cycle date that is not coincidental to sectional chart dates is better for the National Airspace System and its users than awaiting the next sectional chart date.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document 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

    The FAA amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

    Establishing Class D airspace at Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX, within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport, and adding to the airspace description “excluding the Austin Class C airspace”. Establishing Class E surface airspace within a 4.1-mile radius of Austin Executive Airport, Austin, TX; and

    Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.3-mile radius (decreased from a 6.5-mile radius) of Austin Executive Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 131° bearing (previously the 132° bearing) from the airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 11.3 miles (increased from a 10.4-miles) southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 311° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.5 miles (decreased from 11.2 miles) northwest of the airport. Also, due to a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, the city name is removed from Lakeway Airpark, Austin Executive Airport, and Lago Vista-Rusty Allen Airport.

    Class D and E airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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 5-6.5.a. 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, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW TX D Austin, TX [New] Austin Executive Airport, TX (Lat. 30°23′51″ N, long. 97°33′59″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Austin Executive Airport, excluding the Austin Class C airspace. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASW TX E2 Austin, TX [New] Austin Executive Airport, TX (Lat. 30°23′51″ N, long. 97°33′59″ W)

    That airspace within a 4.1-mile radius of Austin Executive Airport, excluding the Austin Class C airspace. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW TX E5 Austin, TX [Amended] Point of Origin (Lat. 30°17′55″ N, long. 97°42′06″ W) Lakeway Airpark, TX (Lat. 30°21′27″ N, long. 97°59′40″ W) Austin Executive Airport, TX (Lat. 30°23′51″ N, long. 97°33′59″ W) Lago Vista-Rusty Allen Airport, TX (Lat. 30°29′55″ N, long. 97°58′10″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 14-miles radius of the Point of Origin, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Lakeway Airpark, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Lago Vista-Rusty Allen Airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Austin Executive Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 131° bearing from Austin Executive Airport, extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 11.3 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 311° bearing from Austin Executive Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 10.5 miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Manager (A), Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22185 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Part 416 [Docket No. SSA-2012-0035] RIN 0960-AH51 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence; Correction AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 18, 2017, we published final rules in the Federal Register revising our medical evidence rules. Those final rules inadvertently included a typographical error. This document corrects the final regulations.

    DATES:

    Effective October 15, 2018, and applicable beginning March 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joshua Silverman, Office of Vocational, Evaluation, and Process Policy, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 594-2128. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We published final rules in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5844, corrected March 27, 2017, at 82 FR 15132) titled Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence. The final rules, among other things, amended the regulatory text for acceptable medical sources by adding licensed audiologists to the list of acceptable medical sources in 20 CFR 416.902(a)(6). We inadvertently included duplicative wording in that section of the rules. This document amends the regulations by deleting the duplication of three words (for impairments of) and corrects the final rules.

    List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 416

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

    Accordingly, 20 CFR part 416, subpart I is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

    PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart I—Determining Disability and Blindness 1. The authority citation for subpart I of part 416 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note).

    2. Amend § 416.902 by revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
    § 416.902 Definitions for this subpart.

    (a) * * *

    (6) Licensed audiologist for impairments of hearing loss, auditory processing disorders, and balance disorders within the licensed scope of practice only (with respect to claims filed (see § 416.325) on or after March 27, 2017);

    Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22363 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4022 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective November 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Rifkin ([email protected]), Attorney, Regulatory Affairs Division, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4400 ext. 6563. (TTY users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400, ext. 6563.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022

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

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

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

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

    2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 301 is added at the end of the table to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation
  • date
  • On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 301 11-1-18 12-1-18 1.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 301 is added at the end of the table to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation
  • date
  • On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 301 11-1-18 12-1-18 1.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8

    Issued in Washington, DC.

    Hilary Duke, Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22307 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0894] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the local community to participate in the Be the Gift 5K walk/run. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 10 a.m. on October 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0894, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on October 20, 2018, to allow the community to participate in the Be the Gift 5K walk/run. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

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

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

    Dated: September 27, 2018. Carl T. Hausner, District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22347 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0942] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, 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 I695 Bridge across Curtis Creek, mile 1.0, at Baltimore, MD. The deviation is necessary to facilitate maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from October 15, 2018 through 7 p.m. on October 19, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on October 1, 2018, until October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0942] 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. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6222, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Cianbro Corporation, on behalf of the Maryland Transportation Authority, owner and operator of the I695 Bridge across Curtis Creek, mile 1.0, at Baltimore, MD, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate maintenance. The current operating regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.557.

    Under this temporary deviation, the east bascule draw of the south span will be maintained in closed-to-navigation position and the west bascule draw of the south span will be maintained in the open-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on October 1, 2018, through 7 p.m. on October 19, 2018. The north span will open on signal if at least a one-hour notice is given. At all other times the bridge will operate per 33 CFR 117.557. During the closure of the east bascule draw of the south span, the I695 Bridge will provide 100 feet of horizontal clearance and unlimited vertical clearance in the open position and 200 feet of horizontal clearance and 58 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water in the closed position.

    Curtis Creek is used by military vessels, recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway and coordinated with maritime stakeholders in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position or with the east bascule draw of the south span in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open on signal for emergency or urgent vessel transits from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, if at least a one-hour notice is given; and from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., and from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday, October 7, 2018, and Sunday, October 14, 2018, if at least a four-hour notice is given. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position or with the east bascule draw of the north span in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice 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 this temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22336 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0832] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Head of the Buffalo Regatta; Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Buffalo River during the Head of the Buffalo Regatta. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Buffalo River during the Head of the Buffalo Regatta. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and racers from the navigational hazards associated with the regatta.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on October 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0832 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LTJG Sean Dolan, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, 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

    On September 5, 2018 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Head of the Buffalo Regatta; Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY § 165.T09-0832. In that we discussed why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this regatta. The comment period ended October 5, 2018; we received one comment relating to the event. The comment questions whether economic factor were considered in the proposed rule. Our economic analysis in section V below did consider the economic ramifications of the proposed rule. The comment also questioned whether the canalside businesses would lose money. The proposed rule allows for vessels to transit through it when permitted by the COTP. The comment also questioned whether the rule would affect the operation of the lift bridges, but this rule does not affect the operation of the bridges.

    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 (COTP) has determined that a large-scale paddle craft event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant risk to participants and the boating public. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the Head of the Buffalo Regatta is happening.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published September 5, 2018, and there was no objection to the proposed rule. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on October 20, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between the two points starting at position 42°52′19.4″ N, 78°52′25.3″ W, and ending at position 42°51′36.7″ N, 78°50′56.0″ W, on the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled rowboat races between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The COTP 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 the characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. In addition, the safety zone will designate times when races are not occurring; allowing vessels to travel through the safety zone. 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 COTP.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 Order13132.

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone. 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:

    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.T09-0832 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0832 Safety Zone; Head of the Buffalo Regatta; Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY, beginning at position 42°52′19.4″ N, 78°52′25.3″ W to 42°51′36.7″ N, 78°50′56.0″ W.

    (b) Enforcement period. This rule is effective from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on October 20, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, 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 must 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 9, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22337 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. 2018-6] Streamlining the Administration of DART Royalty Accounts and Electronic Royalty Payment Processes AGENCY:

    U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Copyright Office is establishing a rule to codify its procedures for closing royalty payments accounts under section 1005 of the Copyright Act, and is amending its regulations governing online payment procedures for statutory licensing statements of account to no longer require that payments for these accounts be made in a single lump sum. These changes are intended to improve the efficiency of the Copyright Office's Licensing Division operations.

    DATES:

    Effective November 14, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected], or Jalyce Mangum, Attorney-Advisor, by email at [email protected] Each can be contacted by telephone by calling (202) 707-8350.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On July 11, 2018 (83 FR 32068), the Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to streamline the administration of digital audio recording technology (DART) royalty accounts and the statement of account royalty payment processes. Specifically, the Copyright Office proposed to codify the manner in which it would exercise its statutory authority to close out DART royalty payment accounts under 17 U.S.C. 1005, and to implement what it considered to be a technical change regarding requirements for payment of royalty fees by electronic funds transfer (EFT) for each of the cable, satellite, and DART royalty licenses. In response to the publication of the proposed rule, the Office did not receive any substantive comments. Consequently, the Office is adopting the previously proposed text as a final rule.

    II. Discussion

    Close-out of DART fund accounts. In the NPRM, the Office proposed to codify a new procedure for closing out DART royalty payments accounts under section 1005 of the Copyright Act and to update its regulations governing online payment procedures for cable, satellite, and DART statements of account to no longer require royalty fees to be made by a single, lump sum payment.

    As noted in the NPRM, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) 1 amended title 17 to require parties who manufacture and distribute or import and distribute any digital audio recording devices or media in the United States to file DART statements of account and to make royalty payments.2 Congress delegated to the Copyright Office and the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (“CRT”)—a predecessor to the system administered by the Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs”)—authority to administer the royalty system under chapter 10.3 Under section 1003, the importer or manufacturer of a digital audio recording device or media files quarterly and annual statements of account with respect to distribution(s), accompanied by royalty payments.4 After deducting the reasonable costs incurred for administering this license, the Register then deposits the remaining balance with the Treasury of the United States, which is divided between a sound recording fund and a musical works fund, and then subdivided into various subfunds.5 Under the Copyright Act, the Licensing Division of the Copyright Office administers these funds and distributes them to copyright owners pursuant to the CRJs' distribution orders.6

    1See Public Law 102-563, 106 Stat. 4237 (1992).

    2See 17 U.S.C. 1003.

    3See id.; see also S. Rep. No. 102-294, at 39 (“Administration of the royalty system is the dual responsibility of the Copyright Office and the CRT”).

    4 17 U.S.C. 1003(b), (c)(1), (c)(3).

    5Id. at 1005, 1006(b).

    6Id. at 1007; see, e.g., Order Granting Claimants' Request for Partial Distribution of 2005 Through 2008 DART Music Funds Royalties, Docket No. 2010-8 CRB DD 2005-2008 (MW), available at https://www.crb.gov/orders/2011/04411-order-granting-claimants-partial-distribution.pdf (last visited May 16, 2018).

    After the Licensing Division has distributed the royalty funds pursuant to the CRJs order, however, small royalty balances can still be attributed to these subfunds unless the Copyright Office has formally closed them out.7 Maintaining these small amounts in separate funds creates administrative expenses for the Licensing Division, and the transaction costs associated with distributing such small amounts of money can exceed the amount of money remaining in these accounts. Section 1005 gives the Register discretion to close out the royalty payments account for a calendar year four years after the close of that year, and attribute “any funds remaining in [the] account and any subsequent deposits that would otherwise be attributable to that calendar year as attributable to the succeeding calendar year.” 8 In practice, the Register has not previously established a procedure to exercise this discretion. The Office now adopts a rule codifying conditions by which she may close out royalty payments accounts. Specifically, the Office is adding a new section 201.31 instructing that, four years after the close of any calendar year, the Register of Copyrights may exercise her discretion to close out the royalty payments account for that calendar year, including any sub-accounts, that are subject to a final distribution order under which royalty payments have been disbursed. In accordance with section 1005, the Register will treat any funds remaining in such account or subsequent deposits as attributable to the closest succeeding calendar year.

    7 These attributions can occur as a result of subsequent deposits made by payees, or, more often, in the course of routine review and adjustments made in the years following each appropriation, for example, when anticipated contract expenditures or other overhead expenses come in slightly under budget.

    8 17 U.S.C. 1005.

    Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer. Separately, the Licensing Division administers various statutory licensing schemes, including those requiring the submission of statements of account (“SOAs”) by cable systems, satellite carriers, and manufacturers or importers of digital audio recording devices and media.9 Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Copyright Office has promulgated regulations relating to each of these statutory licenses requiring that “[a]ll royalty fees shall be paid by a single electronic funds transfer.” 10 In practice, however, the Office has found that the requirement that remitters make royalty payments for multiple statements of account in a single, lump sum payment is unnecessarily restrictive and has hampered ongoing modernization efforts. In connection with the most recent satellite SOA form, the Copyright Office has announced that it “intends to transition to a single EFT payment method (Pay.gov) for making royalty payments.” 11

    9See 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1), 119(b)(1), 122(a)(5), 1003(c).

    10 37 CFR 201.11(f)(1), 201.17(k)(1), 201.28(h)(1). See Electronic Payment of Royalties, 71 FR 45739 (Aug. 10, 2006).

    11 U.S. Copyright Office, Satellite Statement of Account Form (Jan. 1, 2018), https://www.copyright.gov/forms/formSC.pdf.

    The new rule removes the requirement that filers submit multiple SOAs in a single EFT payment for the relevant statutory licenses. The current regulatory requirement that funds be submitted through EFT will remain in place.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, General provisions.

    Final Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 201 as follows:

    PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    17 U.S.C. 702.

    § 201.11 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 201.11 by removing “a single” from paragraph (f)(1) introductory text.
    § 201.17 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 201.17 by removing “a single” from paragraph (k)(1) introductory text.
    § 201.28 [Amended]
    4. Amend § 201.28 by removing “a single” from paragraph (h)(1) introductory text. 5. Add § 201.31 to read as follows:
    § 201.31 Procedures for closing out royalty payments accounts in accordance with the Audio Home Recording Act.

    (a) General. This section prescribes rules pertaining to the close out of royalty payments accounts in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 1005.

    (b) In the Register's discretion, four years after the close of any calendar year, the Register of Copyrights may close out the royalty payments account for that calendar year, including any sub-accounts, that are subject to a final distribution order under which royalty payments have been disbursed. Following closure of an account, the Register will treat any funds remaining in that account, or subsequent deposits that would otherwise be attributable to that calendar year, as attributable to the succeeding calendar year.

    Dated: September 10, 2018. Karyn Temple, Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. Approved by: Carla D. Hayden, Librarian of Congress.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22372 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133; FRL-9985-37-OAR] RIN 2060-AS79 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins Risk and Technology Review Reconsideration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notification of final action on reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins (APR). These final amendments are in response to petitions for reconsideration regarding the APR NESHAP rule revisions that were promulgated on October 8, 2014. In this action, we are revising the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for continuous process vents (CPVs) at existing affected sources. In addition, we are extending the compliance date for CPVs at existing sources. We also are revising the requirements for storage vessels at new and existing sources during periods when an emission control system used to control vents on fixed roof storage vessels is undergoing planned routine maintenance. To improve the clarity of the APR NESHAP, we are also finalizing five minor technical rule corrections. In this action, we have not reopened any other aspects of the October 2014 final amendments to the NESHAP for the Manufacture of APR, including other issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of the October 2014 rule.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on October 15, 2018. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information 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 either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this final action, please contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1185; email address: [email protected]. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, Mail Code 2227A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7027; fax number: (202) 564-0050; and email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Acronyms and Abbreviations. A number of acronyms and abbreviations are used in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined:

    APR amino/phenolic resin CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPV continuous process vent CRA Congressional Review Act EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register HAP hazardous air pollutants HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP ICR information collection request MACT maximum achievable control technology MIR maximum individual risk MON Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP NAICS North American Industry Classification System NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer TRE total resource effectiveness UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL upper predictive limit VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background Information III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered A. Analysis, Supporting Data, and Resulting Emission Standards for CPVs at Existing Sources B. Planned Routine Maintenance of Emission Control Sytems Used To Reduce HAP Emissions From Storage Vessels C. Technical Corrections IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this final rule include, but are not limited to, facilities having a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325211. Facilities with this NAICS code are described as plastics material and resin manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin types.

    To determine whether your facility would be affected by this final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1400. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this final action, please contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

    The docket number for this final action regarding the APR NESHAP is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133.

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/manufactureaminophenolic-resins-nationalemission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents on this same website.

    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by December 14, 2018. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

    This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    II. Background Information

    On October 8, 2014, the EPA completed the residual risk and technology review of the January 20, 2000, APR MACT standards (65 FR 3276), and published its final rule amending the NESHAP for the APR Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO (79 FR 60898). Following promulgation of the October 2014 final rule, the EPA received three petitions for reconsideration from the Sierra Club, Tembec BTLSR (“Tembec”) (now Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc.), and Georgia-Pacific LLC (“Georgia-Pacific”), requesting administrative reconsideration of amended 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).

    In partial response to the petitions, the EPA reconsidered and requested comment on two distinct issues in the proposed rule amendments, published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2017 (82 FR 40103). These issues included: (1) The analysis, supporting data, and resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and (2) planned routine maintenance of emission control systems used to reduce hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from storage vessels.

    In addition, while the EPA granted reconsideration on the pressure relief device issues raised in one of the petitions for reconsideration, the EPA did not address this issue in the August 24, 2017, proposal and intends to address those issues separately in a future action.

    We received public comments on the proposed rule amendments from five parties. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comments are also available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133.

    In this document, the EPA is taking final action with respect to the issues on reconsideration addressed in the August 2017 proposal. Section III of this preamble summarizes the proposed rule amendments and the final rule amendments, presents public comments received on the proposed amendments and the EPA's responses to those comments, and explains our rationale for the rule revisions published here.

    III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered

    The two reconsideration issues for which amendments are being finalized in this rulemaking are: (1) The analysis, supporting data, and resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and (2) planned routine maintenance of emission control systems used to reduce HAP emissions from storage vessels. In this rulemaking, we are also finalizing several minor technical corrections to the regulation text of 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO.

    A. Analysis, Supporting Data, and Resulting Emission Standards for CPVs at Existing Sources 1. What changes did we propose regarding CPV standards at existing sources?

    In the August 2017 proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO, we proposed a revised emissions limit for CPVs at existing sources, addressing only back-end CPVs.

    In addition, we requested comments on the following issues: (1) Whether the existing compliance date or another date for back-end CPVs is appropriate if the standard is revised; and (2) whether the EPA should promulgate a separate standard for front-end CPVs at existing sources and whether there are other front-end CPVs in the source category beyond those identified by the EPA.

    For back-end CPVs at existing sources, we proposed a production-based HAP emission limit of 8.6 pounds of HAP per ton of resin produced. This emissions limit represents the MACT floor based on 2015 test data provided by Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, the only two companies in the source category with back-end CPVs. We also solicited comments on whether existing facilities would need additional time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards, noting that the compliance date in the October 2014 final rule is October 9, 2017, and that the APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1401(d) provides the opportunity for existing facilities, on a case-by-case basis, to request a compliance extension from their permitting authorities of up to 1 year, if necessary, to install controls to meet a standard.

    The EPA identified two front-end CPVs at APR production existing sources at proposal and requested information about any other front-end CPVs in the source category. Due to the characteristics of these two CPVs, we noted that these CPVs could be subcategorized into two types—reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs, and separate standards for the two types of front-end CPVs would be consistent with how reactor and non-reactor vents have been regulated for batch processes for the APR Production source category. We also stated that if no other reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources were identified, or if no additional data were provided for any such CPVs, the EPA would consider adopting final revised standards for front-end CPVs at existing sources based on existing information. Based on our analysis of the data provided by Georgia-Pacific for its front-end reactor CPVs, we proposed that the MACT floor for front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 0.61 pounds of HAP per hour. Based on our analysis of the data provided by INEOS Melamines for its front-end non-reactor CPV, we proposed that the MACT floor for front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 0.022 pounds of HAP per hour. We received no information about any additional front-end CPVs during the comment period.

    2. What comments did we receive regarding proposed amendments to CPV standards at existing sources?

    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on the proposed amendments to CPV standards at existing sources and our responses to these comments.

    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's updated risk analysis for INEOS Melamines and for the category are underestimated for reasons it has stated in comments on the October 2014 rule for this source category. The commenter also said the new analysis for INEOS Melamines only considers risks from formaldehyde and fails to consider the risks from other HAP emitted by the facility or the cumulative risks to the community from other pollution sources.

    Response: We addressed the commenter's concerns regarding cumulative risks (and the various reasons the commenter claimed the risks were underestimated) in previous analyses in our October 2014 response to comments (Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133-0066). These same responses still apply and are not repeated here. Regarding the risk analysis for INEOS Melamines, the commenter is mistaken in asserting that the analysis only included formaldehyde. The risk analysis for the facility included all HAP emissions from equipment in the source category, and these HAP include both formaldehyde and methanol. As we noted in the August 2017 proposal, the 2014 risk modeling analysis indicated that the INEOS Melamines facility maximum individual risk (MIR) was estimated to be 0.4-in-1 million. As the risk driver was formaldehyde, we mentioned in the August 2017 proposal that the input files included 0.375 tons of formaldehyde emissions. We also discussed in the proposal that information received from INEOS Melamines indicated there were additional emissions of less than 0.03 tons per year from its non-reactor front-end CPV that were not accounted for in the 2014 modeling analysis. We explained in the proposal that when including these additional emissions in the risk estimate for the facility, the facility MIR would be about the same (less than 1-in-1 million), and we determined that additional quantitative risk analyses for this facility are not necessary. No updates to the risk analysis were made to other facilities, and the overall estimation of risks for the source category remain unchanged.

    Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the proposed elimination of the use of the Total Resource Effectiveness (TRE) value as a compliance option for continuous process vents at an existing affected source. The commenters noted that the TRE provision is found in numerous other rules, such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) and the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON). The commenters stated that the TRE provides facilities with the flexibility to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective manner. The commenters also stated that the EPA has not articulated a rational basis for eliminating the TRE and that the EPA should maintain the current TRE for this and all other rules affecting continuous process vents. The commenters further stated that by keeping the TRE for continuous process vents at a new affected source, but eliminating it for existing sources, the requirements for existing sources would become more restrictive and costly than those for new affected sources.

    Response: In the development of the MACT requirements for this NESHAP and in other rules, such as the HON and the MON, a TRE was included in the rule to help define the regulated process vents. In those rules, data for only a portion of the process vents in the existing source category were available to base the MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analyses upon. To ensure the rule required control for all process vents in the source category that were similar to those for which the MACT floor and the level of the standard was set, the TRE was used. This value ensures that all the process vents in the source category with comparable characteristics, such as flow rate, emission rate, net heating value, etc., as the process vents used to establish the level of the standard are the ones required to meet the established level of control. In this case, the EPA now has information for every CPV at an existing source in this source category, and the characteristics of every CPV were considered in establishing the proposed revised MACT standards. Therefore, a TRE value is not necessary to define the regulated CPVs at existing sources.

    For CPVs at new sources, the EPA did not propose to eliminate the TRE. Keeping the TRE for CPVs at these sources will continue to ensure the representativeness of the process vent on which the emission standards were based to the process vents regulated by that standard, as it is unknown what characteristics any future process vents will have. The commenters are not correct in their assertion that without the inclusion of the TRE, the proposed revised existing source requirements will become more restrictive and costly than the standards for new sources. The CPVs at new sources with characteristics similar to the vent on which the standard is based will be required to have greater emissions reductions than the reductions effectively required for existing sources (i.e., 85-percent reduction for new sources compared to approximately 50-percent reduction in emissions for the two existing CPVs that require control to meet the MACT standard).

    Comment: One commenter expressed dissatisfaction with the EPA's beyond-the-floor analysis for the proposed existing source standards for back-end CPVs. The commenter stated that the EPA only examined new regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) and did not consider less costly options, such as using existing controls or conducting process changes. The commenter also stated that the EPA did not address whether additional beyond-the-floor reductions would be achievable. The commenter further stated that cost effectiveness is a measure of whether the benefits of a particular action are worth the cost, and the EPA's practice of comparing marginal cost for beyond-the-floor options relative to the costs of the reductions achieved by the MACT floor does not answer the question of whether the beyond-the-floor option is cost effective.

    Response: In evaluating the beyond-the-floor emissions control options, we considered control technologies and strategies that would be technologically feasible for the facilities in the source category that have these process vents. In this case, RTO is the only control technology known that could treat the low HAP concentration, high air flow exhaust from these vents. We explained in the memorandum, “Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” which is available in the docket for this action, that we also considered scrubbers and carbon adsorbers in this analysis, but found them to be technologically infeasible for this application. While it may be possible that a facility could make process changes to reduce emissions, this would be highly facility-specific, and the EPA does not have information to suggest any particular type of process change would reduce HAP from these vents. We did explain that RTOs are capable of achieving emission rates beyond the MACT floor. We used the EPA's control cost manual to evaluate costs of control. We did not have enough information to evaluate the cost effectiveness of process changes that could be used to meet the standard. Regarding the cost effectiveness of the technologically available option, i.e., an RTO, we described the estimated cost of the beyond-the-floor option in the above-referenced memorandum. As shown in this memorandum, cost effectiveness was determined using capital and annual costs of an RTO, and the emissions reductions were determined using a baseline of no control compared to control using an RTO. The beyond-the-floor option was found to not be cost effective using these estimates.

    Back-End CPVs

    Comment: One commenter generally supported the levels of the back-end CPV standards for existing sources, but has some concerns regarding the associated compliance assurance measures and definitions. For the back-end CPVs, the commenter requested that an option to achieve an 85 percent reduction be included to ensure the standards for existing sources are not more stringent than those for new sources. The commenter also requested that the EPA keep the formerly included 12-month rolling average emission rate for back-end CPVs to account for emissions variability between resin types. Additionally, the commenter suggested that the EPA not change the definitions for reactor batch process vent and non-reactor batch process vent to ensure there is no confusion regarding applicability of the batch process vent provisions. Further, the commenter stated that the EPA should specify that initial compliance performance tests be conducted at “maximum representative operating conditions.”

    Response: We are not revising the format of the proposed standard for existing source back-end CPVs as the commenter requested. The 12-month rolling average emissions rate, formerly included in the October 2014 rule, was used to help account for variability in emission rates before the EPA had the information submitted by the facilities for each CPV, in which the highest HAP emitting resin was tested. The proposed standard accounted for variability in emissions while the highest HAP emitting resin was produced. Therefore, there is no need for compliance to be determined over a long period to account for variability in resins produced or the conditions present while producing high HAP emitting resins. The EPA is also not adding an 85-percent reduction compliance option for existing source back-end CPVs. In calculating the MACT floor, we determined the emissions limitation achieved by the best performing existing sources in the category based on the emissions per unit of resin produced. This production-based standard accounts for variability associated with the manufacturing process, including fluctuations in the amount of product produced and different types of product produced (i.e., various resin types), as well as possible future process modifications to alter other production variables. An 85-percent emissions reduction compliance option does not reflect the MACT floor level of control for back-end CPVs at existing sources.

    The proposed revised rule contains definitions for “batch process vent,” “continuous process vent,” “non-reactor process vent,” and “reactor process vent.” It is clear from these definitions that the rule provisions pertaining to “reactor batch process vents” and “non-reactor batch process vents” include only those vents that are “batch process vents.” It is also clear that the rule provisions pertaining to “reactor continuous process vents” and “non-reactor continuous process vents” include only those vents that are “continuous process vents.” Therefore, as the applicability of the rule provisions is sufficiently clear with these definitions, we have not added or changed the definitions related to these vents in the final rule beyond what was proposed.

    We agree with the commenter that the initial compliance performance test should be conducted at “maximum representative operating conditions.” However, as this is already a specified condition for performance tests in 40 CFR 63.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A), we have not further revised the regulatory text.

    Comment: One commenter stated that use of an upper predictive limit (UPL) in the standards for back-end CPVs at existing sources is not justified, since the EPA has extensive data for all the sources subject to the standard. The commenter stated that with such a comprehensive data set, it is likely that all variability is already accounted for, and there is no justification to assume there is additional variability that needs to be accounted for. The commenter also stated that the EPA did not disclose the actual emissions levels obtained by the sources in the category in the units of measurement used for the proposed standards and only presents the emission rates estimated by the UPL. The commenter stated that the standards are further weakened by not being required to determine compliance using the resin resulting in the highest HAP emissions, the way the MACT floor was calculated, but instead requiring compliance based on the resin with the highest HAP content. The commenter also stated that the alternative percent-reduction and concentration-based limits do not reflect emissions reductions achieved by best-performing sources.

    Response: While we agree with the commenter that the EPA has a comprehensive data set for the back-end CPVs in the source category, the use of the UPL is justified to account for variability that occurs due to process conditions when producing the highest HAP-emitting resins. We calculated the UPL values for each back-end CPV with that CPV's highest HAP-emitting resin to take this variability into consideration. As discussed in detail in the MACT floor memorandum, “Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” which is available in the docket for this action, we used the arithmetic average of the UPLs of the five best-performing back-end CPVs to calculate the MACT floor. To respond to the commenter's concerns about the calculation of the UPL, we have summarized the emissions information used to calculate the UPL values for each back-end CPV and included this information in a memorandum titled “Addendum to Proposed Revised MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Back-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” to the docket for this action. Regarding the compliance determination based on the resin with the highest HAP content, for these back-end CPVs, the liquid resin having the highest HAP content is the condition for which the highest HAP emissions result. This occurs because no significant quantities of HAP are created or destroyed in the drying process, and the drying process moves nearly all HAP in the liquid resin to the dryer vent (i.e., back-end CPV). In addition, 40 CFR 63.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A) specifies that performance tests used to demonstrate compliance must be under “maximum representative operating conditions,” as defined at 40 CFR 63.1402. This term specifies conditions which reflect the highest organic HAP emissions reasonably expected to be vented to the control device or emitted to the atmosphere.

    Regarding the alternative standards included in the rule for CPVs, the alternative standard is not a percent reduction based standard and is only a concentration based alternative standard that represents the performance limits of combustion and non-combustion control technologies for low-HAP concentration airstreams. We did not propose to amend the alternative standard and are not making any amendments to the alternative standard in this action.

    Comment: Two commenters responded to the EPA's request for comment about whether existing facilities would need additional time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards. One commenter stated that the EPA should not extend the compliance deadline, asserting that such an extension would contravene the CAA's provisions stating that CAA section 112 standards become effective upon promulgation. The commenter also noted that sources would be in compliance with the more stringent 2014 standard by October 2017, and CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) provides that the EPA shall not delay the effective date of a regulation more than 3 months pending reconsideration. Another commenter recommended that all existing sources impacted by any of the proposed emission limits, definitions, and work practice standards have an additional year to meet the proposed compliance requirements. The commenter stated that facilities would need time to further evaluate the impact of the rule change, evaluate and/or modify its compliance strategy, and implement the compliance measures.

    Response: Pursuant to CAA section 112(i)(3)(A), the Agency is establishing a compliance date of 1 year from the promulgation date of the final standards for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We are establishing this compliance date with recognition that the original October 2017 compliance date has already passed, that several state agencies have already given sources 1 year compliance date extensions, and that the amended emissions standard for back-end CPVs at existing sources changes the numerical emission limitation. After promulgation of these standards, facility owners or operators will require time to reevaluate compliance options, potentially revise compliance strategies, and implement the strategies, which the EPA anticipates will entail the purchase and installation of emissions control devices at two sources. We are providing 1 year to allow for this evaluation and implementation, which we consider as expeditious as practicable given the need to evaluate compliance options and the anticipated installation and initial compliance determination of emission control equipment in order to meet the standards in this final rule. Additionally, since we are revising the standards for front-end CPVs at existing facilities, we are also establishing the same compliance date as for the back-end CPVs at existing sources. The reasons for the revised compliance date for front-end CPVs at existing sources are the same as those for the back-end CPVs, except that the EPA anticipates that sources will not need to purchase and install emissions control devices to achieve the front-end CPV standard. Regardless of whether control devices will need to be employed to achieve the standards for front-end CPVs at existing sources, the numeric value and format of the standard is revised and owners or operators of sources subject to these revised standards will need to alter how they demonstrate compliance. For front-end CPVs, the standard is being revised from 1.9 pounds of HAP per ton of resin produced, as specified in the October 2014 rule, to less than a pound of HAP per hour standard as revised in this action. This is a logical outgrowth of the proposal's discussion of the considered options for front-end CPVs at existing sources, for which the Agency solicited comments which yielded no identification of other front-end vents and no substantive comments regarding the discussed possible standards. The need to establish an expeditious yet reasonable compliance date for a revised standard is reasonable in light of our revising the standard in both numeric value and units of measure. The revised compliance deadline for CPVs at existing sources being established in this action is specified at 40 CFR 63.1401(b). In contrast, for the storage vessel standard for periods of planned routine maintenance, the option to comply through a work practice standard would only require planning not substantially different from what is necessary to implement the planned routine maintenance of the emissions control system and would not require any additional equipment. Therefore, the EPA has determined that this storage vessel standard can be implemented by the compliance date previously established, and we are not amending this compliance date for the finalized storage vessel amendments in this final action.

    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's opinion that providing additional time to comply with the revised CPV standards is unlawful under the CAA. Although it is true that CAA section 112 provides that standards “shall be effective upon promulgation,” the commenter overlooks the fact that CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) clearly provides the EPA discretion to establish an appropriate compliance period to follow the “effective date” of standards. Similarly, although CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) speaks of potential delays of the effectiveness of a standard following receipt of a petition of reconsideration, that provision has no relevance to the decision the Agency makes under CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) to establish a compliance date following the promulgation of a standard.

    Comment: One commenter noted there were several references in the proposed rule to 40 CFR 63.1405(b)(2)((i), (ii), and (iii), which were not included in the proposed rule language. The commenter also noted that there was no paragraph (i) or (ii) before 40 CFR 63.1413(h)(3)(ii)(B)(3)(iii). The commenter requested that the EPA correct the discrepancies and allow for an extended comment period on the technical corrections.

    Response: The commenter is correct that several references to these paragraphs were included in the proposed rule language and that the paragraphs were not present in the proposed rule text. The paragraphs in which these references were located in the proposed rule text were 40 CFR 63.1413(c)(5), (c)(6), (h)(1)(i), (h)(3)(ii)(B)(4), and (h)(3)(iii), and 40 CFR 63.1416(f)(5) and (f)(6), and 40 CFR 63.1417(f)(15). In the final rule language, we have corrected this discrepancy by revising 40 CFR 63.1405(b) and including standards for reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources in 40 CFR 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii). We did not propose rule language for these front-end CPVs because we were taking comment on whether it would be appropriate to establish front-end CPV standards at existing sources for the source category and the associated value of the standard if there were front-end CPVs, other than the two we had identified, at existing affected sources. In the proposal, we discussed what the standard would be based on information available to the EPA at the time and provided a memorandum in the docket regarding calculation of the MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analysis. As no comments were received regarding additional front-end CPVs, and no other information indicates there are other existing source front-end CPVs in the source category, we have included the standards for front-end CPVs in the final rule. These standards are based on the existing information available to the EPA, as discussed at proposal. We have also corrected the numbering for 40 CFR 63.1413(h)(3)(ii)(B)(3). As the levels of the front-end CPV standards now included in the rule language were explained in our proposal, and no comments on the standards were received, we are not providing additional time for comment on these provisions.

    3. What are the final rule amendments and our associated rationale regarding CPV standards at existing sources?

    The analyses regarding the emission standards for CPVs at existing source APR facilities has not changed since proposal, and our rationale for the standards are provided in the preamble for the proposed rule and in the responses to the comments presented above. For these reasons, we are finalizing the revised back-end CPV standards for existing sources of 8.6 pounds of HAP per ton of resin produced, as proposed in August 2017. We are also finalizing, for the reasons provided above, separate standards for reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources, as described in the August 2017 proposal. The standard for front-end reactor CPVs is 0.61 pounds of HAP per hour, and the standard for front-end non-reactor CPVs is 0.022 pounds of HAP per hour.

    B. Planned Routine Maintenance of Emission Control Systems Used To Reduce HAP Emissions From Storage Vessels 1. What changes did we propose regarding planned routine maintenance of storage vessel emissions control systems?

    In its petition for reconsideration of the October 2014 final rule, Georgia Pacific requested that the EPA reconsider the applicability of the storage vessel HAP emissions standards when the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof storage vessel is shut down for planned routine maintenance. In response to this request, the EPA reviewed and re-evaluated the standards for storage vessels, and we proposed a separate work practice standard for storage vessels during periods of planned routine maintenance of the storage vessel control device in the August 2017 proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO. This proposed work practice would allow owners or operators to bypass the control device for up to 240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided there are no working losses from the vessel. This proposed standard would apply to fixed roof storage vessels at new and existing APR sources and represents the MACT floor level of control.

    2. What comments did we receive regarding the proposed standards for planned routine maintenance of storage vessel emissions control systems?

    The following is a summary of the significant comments received on the proposed standards for planned routine maintenance of storage vessel emissions control systems and our responses to these comments.

    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA lacks authority to exempt sources from emissions standards during any period of time and asserted that the proposed work practice standard is merely an exemption for storage vessel emissions during control device planned routine maintenance. The commenter also asserted that the EPA has not met the statutory requirements specified in CAA section 112(h)(1)-(2) to authorize the Agency to issue a work practice standard rather than a numeric emission standard. The commenter further stated that the proposed work practice standards are not consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d), which sets forth requirements for determining the MACT floor and beyond-the-floor levels based on the emissions reductions achieved by the best performing similar sources. The commenter stated that the EPA has not determined the emissions achieved by the best performing sources or whether those sources have 240 hours of uncontrolled emissions annually. The commenter stated that the EPA failed to apply the CAA standards for beyond-the-floor determinations. On this point, the commenter noted that the EPA claims the use of carbon canisters for emissions control during storage vessel planned routine maintenance is achievable, but not cost effective, however, the EPA did not attempt to examine the benefits of reducing HAP during these periods. The commenter stated that the EPA did not disclose the data or methodology used in its estimate of 26 pounds per year per facility for routine maintenance emissions.

    Response: First, there is no basis for the commenter's assertion that the proposed work practice standard is an exemption for storage vessel emissions during control device planned routine maintenance. The work practice standard establishes specific requirements that apply during up to 240 hours per year of planned routine maintenance of the control system. Specifically, the standard prohibits sources from increasing the level of material in the storage vessel during periods that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance. This standard minimizes emissions by ensuring that no working losses occur during such time periods. Working losses are the loss of stock vapors as a result of filling a storage vessel and are the majority of uncontrolled emissions for storage vessels having significant throughput. The proposed work practice standard does not allow working losses to occur. With working losses eliminated during this period, the only emissions that would occur are breathing losses (a.k.a. standing losses). Breathing losses occur due to the expansion and contraction of the vapor space in a fixed roof storage vessel from diurnal temperature changes and barometric pressure changes. Breathing losses occur without any change to the liquid level in the storage vessel. The breathing losses from a fixed roof storage vessel are small and highly variable because they are dependent upon the volume of the vapor space in the storage vessel and the meteorological conditions at the time.

    Second, the storage vessel requirements in this rule were originally promulgated as CAA section 112(h) standards. The provisions establish two control options. One option is for the installation of a floating roof pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. This option is a combination of design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards. The other option is to install a conveyance system (pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS) and route the emissions to a control device that achieves a 95-percent reduction in HAP emissions or that achieves a specific outlet HAP concentration. The second option is a combination of design standards, equipment standards, operational standards, and a percent reduction or outlet concentration. See the preamble to the original rulemaking for 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO at 63 FR 68832 (12/14/1998) and the preamble to the HON at 57 FR 62608 (12/31/1992). In this action, we neither reopened nor accepted comment on the standards that apply during all periods other than the up to 240 hours of planned routine maintenance or any aspect of the original justification for the standards.

    Third, the specific work practice requirement added in this action fulfills the purposes of section 112(h)(1) of the CAA, which calls on the Administrator to include requirements in work practice standards sufficient to assure the proper operation and maintenance of the design or equipment. The work practice standard added simply allows for the planned routine maintenance of the control device and minimizes emissions during such periods of planned routine maintenance, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(h)(1).

    Fourth, the commenter did not provide any evidence to show that there is a methodology that could be applied to breathing losses from a fixed roof storage vessel that would be technologically and economically practicable. We have determined that it is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations, to apply measurement methodology to measure breathing losses from storage vessels during periods of planned routine maintenance. We have concluded that it would not be technically and economically practicable to measure breathing loss emissions with any degree of certainty to establish a numeric limit based upon the best performing sources because of the nature of the breathing losses. The breathing losses during the planned routine maintenance of the control system are highly dependent on the volume of the vapor space and the weather conditions during that time. It would be impractical to plan to test a storage vessel during the 10 days per year that have the both the weather conditions and the vapor space volume that would result in the most breathing losses. Specialized flow meters (such as mass flowmeters) would likely be needed in order to accurately measure any flow during these variable, no to low flow conditions. Measurement costs for these no to low flow durations of time would be economically impracticable, particularly in light of the small quantity of emissions. We have used AP-42 emissions estimate equations to estimate 10 days of breathing losses. See “Addendum to National Impacts Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” in the docket for this rule. We estimate that it would cost approximately $25,000 for three 1-hour testing runs on a single day. We calculated these costs based on industry average costs of deploying qualified individuals for a day and costs of performing the necessary tests on required equipment to determine the concentration and emission rate of HAP. The extremely low flow rate present would require a greater degree of monitoring plan and quality assurance project plan development than is typical. Specialized equipment that is not typically available may be required to measure flow rates under these conditions. We are not aware of any measurement of breathing loss HAP emissions from a fixed roof storage vessel in the field.

    In the proposed rule, we also evaluated whether a backup control device capable of achieving the 95-percent reduction standard would be cost effective at controlling the remaining breathing losses. In the proposal, we explained that the use of such back-up control devices is not cost effective. To respond to the commenter's concern about the disclosure of the data and methodologies used to calculate the breathing losses for assessing the cost effectiveness of controlling such emissions, in the memorandum titled “Addendum to National Impacts Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” we are providing a summary of the information used to calculate the breathing losses in the docket for this rule.

    Therefore, we are finalizing the amendments to the storage vessel requirements, as proposed, allowing owners or operators of fixed roof vessels at new and existing affected APR sources to perform planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for up to 240 hours per year, provided there are no working losses from the vessel during that time.

    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposed work practice standards for storage vessels during planned routine maintenance of emission control systems. The commenter requested that the work practice standard also cover periods of malfunctions of the control device when it is temporarily incapable of controlling any emissions from the storage vessel. The commenter stated this would reduce the burden associated with required notifications of unpreventable failure of control equipment, which may not result in an exceedance of the emissions standard.

    Response: While emissions from most equipment can be eliminated completely during routine maintenance of a control device, simply by not operating the process during those times, the same is not true for a storage vessel. The stored material in the vessel will continue to emit small amounts of volatile compounds due to breathing losses even when the control device is not operating. The only ways to avoid these emissions are to route the vapors from the stored material to another control device or to completely empty and degas the storage vessel prior to the maintenance activity. We proposed the 240 hour work practice standard to avoid having owners or operators empty and degas a storage vessel prior to completing planned routine maintenance, as this activity results in higher emissions than the small amounts of breathing losses that would result during the time the control device was not operating. While this work practice requirement prevents higher emissions than would result from the planned emptying and degassing activity that may take place prior to planned routine maintenance of a control device, the same emissions would not be avoided in the event of a malfunction. As malfunctions are not planned events, an owner or operator would not empty and degas a storage vessel prior to the malfunction. Since emissions would not be reduced and would possibly increase by including malfunctions in the work practice standard, we do not agree that it is not appropriate to include malfunctions in the standard. Consequently, the final rule does not adopt the commenter's suggestion.

    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA revise the proposed storage vessel control requirements to explicitly allow emissions to be routed to a process for re-use as a raw material rather than just to a control or recovery device, to be more consistent with the similar provisions contained in the HON.

    Response: The standards in 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) refer to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for storage vessel control requirements, stating, “Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process).” The requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, also include the ability to meet storage vessel emissions standards by routing emissions through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system or a process, which has been an option for control of storage vessel emissions meeting the standards of 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1). We have revised 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) to clarify that compliance with the standards of 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) can be achieved by following the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for routing emissions through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system or a process, which are included in the provisions and the title of the subpart. This clarification achieves the same result as the commenter's suggestion.

    3. What are the final rule amendments and our associated rationale regarding the standards for planned routine maintenance of storage vessel emissions control systems?

    The analysis of the alternative work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR facilities during planned routine maintenance of emission control systems has not changed since proposal. Therefore, for the reasons provided above, as well as in the preamble for the proposed rule, the EPA is finalizing, with minor clarifications, the proposed work practice standards for these periods of time. The work practice standards will permit owners or operators of fixed roof storage vessels at new and existing affected APR sources to bypass the emission control system for up to 240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided there are no working losses from the fixed roof storage vessel. To prevent HAP emissions from working losses, owners or operators complying with the alternative work practice standards will not be permitted to add material to the storage vessel during control device planned routine maintenance periods.

    We are making two minor clarifications to the requirements for storage vessels during planned routine maintenance of emission control systems. In this final rule, we have revised 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) to clarify that compliance with the standards of 40 CFR 63.1404(a)(1) can be achieved by following the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for routing emissions through a closed vent system to a fuel gas system or a process. This revision will apply during times of normal operation, as well as during planned routine maintenance of the storage vessel emissions control system. We have also added language to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.1416(g)(6) and 40 CFR 63.1417(f)(16) for storage vessel control device planned routine maintenance. These requirements were inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule text.

    C. Technical Corrections

    In this rulemaking, we are making five technical corrections to improve the clarity of the APR NESHAP requirements.

    First, the original APR NESHAP, promulgated in January 2000 (65 FR 3276), incorporated three voluntary consensus standards (VCS) by reference, as specified in 40 CFR 63.14. However, while the paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.14 for these three VCS include references to the NESHAP for which they are approved to be used, these references omit citations to 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO. In 40 CFR 63.14, we are adding citations to 40 CFR 63.1402 and 40 CFR 63.1412 for the following consensus standards: American Petroleum Institute Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss From External Floating-Roof Tanks; American Society for Testing and Materials Method D2879-83; and American Society for Testing and Materials Method D1946-90.

    Second, we are also correcting a citation reference to 40 CFR 63.1413(d)(6)(iii)(A) in 40 CFR 63.1417(3)(9). The correct citation is to 40 CFR 63.1414(d)(6)(iii)(A).

    Third, at 40 CFR 63.1403(a) and 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(2), we are correcting the reference to the title of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, i.e., “National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process.”

    Fourth, at 40 CFR 63.1412(g)(2)(ii), we are adding the phrase “(Reapproved 1994) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14)” immediately following “American Society for Testing and Materials D1946-90.”

    Fifth, at 40 CFR 63.1404(c) and 40 CFR 63.1416(g)(6)(iii), we are replacing the undefined term “tank” with the defined term “storage vessel.”

    IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources?

    We estimate that 11 to 16 existing sources will be affected by one or more of the revised requirements being finalized in this action. We expect one existing source will be subject to the revised front-end and back-end CPV requirements, one existing source will be subject to the revised front-end CPV requirements, and three existing sources will be subject to the back-end CPV requirements. We expect four of these five existing sources (and an additional six to 11 sources) will be able to take advantage of the storage vessel work practice standards during periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for vents on fixed roof storage vessels.

    B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are finalizing a revised standard of 8.6 pounds of HAP per ton of resin produced for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We project the final standard will result in an estimated reduction of 207 tons of HAP per year beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards, based on compliance with the alternative standard of 20 parts per million by volume for combustion control using RTOs. We estimate that the October 2014 rule would have required HAP emission reductions of 271 tons per year from CPVs at existing sources. We are also finalizing a standard of 0.61 pounds of HAP per hour for front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources and a standard of 0.022 pounds of HAP per hour for front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources. The front-end CPVs are anticipated to be able to meet the emission standards without additional controls, and we project that these final standards will not result in HAP emission reductions beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards.

    We are finalizing work practice standards to address emissions during periods of storage vessel emissions control system planned routine maintenance. The standards require that storage vessels not be filled during these times, which eliminates working losses, and limit the amount of time allowed annually for use of this work practice. We anticipate the revised work practice standards will reduce HAP emissions from those allowed under the January 2000 APR MACT standards by preventing working losses and limiting the annual duration of the maintenance period for which the work practice can be used, resulting in an estimated decrease of 0.9 tons of HAP per year per facility beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards. When compared to the October 2014 rule, which required compliance with the storage vessel emissions standards at all times, including during times of planned routine maintenance of the emissions control system, the HAP emissions reduction may be slightly less than the 0.08 tons of HAP per year projected under the 2014 final rule.

    C. What are the cost impacts?

    For back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, we are finalizing a revised standard of 8.6 pounds of HAP per ton of resin produced. We project that back-end CPVs at two existing affected sources will require emissions controls to meet the revised standard. For cost purposes, we assumed that each facility would install an RTO. Based on discussions with Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, we understand that the facilities are exploring other options, such as process changes, that may be more cost effective. However, the technical feasibility and potential costs of these options are currently unknown, and our estimate of compliance costs, assuming the use of RTOs, is based on the best information available. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $4.8 million and annualized costs to be $2.1 million per year. These costs are incremental to those of the 2000 rule, which did not regulate CPVs at existing sources. Compared to our revised estimate of the October 2014 rule costs of $9.6 million in capital costs and annualized costs of $4.2 million,1 the revised standard represents an approximate 50-percent reduction in industry-wide costs. For front-end CPVs, we anticipate compliance with the emissions standards to be met without additional control, and we estimate there will be no capital or annualized costs associated with achieving these standards.

    1 See memorandum, “National Impacts Associated with Proposed Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” which is available in the rulemaking docket.

    We estimated the nationwide annualized cost reductions associated with the final work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for vents on fixed roof storage vessels. Compared to our revised cost estimate of the October 2014 rule,2 the final storage vessel work practice standards result in an annualized cost reduction for each facility of $830 per year, which includes a capital cost reduction of $1,600. We estimate the nationwide annualized cost reduction to be up to $12,450 per year based on an estimated 15 facilities.

    2 Same as previous footnote.

    D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed a national economic impact analysis for APR production facilities affected by this final rule. We anticipate that two existing affected sources would install RTOs to comply with this rule at a total annualized cost of $2.1 million (in 2014$) per year compared to the January 2000 rule. These total annualized costs of compliance are estimated to be approximately 0.002 percent of sales. Accordingly, we do not project this final rule to have a significant economic impact on the affected entities.

    The estimated total annualized cost of this final rule can also be compared to the estimated cost for the industry to comply with all provisions of the October 2014 rule. Based on information received since the October 2014 rule was finalized and the issues reconsidered in this action, we developed a revised estimate of the cost to comply with the 2014 final rule. We estimate the revised annualized cost of complying with the October 2014 rule to be $4.2 million per year.3 Compared to this revised estimate of the cost of compliance with the October 2014 rule, this final rule will provide regulatory relief by reducing annualized compliance costs by $2.1 million in year 2014 dollars.

    3 See Table 3 and Table 4 of the memorandum, “National Impacts Associated with Final Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” which is available in the rulemaking docket.

    More information and details of this analysis, including the conclusions stated above, are provided in the technical document, “Economic Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the NESHAP for Amino/Phenolic Resins,” which is available in the rulemaking docket.

    E. What are the benefits?

    We estimate that this final rule will result in an annual reduction of 207 tons of HAP, compared to the January 2000 rule baseline. The EPA estimates this rule will result in 64 tons per year fewer HAP emission reductions than what the EPA projects the 2014 rule would achieve based on the additional information and test data that the EPA obtained following issuance of the 2014 final rule, as described in section III.A.1 of this preamble. We have not quantified or monetized the effects of these emissions changes for this rulemaking. See section IV.B of this preamble for discussion of HAP emissions from CPVs at existing sources under this final rule compared to the October 2014 rule.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action, titled “Economic Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the NESHAP for Amino/Phenolic Resins,” and included in the docket of this rule.

    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the 13771 deregulatory figures of this final rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action, titled “Economic Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the NESHAP for Amino/Phenolic Resins,” and included in the docket of this rule.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1869.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

    This final rule requires recordkeeping and reporting of occurrences when control devices used to comply with the storage vessel provisions undergo planned routine maintenance. Reporting of such occurrences are required to be disclosed in the Periodic Reports as specified at 40 CFR 63.1417.

    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents affected by the amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO, include, but are not limited to, facilities having a NAICS code 325211 (United States Standard Industrial Classification 2821). Facilities with a NAICS code of 325211 are described as Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin types.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under sections 112 and 114 of the CAA.

    Estimated number of respondents: 15.

    Frequency of response: Once or twice per year.

    Total estimated burden: 45 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,750 per year, including no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    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. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The EPA has identified no small entities that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.

    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA's risk assessments for the October 2014 rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0133) demonstrate that the current regulations are associated with an acceptable level of risk and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This final action does not alter those conclusions.

    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA is formalizing the incorporation of three technical standards that were included in the January 2000 rule for which the EPA had previously not formally requested the Office of the Federal Register to include in 40 CFR 63.14 with a reference back to the sections in 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO. These three standards were included in the original January 2000 rule. These three standards were already incorporated in 40 CFR 63.14, and were formally requested for other rules. These standards are API Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, Third Edition, February 1989; ASTM D1946-90 (Reapproved 1994), Standard Method for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography; and ASTM D2879-83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope. API Publication 2517 is used to determine the maximum true vapor pressure of HAP in liquids stored at ambient temperature. API Publication 2517 is available to the public for free viewing online in the Read Online Documents section on API's website at https://publications.api.org. In addition to this free online viewing availability on API's website, hard copies and printable versions are available for purchase from API. ASTM D2879 is also used to determine the maximum true vapor pressure of HAP in liquids stored at ambient temperature. ASTM D1946 is used to measure the concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen in a process vent gas stream. ASTM D2879 and ASTM D1946 are available to the public for free viewing online in the Reading Room section on ASTM's website at https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. In addition to this free online viewing availability on ASTM's website, hardcopies and printable versions are available for purchase from ASTM. Additional information can be found at http://www.api.org/and https://www.astm.org/Standard/standards-and-publications.html.

    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In the October 2014 rule, the EPA determined that the current health risks posed by emissions from these source categories are acceptable and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This final action does not alter the conclusions made in the October 2014 rule regarding these analyses.

    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 4, 2018. Andrew R. Wheeler, Acting Administrator.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:

    PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (h)(17), and (h)(27) to read as follows:
    § 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

    (e) * * *

    (1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, Third Edition, February 1989, IBR approved for §§ 63.111, 63.1402, and 63.2406.

    (h) * * *

    (17) ASTM D1946-90 (Reapproved 1994), Standard Method for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for §§ 63.11(b) and 63.1412.

    (27) ASTM D2879-83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope, IBR approved for §§ 63.111, 63.1402, 63.2406, and 63.12005.

    Subpart OOO—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins 3. Section 63.1400 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
    § 63.1400 Applicability and designation of affected sources.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Equipment that does not contain organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and is located within an APPU that is part of an affected source;

    4. Section 63.1401 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 63.1401 Compliance schedule.

    (b) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with this subpart (except §§ 63.1404, 63.1405, and 63.1411(c)) no later than 3 years after January 20, 2000. Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with the storage vessel requirements of § 63.1404 and the pressure relief device monitoring requirements of § 63.1411(c) by October 9, 2017. Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with the continuous process vent requirements of § 63.1405(b) by October 15, 2019.

    5. Section 63.1402 paragraph (b) is amended by: a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for “Back-end continuous process vent”, “Front-end continuous process vent”, “Non-reactor process vent”, and “Reactor process vent”; and b. Removing the definitions for “Non-reactor batch process vent” and “Reactor batch process vent”

    The additions read as follows:

    § 63.1402 Definitions.

    (b) * * *

    Back-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent for operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form. Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Back-end does not include storage and loading of finished product or emission points that are regulated under §§ 63.1404 or 63.1409 through 63.1411 of this subpart.

    Front-end continuous process vent means a continuous process vent for operations in an APPU related to producing liquid resins, including any product recovery, stripping and filtering operations, and prior to any flaking or drying operations.

    Non-reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent originating from a unit operation other than a reactor. Non-reactor process vents include, but are not limited to, process vents from filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, and distillation systems.

    Reactor process vent means a batch or continuous process vent originating from a reactor.

    6. Section 63.1403 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

    (a) Provisions of this subpart. Except as allowed under paragraph (b) of this section, the owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with the provisions of §§ 63.1404 through 63.1410, as appropriate. When emissions are vented to a control device or control technology as part of complying with this subpart, emissions shall be vented through a closed vent system meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas system or a process).

    7. Section 63.1404 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 63.1404 Storage vessel provisions.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 95 weight-percent. Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas system or a process). When complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this subpart:

    (c) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from a storage vessel through a closed-vent system connected to a control device used to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the control device must be operating except as provided for in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.

    (1) The control device may only be bypassed for the purpose of performing planned routine maintenance of the control device. When the control device is bypassed, the owner or operator must comply with paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    (i) The control device may only be bypassed when the planned routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that storage vessel emissions are vented to the control device.

    (ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance shall not exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.

    (iii) The level of material in the storage vessel shall not be increased during periods that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance.

    (2) The gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from the storage vessel through a closed-vent system connected to an alternate control device meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or the alternative standard in paragraph (b) of this section.

    8. Section 63.1405 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and paragraph (a)(2) introductory text; b. Removing paragraph (a)(3); c. Revising paragraph (b); and d. Adding paragraph (c).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 63.1405 Continuous process vent provisions.

    (a) Emission standards for new affected sources. For each continuous process vent located at a new affected source with a Total Resource Effectiveness (TRE) index value, as determined following the procedures specified in § 63.1412(j), less than or equal to 1.2, the owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (a) of this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

    (2) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 85 weight-percent. Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas system or process). When complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this subpart:

    (b) Emission standards for existing affected sources. For each continuous process vent located at an existing affected source, the owner or operator shall comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section. As an alternative to complying with paragraph (b) of this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

    (1) Vent all emissions of organic HAP to a flare.

    (2) Reduce emissions as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable.

    (i) The owner or operator of a back-end continuous process vent shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or equal to 4.3 kilograms of total organic HAP per megagram of resin produced (8.6 pounds of total organic HAP per ton of resin produced).

    (ii) The owner or operator of a front-end reactor continuous process vent shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or equal to 0.28 kilograms of total organic HAP per hour (0.61 pounds of total organic HAP per hour).

    (iii) The owner or operator of a front-end non-reactor continuous process vent shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or equal to 0.010 kilograms of total organic HAP per hour (0.022 pounds of total organic HAP per hour).

    (c) Alternative emission standards. As an alternative to complying with paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, an owner or operator may comply with paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, as appropriate.

    (1) For each continuous process vent located at a new affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from a continuous process vent meeting the TRE value specified in paragraph (a) of this section to a non-flare combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to a non-combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process vents that are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.

    (2) For each continuous process vent located at an existing affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from a continuous process vent to a non-flare combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to a non-combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process vents that are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.

    9. Section 63.1412 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (g)(2)(ii), and (k)(2) to read as follows:
    § 63.1412 Continuous process vent applicability assessment procedures and methods.

    (a) General. The provisions of this section provide procedures and methods for determining the applicability of the control requirements specified in § 63.1405(a) to continuous process vents.

    (g) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) American Society for Testing and Materials D1946-90 (Reapproved 1994) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) to measure the concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.

    (k) * * *

    (2) If the TRE index value calculated using engineering assessment is less than or equal to 4.0, the owner or operator is required either to perform the measurements specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section for control applicability assessment or comply with the control requirements specified in § 63.1405(a).

    10. Section 63.1413 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii); c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(4) introductory text, and paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) through (6); d. Adding paragraph (c)(7); e. Revising paragraphs (f) and (h)(1); f. Redesignating paragraph (h)(2) as (h)(3); g. Adding new paragraph (h)(2); h. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(3) introductory text (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii) introductory text, (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) and (3), and (h)(3)(iii); i. Adding paragraph (h)(4); j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(iii) and (iv); and k. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(v).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 63.1413 Compliance demonstration procedures.

    (a) General. For each emission point, the owner or operator shall meet three stages of compliance, with exceptions specified in this subpart. First, the owner or operator shall conduct a performance test or design evaluation to demonstrate either the performance of the control device or control technology being used or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. Second, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements for demonstrating initial compliance (e.g., a demonstration that the required percent reduction or emissions limit is achieved). Third, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance through some form of monitoring (e.g., continuous monitoring of operating parameters).

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Uncontrolled continuous process vents. Owners or operators are required to conduct either a performance test or a design evaluation for continuous process vents that are not controlled through either a large or small control device.

    (3) Design evaluations. As provided in paragraph (a) of this section, a design evaluation may be conducted to demonstrate the organic HAP removal efficiency for a control device or control technology, or the uncontrolled total organic HAP emissions rate from a continuous process vent. As applicable, a design evaluation shall address the organic HAP emissions rate from uncontrolled continuous process vents, the composition and organic HAP concentration of the vent stream(s) entering a control device or control technology, the operating parameters of the emission point and any control device or control technology, and other conditions or parameters that reflect the performance of the control device or control technology or the organic HAP emission rate from a continuous process vent. A design evaluation also shall address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, for controlled vent streams, depending on the type of control device that is used. If the vent stream(s) is not the only inlet to the control device, the efficiency demonstration also shall consider all other vapors, gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.

    (4) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels. The owner or operator of a control device that has one or more parameter monitoring level requirements specified under this subpart, or specified under subparts referenced by this subpart, shall establish a maximum or minimum level, as denoted on Table 4 of this subpart, for each measured parameter using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the owner or operator shall operate control devices such that the hourly average, daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block average of monitored parameters, established as specified in this paragraph, remains above the minimum level or below the maximum level, as appropriate.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Initial compliance with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the procedures specified in paragraph (g) of this section.

    (4) Continuous compliance with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the continuous monitoring procedures specified in § 63.1415.

    (5) Initial and continuous compliance with the production-based emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall be demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.

    (6) Initial and continuous compliance with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) shall be demonstrated following the procedures of either paragraphs (c)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section.

    (i) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit using a closed vent system and a control device or recovery device or by routing emissions to a fuel gas system or process shall follow the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. When complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this subpart:

    (A) The requirements specified in of § 63.1405 (a)(2)(i) through (viii).

    (B) When 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS refers to meeting a weight-percent emission reduction or ppmv outlet concentration requirement, meeting an emission rate limit in terms of kilograms of total organic HAP per hour shall also apply.

    (ii) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit by means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

    (7) Initial and continuous compliance with the alternative standards specified in § 63.1405(c) shall be demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (f) of this section.

    (f) Compliance with alternative standard. Initial and continuous compliance with the alternative standards in §§ 63.1404(b), 63.1405(c), 63.1406(b), 63.1407(b)(1), and 63.1408(b)(1) are demonstrated when the daily average outlet organic HAP concentration is 20 ppmv or less when using a combustion control device or 50 ppmv or less when using a non-combustion control device. To demonstrate initial and continuous compliance, the owner or operator shall follow the test method specified in § 63.1414(a)(6) and shall be in compliance with the monitoring provisions in § 63.1415(e) no later than the initial compliance date and on each day thereafter.

    (h) * * *

    (1) Each owner or operator complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall determine initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section.

    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, to the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i).

    (ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on the daily average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The first continuous compliance average daily emission rate shall be calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be determined by comparing the daily average emission rate to the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i).

    (2) As required by paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section, each owner or operator complying with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable, by means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section, shall determine initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section.

    (i) Initial compliance. Initial compliance shall be determined by comparing the results of the performance test or design evaluation, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, to the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable.

    (ii) Continuous compliance. Continuous compliance shall be based on the hourly average emission rate calculated for each operating day. The first continuous compliance average hourly emission rate shall be calculated using the first 24-hour period or otherwise-specified operating day after the compliance date. Continuous compliance shall be determined by comparing the average hourly emission rate to the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), as applicable.

    (3) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i).

    (i) The daily emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per megagram of product, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 5 of this section:

    ER15OC18.007 Where: ER = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process vent, kg of HAP/Mg product. Ei = Emission rate of organic HAP from continuous process vent i as determined using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, kg/day. RPm = Amount of resin produced in one month as determined using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section, Mg/day.

    (ii) The daily emission rate of organic HAP, in kilograms per day, from an individual continuous process vent (Ei) shall be determined. Once organic HAP emissions have been estimated, as specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled continuous process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for continuous process vents vented to a control device or control technology, the owner or operator may use the estimated organic HAP emissions (Ei) until the estimated organic HAP emissions are no longer representative due to a process change or other reason known to the owner or operator. If organic HAP emissions (Ei) are determined to no longer be representative, the owner or operator shall redetermine organic HAP emissions for the continuous process vent following the procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section for uncontrolled continuous process vents or paragraphs (h)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section for continuous process vents vented to a control device or control technology.

    (B) * * *

    (1) Uncontrolled organic HAP emissions shall be determined following the procedures in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.

    (3) Controlled organic HAP emissions shall be determined by applying the control device or control technology efficiency, determined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, to the uncontrolled organic HAP emissions, determined in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section.

    (iii) The rate of resin produced, RPM (Mg/day), shall be determined based on production records certified by the owner or operator to represent actual production for the day. A sample of the records selected by the owner or operator for this purpose shall be provided to the Administrator in the Precompliance Report as required by § 63.1417(d).

    (4) Procedures to determine continuous compliance with the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii).

    (i) The hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour, shall be determined for each hour during the operating day using Equation 6 of this section:

    ER15OC18.008 Where: EH = Hourly emission rate of organic HAP in the sample, kilograms per hour. K2 = Constant, 2.494 × 10 6 (parts per million) 1 (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour), where standard temperature for (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 °C. n = Number of components in the sample. CJ = Organic HAP concentration on a dry basis of organic compound j in parts per million as determined by the methods specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section. Mj = Molecular weight of organic compound j, gram/gram-mole. QS = Continuous process vent flow rate, dry standard cubic meters per minute, at a temperature of 20 °C, as determined by the methods specified in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section.

    (ii) The average hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 7 of this section:

    ER15OC18.009 Where: AE = Average hourly emission rate per operating day, kilograms per hour. n = Number of hours in the operating day.

    (ii) Continuous process vent flow rate and organic HAP concentration shall be determined using the procedures specified in § 63.1414(a), or by using the engineering assessment procedures in paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of this section.

    (iii) Engineering assessment. For the purposes of determining continuous compliance with the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) using Equations 6 and 7, engineering assessments may be used to determine continuous process vent flow rate and organic HAP concentration. An engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following examples:

    (A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of current operating practices.

    (B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the process under representative operating conditions.

    (C) Maximum volumetric flow rate or organic HAP concentration specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the continuous process vent.

    (D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not limited to, the following:

    (1) Estimation of maximum organic HAP concentrations based on process stoichiometry material balances or saturation conditions; and

    (2) Estimation of maximum volumetric flow rate based on physical equipment design, such as pump or blower capacities.

    (i) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Exceedance of the mass emission limit (i.e., having an average value higher than the specified limit) monitored according to the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of this section for batch process vents and according to the provisions of paragraph (h)(1) of this section for continuous process vents;

    (iv) Exceedance of the organic HAP outlet concentration limit (i.e., having an average value higher than the specified limit) monitored according to the provisions of § 63.1415(e); and

    (v) Exceedance of the emission rate limit (i.e., having an average value higher than the specified limit) determined according to the provisions of paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

    11. Section 63.1415 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 63.1415 Monitoring requirements.

    (e) Monitoring for the alternative standards. For control devices that are used to comply with the provisions of § 63.1404(b), § 63.1405(c), § 63.1406(b), § 63.1407(b), or § 63.1408(b) the owner or operator shall conduct continuous monitoring of the outlet organic HAP concentration whenever emissions are vented to the control device. Continuous monitoring of outlet organic HAP concentration shall be accomplished using an FTIR instrument following Method PS-15 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The owner or operator shall calculate a daily average outlet organic HAP concentration.

    12. Section 63.1416 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (3), (f)(5) introductory text, and (f)(5)(ii); b. Adding paragraph (f)(5)(iii); c. Redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as (f)(7); d. Adding new paragraph (f)(6); e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f)(7) introductory text and paragraph (g)(5)(v)(E); and f. Adding paragraph (g)(6).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 63.1416 Recordkeeping requirements.

    (f) * * *

    (1) TRE index value records. Each owner or operator of a continuous process vent at a new affected source shall maintain records of measurements, engineering assessments, and calculations performed according to the procedures of § 63.1412(j) to determine the TRE index value. Documentation of engineering assessments, described in § 63.1412(k), shall include all data, assumptions, and procedures used for the engineering assessments.

    (3) Organic HAP concentration records. Each owner or operator shall record the organic HAP concentration as measured using the sampling site and organic HAP concentration determination procedures (if applicable) specified in § 63.1412(b) and (e), or determined through engineering assessment as specified in § 63.1412(k).

    (5) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate compliance with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    (ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an operating day.

    (iii) The daily organic HAP emissions from the continuous process vent determined as specified in § 63.1413(h)(3).

    (6) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate compliance with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    (i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified in § 63.1413(h)(2)(i).

    (ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an operating day.

    (iii) The average hourly organic HAP emissions from the continuous process vent determined as specified in § 63.1413(h)(4).

    (7) When using a flare to comply with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1), keep the records specified in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through (f)(7)(iii) of this section.

    (g) * * *

    (5) * * *

    (v) * * *

    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.

    (6) An owner or operator shall record, on a semiannual basis, the information specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, for those planned routine maintenance operations that would require the control device not to meet the requirements of § 63.1404(a) or (b) of this subpart.

    (i) A description of the planned routine maintenance that is anticipated to be performed for the control device during the next 6 months. This description shall include the type of maintenance necessary, planned frequency of maintenance, and lengths of maintenance periods.

    (ii) A description of the planned routine maintenance that was performed for the control device during the previous 6 months. This description shall include the type of maintenance performed and the total number of hours during these 6 months that the control device did not meet the requirement of § 63.1404 (a) or (b) of this subpart, as applicable, due to planned routine maintenance.

    (iii) For each storage vessel for which planned routine maintenance was performed during the previous 6 months, record the height of the liquid in the storage vessel at the time the control device is bypassed to conduct the planned routine maintenance and at the time the control device is placed back in service after completing the routine maintenance. These records shall include the date and time the liquid height was measured.

    13. Section 63.1417 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(8), (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(9), (f) introductory text, (f)(1) and (2), (f)(5) introductory text, and (f)(12)(ii); b. Adding paragraphs (f)(14) through (16); and c. Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 63.1417 Reporting requirements.

    (d) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch emissions episode as described in § 63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in § 63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring levels based on a design evaluation as specified in § 63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(e)(2); or following the procedures in § 63.1413(h)(3), shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (11) of this section, as appropriate.

    (8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.

    (e) * * *

    (1) The results of any emission point applicability determinations, performance tests, design evaluations, inspections, continuous monitoring system performance evaluations, any other information used to demonstrate compliance, and any other information, as appropriate, required to be included in the Notification of Compliance Status under 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW and subpart SS, as referred to in § 63.1404 for storage vessels; under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, as referred to in § 63.1405 for continuous process vents; under § 63.1416(f)(1) through (3), (f)(5)(i) and (ii), and (f)(6)(i) and (ii) for continuous process vents; under § 63.1416(d)(1) for batch process vents; and under § 63.1416(e)(1) for aggregate batch vent streams. In addition, each owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.

    (9) Data or other information used to demonstrate that an owner or operator may use engineering assessment to estimate emissions for a batch emission episode, as specified in § 63.1414(d)(6)(iii)(A).

    (f) Periodic Reports. Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (16) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day period. In addition, for equipment leaks subject to § 63.1410, the owner or operator shall submit the information specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, and for heat exchange systems subject to § 63.1409, the owner or operator shall submit the information specified in § 63.1409. Section 63.1415 shall govern the use of monitoring data to determine compliance for emissions points required to apply controls by the provisions of this subpart.

    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (16) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day period. The first report shall be submitted no later than 240 days after the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due and shall cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due. Subsequent reports shall cover each preceding 6-month period.

    (2) If none of the compliance exceptions specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (16) of this section occurred during the 6-month period, the Periodic Report required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall be a statement that the affected source was in compliance for the preceding 6-month period and no activities specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (16) of this section occurred during the preceding 6-month period.

    (5) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the following information, as appropriate, shall be included:

    (12) * * *

    (ii) The quarterly reports shall include all information specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (16) of this section applicable to the emission point for which quarterly reporting is required under paragraph (f)(12)(i) of this section. Information applicable to other emission points within the affected source shall be submitted in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

    (14) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the report shall include the daily average emission rate calculated for each operating day for which a deviation occurred.

    (15) If there is a deviation from the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), the report shall include the following information for each operating day for which a deviation occurred:

    (i) The calculated average hourly emission rate.

    (ii) The individual hourly emission rate data points making up the average hourly emission rate.

    (16) For periods of storage vessel routine maintenance in which a control device is bypassed, the owner or operator shall submit the information specified in § 63.1416(g)(6)(i) through (iii) of this subpart.

    (h) * * *

    (7) Whenever a continuous process vent becomes subject to control requirements under § 63.1405, as a result of a process change, the owner or operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the performance test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner. The report may be submitted as part of the next Periodic Report required by paragraph (f) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2018-22395 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0311; FRL-9980-56] Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of pyraclostrobin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. 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 15, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 14, 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-2017-0311, 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 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-2017-0311 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 14, 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-2017-0311, 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 7E8569) by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[ 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy] methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite, methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl] phenylcarbamate expressed as parent compound in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 16.0 ppm, celtuce at 29.0 ppm, Florence, fennel at 29.0 ppm, kohlrabi at 5.0 ppm, leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 29.0 ppm, leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 40 ppm, tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel, subgroup 24B at 0.6 ppm, and vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 5.0 ppm. The petition also requested that the following established tolerances be removed: Avocado at 0.6 ppm, banana at 0.04 ppm, Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 5.0 ppm, Brassica leafy greens, subgroup 5B, at 16.0 ppm, and vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 29 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    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 pyraclostrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyraclostrobin 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.

    The most consistently observed effects of pyraclostrobin exposure across species, genders, and treatment durations were diarrhea, decreased body weight, and decreased food consumption. Pyraclostrobin also causes intestinal disturbance as indicated by increased incidence of diarrhea or duodenum mucosal thickening. These intestinal effects appeared to be related to the irritating action on the mucus membranes as demonstrated by redness and chemosis (i.e., swelling of the conjunctiva) seen in the primary eye irritation study. In the rat acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, neuropathology and behavior changes were not observed.

    In the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, developmental toxicity (i.e. skeletal variations, post-implantation loss, and fetal resorption) was observed, as well as maternal toxicity (i.e. diarrhea, decreased body weight, food consumption, and clinical signs of toxicity). In the reproduction study, systemic toxicity manifested as decreased body weight in both the parents and offspring; no reproductive toxicity was observed.

    In the rat subchronic inhalation toxicity studies, inhalation toxicity consisted of both portal of entry effects (i.e., olfactory atrophy/necrosis and histiocytosis in the lungs) and systemic effects (i.e., hyperplasia in the duodenum).

    Pyraclostrobin was classified by the Agency as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the lack of treatment-related increase in tumor incidence in adequately conducted carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. Pyraclostrobin did not cause mutagenicity or genotoxicity in the in vivo and in vitro assays. Pyraclostrobin did not cause immunotoxicity in mice assays.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pyraclostrobin 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 on pages 34-39 in the document titled “Pyraclostrobin. Human Health Risk Assessment for a Petition for the Establishment of Use on Greenhouse-Grown Leafy Greens, Except Head Lettuce, Subgroup 4-16A; Cucurbit Vegetables, Group 9; and Fruiting Vegetables, Group 8-10 and Crop Group Conversions and Expansion of Tolerances for Brassica, Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16B; Celtuce; Florence Fennel; Kohlrabi; Leaf Petiole Vegetables, Subgroup 22B; Tropical and Subtropical, Medium to Large Fruit, Inedible Peel, Subgroup 23B; and Brassica Head and Stem, Group 5-16 and a Revised Tolerance Level for Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16A” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0311.

    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-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyraclostrobin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19231) (FRL-9925-02).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to pyraclostrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyraclostrobin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.582. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyraclostrobin 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 pyraclostrobin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, the acute dietary exposure assessments were performed assuming 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and incorporating tolerance-level or highest field-trial residues.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary exposure assessments were performed using average percent crop treated estimates and tolerance-level or average field-trial residues.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that pyraclostrobin 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 PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    • Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    • Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    • Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses in the chronic dietary assessment as follows:

    Almonds 45%; apples 20%; apricots 30%; barley 10%; green beans 5%; blueberries 40%; broccoli 5%; Brussels sprouts 15%; cabbage 10%; caneberries 50%; cantaloupes 15%; carrots 35%; cauliflower 5%; celery <2.5%; cherries 55%; chicory 5%; corn 10%; cotton (seed treatment) 10%; cucumber 5%; dry beans/peas 10%; garlic 10%; grapefruit 35%; grapes 30%; hazelnuts 20%; lemons 5%; lettuce 5%; nectarines 15%; oats 5%; onions 30%; oranges 5%; peaches 25%; peanuts 20%; pears 20%; green peas 5%; pecans 5%; peppers 15%; pistachios 30%; potatoes 20%; pumpkins 15%; soybeans (seed treatment) 10%; spinach 5%; squash 15%; strawberries 65%; sugar beets 50%; sugarcane 5%; sweet corn 5%; tangerines 10%; tomatoes 25%; walnuts 10%; watermelons 25%; wheat 5%.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case 2.5% is used as the average PCT, or less than 1%, in which case 1% is used as the average PCT.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for pyraclostrobin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of pyraclostrobin. 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 Pesticide Root Zone Model and Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pyraclostrobin for acute exposures are estimated to be 35.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 2.3 ppb for surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 35.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 2.3 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    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).

    Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential handler and post-application exposures: Treated gardens, fruit or nut trees, tomato transplants, and turf. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-term adult handler exposures via the dermal and inhalation routes resulting from application of pyraclostrobin to gardens, trees, and turf. Short-term dermal post-application exposures were assessed for adults, youth 11 to 16 years old, and children 6 to 11 years old. Short-term dermal and incidental oral exposures were assessed for children 1 to less than 2 years old. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications in residential settings.

    For the aggregate assessment, inhalation and dermal exposures were not aggregated together because the toxicity effect from the inhalation route of exposure was different than the effect from the dermal route of exposure. The scenarios with the highest residential exposures that were used in the short-term aggregate assessment for pyraclostrobin are as follows:

    • Adult short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal post-application exposure via activities on treated turf.

    • Youth (11 to 16 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal exposure from post-application golfing on treated turf.

    • Children (6 to 11 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal exposures from post-application activities in treated gardens.

    • Children (1 to less than 2 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to treated turf.

    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 pyraclostrobin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and pyraclostrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyraclostrobin 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 Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA 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 no evidence that pyraclostrobin results in increased quantitative susceptibility in rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. Although there is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the prenatal development study in rabbits, the Agency did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of pyraclostrobin. The degree of concern for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity is low.

    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. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for pyraclostrobin is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that pyraclostrobin is a neurotoxic chemical. Effects seen in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats are considered to reflect perturbations in mitochondrial respiration leading to effects on energy production rather than signs of neurotoxicity; therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that pyraclostrobin results in increased quantitative susceptibility in rats in the prenatal developmental study or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. The prenatal rabbit developmental toxicity study showed evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility to prenatal rabbits; however, this study was chosen for endpoint selection for the acute dietary (females 13-49) and short-term dermal exposure scenarios. This study has a clearly defined NOAEL of 5.0 mg/kg/day. EPA did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of pyraclostrobin. The degree of concern for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity is low.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary exposure assessments were performed assuming 100 PCT and tolerance-level or highest field trial residues. The chronic dietary exposure assessments were performed using average PCT estimates, when available, and tolerance-level or average field trial residues. These data are reliable and are not expected to underestimate risks to adults or children. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pyraclostrobin 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 pyraclostrobin.

    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 pyraclostrobin will occupy 88% 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 pyraclostrobin from food and water will utilize 29% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years 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 pyraclostrobin is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to pyraclostrobin.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 110 for children 1 to 2 years old, 360 for children 6 to 11 years old, 1500 for youth 11 to 16 years old, and 230 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for pyraclostrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, pyraclostrobin is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for pyraclostrobin.

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

    6. 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 pyraclostrobin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Two adequate methods are available to enforce the tolerance expression for residues of pyraclostrobin and the metabolite BF 500-3 in or on plant commodities: A liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, BASF Method D9908; and a high-performance LC with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) method, Method D9904. The methods may be found in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume I.

    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 established MRLs for pyraclostrobin in or on various commodities including kale, collards, curly kale, Scotch kale, thousand-headed kale (not including marrow stem kale) at 1 ppm; radish leaves (including radish tops) at 20 ppm; lettuce, head at 2 ppm; banana at 0.02 ppm; mango at 0.05 ppm; papaya at 0.15 ppm; Brussels sprouts at 0.3 ppm; cabbages, head at 0.2 ppm; and flower-head brassicas (includes broccoli, broccoli Chinese and cauliflower) at 0.1 ppm. These MRLs are different than the tolerances established for pyraclostrobin in the United States, however, they cannot be harmonized because the tolerance/MRL expressions for the U.S. and Codex are not harmonized and the submitted residue data support higher tolerance levels than those set by Codex, indicating that harmonization would cause legal application of pyraclostrobin by U.S. users to result in exceedances of domestic tolerances.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    For tolerance values that vary from what the petitioner requested, EPA is establishing tolerance values in order to conform to current Agency policy on significant figures. The tolerance for tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel, subgroup 24B is not being established at this time. The request for a tolerance for subgroup 24B was submitted in connection with an application for registration of a pesticide product with multiple active ingredients. Because one of those active ingredients is not currently approved for use on the commodities in subgroup 24B, EPA is not approving use of the combination product on commodities in subgroup 24B. Therefore, EPA is not establishing the tolerance for subgroup 24B because it is not necessary at this time. Because a tolerance is not being established for subgroup 24B, the existing tolerances for avocado and banana are not being removed as proposed.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyraclostrobin carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy] methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite, methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl] phenylcarbamate (BF 500-3), expressed as parent compound, in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress at 16 ppm; celtuce at 29 ppm; fennel, Florence at 29 ppm; kohlrabi at 5.0 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B at 29 ppm; leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A at 40 ppm; and vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 5.0 ppm. Additionally, the following established tolerances are removed as unnecessary due to the establishment of the above tolerances: Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; Brassica leafy greens, subgroup 5B; and vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4.

    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), nor is it a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance 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: October 2, 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 § 180.582: i. Add alphabetically the commodities “Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress”; “celtuce”; “fennel, Florence”; “kohlrabi”; “leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B”; “leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A”; and “vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16” to the table in paragraph (a)(1); and ii. Remove the entries for “Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A”; “Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B”; and “vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4” from the table in paragraph (a)(1).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 180.582 Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * * (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress 16 *    *    *    *    * Celtuce 29 *    *    *    *    * Fennel, Florence 29 *    *    *    *    * Kohlrabi 5.0 Leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B 29 Leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A 40 *    *    *    *    * Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 5.0 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2018-22282 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0273; FRL-9983-96] Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of etoxazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. In addition, it removes certain previously established tolerances that are superseded by this final rule. 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 15, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 14, 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-2017-0273, 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-2017-0273 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 14, 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-2017-0273, 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 7E8559) by IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.593 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the miticide/insecticide etoxazole, (2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole), in or on Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); Corn, sweet, forage at 1.5 ppm; Corn, sweet, stover at 5.0 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.20 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 1.0 ppm; and Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.05 ppm. In addition, upon establishment of new tolerances referenced above, the petitioner requested the removal of existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.593 for residues of etoxazole in or on Fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.20 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12, except plum at 1.0 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm; Cotton, undelinted seed at 0.05 ppm; Pistachio at 0.01 ppm; Plum at 0.15 ppm; and Plum, prune, dried at 0.30 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. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Consistent with the authority in FFDCA 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is issuing tolerances that vary from what the petitioner sought. The reasons for these changes are 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 etoxazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with etoxazole 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.

    The effects in the etoxazole database show liver toxicity in all species tested (enzyme release, hepatocellular swelling and histopathological indicators), and the severity does not appear to increase with time. In rats only, there were effects on incisors (elongation, whitening, and partial loss of upper and/or lower incisors). There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. No toxicity was seen at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats. Etoxazole was not mutagenic.

    No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies; however, offspring toxicity was more severe (increased pup mortality) than maternal toxicity (increased liver and adrenal weights) at the same dose (158.7 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) in the rat reproduction study indicating increased qualitative susceptibility. Etoxazole is not likely to be carcinogenic. This decision was based on weight-of-evidence approach including the lack of carcinogenicity in two studies in mice, lack of carcinogenicity in one study in rats, and the lack of hormonal and reproductive effects in special studies. Etoxazole was categorized as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. It is not an eye or dermal irritant or a dermal sensitizer.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by etoxazole 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 “Etoxazole: Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Proposed Use a Sweet Corn, and Proposed Crop Group Updates for Pome Fruit 11-10, Tree Nut Group 14-12, Stone Fruit Group 12-12, and Cotton Subgroup 20C at pages 22-27 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0273.

    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-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for etoxazole used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Etoxazole for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/Scenario POD and uncertainty/FQPA Safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 4.62 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • cPAD = cRfD = 0.046 mg/kg/day Chronic Oral Toxicity Study—Dog.
  • LOAEL = 23.5 mg/kg/day based upon increased alkaline phosphatase activity, increased liver weights, liver enlargement (females), and incidences of centrilobular hepatocellular swelling in the liver.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) EPA has classified etoxazole as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” according to EPA Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (April 10, 1996). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population-adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to etoxazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing etoxazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.593. EPA assessed dietary exposures from etoxazole 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.

    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for etoxazole; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 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 or tolerance-level residues adjusted to account for the residues of concern, 100% crop treated (PCT), and in the absence of empirical data, default processing factors.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has classified etoxazole as “not likely” to be carcinogenic 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 etoxazole. Tolerance level residues and 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 etoxazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of etoxazole. 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), and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of etoxazole for chronic exposures are estimated to be 4.761 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and <0.01 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 4.761 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    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). Etoxazole is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    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 etoxazole to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and etoxazole does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that etoxazole 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 Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data are available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies. There is evidence of increased qualitative offspring susceptibility in the rat reproduction study, but the concern is low since: (1) The effects in pups are well-characterized with a clear NOAEL; (2) the selected endpoints are protective of the doses where the offspring toxicity is observed; and (3) offspring effects occur at the same doses as parental toxicity so protecting for parental effects is protective of offspring effects. There are no residual uncertainties for pre- and post-natal toxicity.

    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. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for etoxazole is complete.

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

    iii. The observed qualitative postnatal susceptibility is protected for by the selected endpoints.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to etoxazole in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by etoxazole.

    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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, etoxazole is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to etoxazole from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for etoxazole.

    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    A short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, etoxazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risks are assessed based on short- or intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short- or intermediate-term risks), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risks for etoxazole.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, etoxazole 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 etoxazole residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate methodologies (Valent Method RM-37, gas chromatography/mass-selective detector (GC/MSD) or GC/nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD)) are available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    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.

    Codex has established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of etoxazole in or on pome fruit (0.07 ppm) and tree nut (0.01 ppm). The relevant U.S. tolerances are harmonized with the tree nut MRL but cannot be harmonized with the pome fruit MRL because doing so could result in exceedances for application consistent with the domestic registration.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Instead of the petitioned-for tolerance on Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 1.0 ppm, EPA is establishing separate subgroup tolerances for this crop group including Cherry subgroup 12-12A at 1.0 ppm, Peach subgroup 12-12B at 1.0 ppm, and Plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.15 ppm; and is retaining the existing separate, lower tolerance on Plum, prune, dried at 0.30 ppm as that remains necessary to cover the processed commodity. Separate subgroup tolerances are being established because there is more than a factor of five between the residue levels for the cherry and peach subgroups and the residues levels for commodities in the plum subgroup.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of etoxazole, (2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, in or on Cherry subgroup 12-12A at 1.0 ppm; Corn, sweet, forage at 1.5 ppm; Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.01 ppm; Corn, sweet, stover at 5.0 ppm; Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.05 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.20 ppm; Nut, tree group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm, Peach subgroup 12-12B at 1.0 ppm and Plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.15 ppm. In addition, this regulation removes existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.593 for residues of etoxazole in or on Fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.20 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12, except plum at 1.0 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm; Cotton, undelinted seed at 0.05 ppm; Pistachio at 0.01 ppm; and Plum at 0.15 ppm that are superseded by this action.

    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: October 2, 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. Amend the table in § 180.593(a) as follows: a. Add alphabetically the entries for “Cherry subgroup 12-12A”; “Corn, sweet, forage”; “Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed”; “Corn, sweet, stover”; “Cottonseed subgroup 20C”; “Fruit, pome, group 11-10”; “Nut, tree group 14-12”; Peach subgroup 12-12B”; and “Plum subgroup 12-12C”. b. Remove the entries for “Cotton, undelinted seed”; “Fruit, pome, group 11”; “Fruit, stone, group 12, except plum”; “Nut, tree, group 14”; “Pistachio”; and “Plum.”
    § 180.593 Etoxazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Cherry subgroup 12-12A 1.0 *    *    *    *    * Corn, sweet, forage 1.5 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.01 Corn, sweet, stover 5.0 *    *    *    *    * Cottonseed subgroup 20C 0.05 Fruit, pome, group 11-10 0.20 *    *    *    *    * Nut, tree group 14-12 0.01 *    *    *    *    * Peach subgroup 12-12B 1.0 *    *    *    *    * Plum subgroup 12-12C 0.15 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2018-22279 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84; FCC 18-133] Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission” or “FCC”) issues guidance and adopts rules to streamline the wireless infrastructure siting review process to facilitate the deployment of next-generation wireless facilities. Specifically, in the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission identifies specific fee levels for the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities, and it addresses state and local consideration of aesthetic concerns that effect the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. In the Order, the Commission addresses the “shot clocks” governing the review of wireless infrastructure deployments and establishes two new shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities.

    DATES:

    Effective January 14, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jiaming Shang, Deputy Chief (Acting) Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1303, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (Declaratory Ruling and Order), WT Docket No. 17-79 and WC Docket No. 17-84; FCC 18-133, adopted September 26, 2018 and released September 27, 2018. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's website, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or email [email protected] Copies of the Declaratory Ruling and Order also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number WT Docket 17-79 and WC Docket No. 17-84. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's website at http://www.fcc.gov.

    Synopsis I. Declaratory Ruling

    1. In the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission notes that a number of appellate courts have articulated different and often conflicting views regarding the scope and nature of the limits Congress imposed on state and local governments through Sections 253 and 332. In light of these diverging views, Congress's vision for a consistent, national policy framework, and the need to ensure that the Commission's approach continues to make sense in light of the relatively new trend towards the large-scale deployment of Small Wireless Facilities, the Commission takes the opportunity to clarify and update the FCC's reading of the limits Congress imposed. The Commission does so in three main respects.

    2. First, the Commission expresses its agreement with the views already stated by the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits that the “materially inhibit” standard articulated in 1997 by the Clinton-era FCC's California Payphone decision is the appropriate standard for determining whether a state or local law operates as a prohibition or effective prohibition within the meaning of Sections 253 and 332.

    3. Second, the Commission notes, as numerous courts have recognized, that state and local fees and other charges associated with the deployment of wireless infrastructure can effectively prohibit the provision of service. At the same time, courts have articulated various approaches to determining the types of fees that run afoul of Congress's limits in Sections 253 and 332. The Commission thus clarifies the particular standard that governs the fees and charges that violate Sections 253 and 332 when it comes to the Small Wireless Facilities at issue in this decision. Namely, fees are only permitted to the extent that they represent a reasonable approximation of the local government's objectively reasonable costs and are non-discriminatory. In this section, the Commission also identifies specific fee levels for the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities that presumptively comply with this standard. The Commission does so to help avoid unnecessary litigation, while recognizing that it is the standard itself, not the particular, presumptive fee levels the Commission articulates, that ultimately will govern whether a particular fee is allowed under Sections 253 and 332. So, fees above those levels would be permissible under Sections 253 and 332 to the extent a locality's actual, reasonable costs (as measured by the standard above) are higher.

    4. Finally, the Commission focuses on a subset of other, non-fee provisions of state and local law that could also operate as prohibitions on service. The Commission does so in particular by addressing state and local consideration of aesthetic concerns in the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. The Commission notes that the Small Wireless Facilities that are the subject of this Declaratory Ruling remain subject to the Commission's rules governing Radio Frequency (RF) emissions exposure.

    A. Overview of the Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) Framework Relevant to Small Wireless Facilities Deployment

    5. As an initial matter, the Commission notes that its Declaratory Ruling applies with equal measure to the effective prohibition standard that appears in both Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7). This ruling is consistent with the basic canon of statutory interpretation that identical words appearing in neighboring provisions of the same statute should be interpreted to have the same meaning. Moreover, both of these provisions apply to wireless telecommunications services as well as to commingled services and facilities.

    6. As explained in California Payphone and reaffirmed here, a state or local legal requirement will have the effect of prohibiting wireless telecommunications services if it materially inhibits the provision of such services. California Payphone Ass'n, 12 FCC Rcd 14191 (1997). The Commission clarifies that an effective prohibition occurs where a state or local legal requirement materially inhibits a provider's ability to engage in any of a variety of activities related to its provision of a covered service. This test is met not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service capabilities. Under the California Payphone standard, a state or local legal requirement could materially inhibit service in numerous ways—not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide an existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services. Thus, an effective prohibition includes materially inhibiting additional services or improving existing services.

    7. The Commission's reading of Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) reflects and supports a marketplace in which services can be offered in a multitude of ways with varied capabilities and performance characteristics consistent with the policy goals in the 1996 Act and the Communications Act. To limit Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) to protecting only against coverage gaps or the like would be to ignore Congress's contemporaneously-expressed goals of “promot[ing] competition[,] . . . secur[ing] . . . higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage[ing] the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.” In addition, as the Commission recently explained, the implementation of the Act “must factor in the fundamental objectives of the Act, including the deployment of a “rapid, efficient . . . wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges' and ‘the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products and services for the benefit of the public . . . without administrative or judicial delays[, and] efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum.' ” These provisions demonstrate that the Commission's interpretation of Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) is in accordance with the broader goals of the various statutes that the Commission is entrusted to administer.

    8. California Payphone further concluded that providers must be allowed to compete in a “fair and balanced regulatory environment.” As reflected in decisions such as the Commission's Texas PUC Order, a state or local legal requirement can function as an effective prohibition either because of the resulting “financial burden” in an absolute sense, or, independently, because of a resulting competitive disparity. Public Utility Comm'n of Texas, et al., Pet. for Decl. Ruling and/or Preemption of Certain Provisions of the Texas Pub. Util. Reg. Act of 1995, 13 FCC Rcd 3460 (1997). The Commission clarifies that “[a] regulatory structure that gives an advantage to particular services or facilities has a prohibitory effect, even if there are no express barriers to entry in the state or local code; the greater the discriminatory effect, the more certain it is that entities providing service using the disfavored facilities will experience prohibition.” This conclusion is consistent with both Commission and judicial precedent recognizing the prohibitory effect that results from a competitor being treated materially differently than similarly-situated providers. The Commission provides its authoritative interpretation below of the circumstances in which a “financial burden,” as described in the Texas PUC Order, constitutes an effective prohibition in the context of certain state and local fees.

    B. State and Local Fees

    9. Cognizant of the changing technology and its interaction with regulations created for a previous generation of service, the Commission sought comment on the scope of Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) and on any new or updated guidance the Commission should provide, potentially through a Declaratory Ruling. In particular, the Commission sought comment on whether it should provide further guidance on how to interpret and apply the phrase “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting.”

    10. The Commission concludes that ROW access fees, and fees for the use of government property in the ROW, such as light poles, traffic lights, utility poles, and other similar property suitable for hosting Small Wireless Facilities, as well as application or review fees and similar fees imposed by a state or local government as part of their regulation of the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities inside and outside the ROW, violate Sections 253 or 332(c)(7) unless these conditions are met: (1) The fees are a reasonable approximation of the state or local government's costs, (2) only objectively reasonable costs are factored into those fees, and (3) the fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly-situated competitors in similar situations.

    11. Capital Expenditures. Apart from the text, structure, and legislative history of the 1996 Act, an additional, independent justification for the Commission's interpretation follows from the simple, logical premise, supported by the record, that state and local fees in one place of deployment necessarily have the effect of reducing the amount of capital that providers can use to deploy infrastructure elsewhere, whether the reduction takes place on a local, regional or national level. The Commission is persuaded that providers and infrastructure builders, like all economic actors, have a finite (though perhaps fluid) amount of resources to use for the deployment of infrastructure. This does not mean that these resources are limitless, however. The Commission concludes that fees imposed by localities, above and beyond the recovery of localities' reasonable costs, materially and improperly inhibit deployment that could have occurred elsewhere. This and regulatory uncertainty created by such effectively prohibitive conduct creates an appreciable impact on resources that materially limits plans to deploy service. This record evidence emphasizes the importance of evaluating the effect of fees on Small Wireless Facility deployment on an aggregate basis. The record persuades the Commission that fees associated with Small Wireless Facility deployment lead to “a substantial increase in costs”—particularly when considered in the aggregate—thereby “plac[ing] a significant burden” on carriers and materially inhibiting their provision of service contrary to Section 253 of the Act.

    12. The record reveals that fees above a reasonable approximation of cost, even when they may not be perceived as excessive or likely to prohibit service in isolation, will have the effect of prohibiting wireless service when the aggregate effects are considered, particularly given the nature and volume of anticipated Small Wireless Facility deployment. The record reveals that these effects can take several forms. In some cases, the fees in a particular jurisdiction will lead to reduced or entirely forgone deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in the near term for that jurisdiction. In other cases, where it is essential for a provider to deploy in a given area, the fees charged in that geographic area can deprive providers of capital needed to deploy elsewhere, and lead to reduced or forgone near-term deployment of Small Wireless Facilities in other geographic areas. In both of those scenarios the bottom-line outcome on the national development of 5G networks is the same—diminished deployment of Small Wireless Facilities critical for wireless service and building out 5G networks.

    13. Relationship to Section 332. The Commission clarifies that the statutory phrase “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) has the same meaning as the phrase “prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting” in Section 253(a). There is no evidence to suggest that Congress intended for virtually identical language to have different meanings in the two provisions. Instead, the Commission finds it more reasonable to conclude that the language in both sections should be interpreted to have the same meaning and to reflect the same standard, including with respect to preemption of fees that could “prohibit” or have “the effect of prohibiting” the provision of covered service. Both sections were enacted to address concerns about state and local government practices that undermined providers' ability to provide covered services, and both bar state or local conduct that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting service.

    14. To be sure, Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) may relate to different categories of state and local fees. Ultimately, the Commission needs not resolve here the precise interplay between Sections 253 and 332(c)(7). It is enough for it to conclude that, collectively, Congress intended for the two provisions to cover the universe of fees charged by state and local governments in connection with the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. Given the analogous purposes of both sections and the consistent language used by Congress, the Commission finds the phrase “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) should be construed as having the same meaning and governed by the same preemption standard as the nearly identical language in Section 253(a).

    15. Application of the Interpretations and Principles Established Here. Consistent with the interpretations above, the requirement that compensation be limited to a reasonable approximation of objectively reasonable costs and be non-discriminatory applies to all state and local government fees paid in connection with a provider's use of the ROW to deploy Small Wireless Facilities including, but not limited to, fees for access to the ROW itself, and fees for the attachment to or use of property within the ROW owned or controlled by the government (e.g., street lights, traffic lights, utility poles, and other infrastructure within the ROW suitable for the placement of Small Wireless Facilities). This interpretation applies with equal force to any fees reasonably related to the placement, construction, maintenance, repair, movement, modification, upgrade, replacement, or removal of Small Wireless Facilities within the ROW, including, but not limited to, application or permit fees such as siting applications, zoning variance applications, building permits, electrical permits, parking permits, or excavation permits.

    16. Applying the principles established in this Declaratory Ruling, a variety of fees not reasonably tethered to costs appear to violate Sections 253(a) or 332(c)(7) in the context of Small Wireless Facility deployments. For example, the Commission agrees with courts that have recognized that gross revenue fees generally are not based on the costs associated with an entity's use of the ROW, and where that is the case, are preempted under Section 253(a). In addition, although the Commission rejects calls to preclude a state or locality's use of third party contractors or consultants, or to find all associated compensation preempted, the Commission makes clear that the principles discussed herein regarding the reasonableness of cost remain applicable. Thus, fees must not only be limited to a reasonable approximation of costs, but in order to be reflected in fees the costs themselves must also be reasonable. Accordingly, any unreasonably high costs, such as excessive charges by third party contractors or consultants, may not be passed on through fees even though they are an actual “cost” to the government. If a locality opts to incur unreasonable costs, Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) do not permit it to pass those costs on to providers. Fees that depart from these principles are not saved by Section 253(c), as the Commission discusses below.

    17. Interpretation of Section 253(c) in the Context of Fees. In this section, the Commission turns to the interpretation of several provisions in Section 253(c), which provides that state or local action that otherwise would be subject to preemption under Section 253(a) may be permissible if it meets specified criteria. Section 253(c) expressly provides that state or local governments may require telecommunications providers to pay “fair and reasonable compensation” for use of public ROWs but requires that the amounts of any such compensation be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory” and “publicly disclosed.”

    18. The Commission interprets the ambiguous phrase “fair and reasonable compensation,” within the statutory framework it outlined for Section 253, to allow state or local governments to charge fees that recover a reasonable approximation of the state or local governments' actual and reasonable costs. The Commission concludes that an appropriate yardstick for “fair and reasonable compensation,” and therefore an indicator of whether a fee violates Section 253(c), is whether it recovers a reasonable approximation of a state or local government's objectively reasonable costs of, respectively, maintaining the ROW, maintaining a structure within the ROW, or processing an application or permit.

    19. The existence of Section 253(c) makes clear that Congress anticipated that “effective prohibitions” could result from state or local government fees, and intended through that clause to provide protections in that respect, as discussed in greater detail herein. Against that backdrop, the Commission finds it unlikely that Congress would have left providers entirely at the mercy of effectively unconstrained requirements of state or local governments. The Commission's interpretation of Section 253(c), in fact, is consistent with the views of many municipal commenters, at least with respect to one-time permit or application fees, and the members of the BDAC Ad Hoc Committee on Rates and Fees who unanimously concurred that one-time fees for municipal applications and permits, such as an electrical inspection or a building permit, should be based on the cost to the government of processing that application. The Ad Hoc Committee noted that “[the] cost-based fee structure [for one-time fees] unanimously approved by the committee accommodates the different siting related costs that different localities may incur to review, and process permit applications, while precluding excessive fees that impede deployment.” The Commission finds that the same reasoning should apply to other state and local government fees such as ROW access fees or fees for the use of government property within the ROW.

    20. The Commission recognizes that state and local governments incur a variety of direct and actual costs in connection with Small Wireless Facilities, such as the cost for staff to review the provider's siting application, costs associated with a provider's use of the ROW, and costs associated with maintaining the ROW itself or structures within the ROW to which Small Wireless Facilities are attached. The Commission also recognizes that direct and actual costs may vary by location, scope, and extent of providers' planned deployments, such that different localities will have different fees under the interpretation set forth in this Declaratory Ruling.

    21. Because the Commission interprets fair and reasonable compensation as a reasonable approximation of costs, it does not suggest that localities must use any specific accounting method to document the costs they may incur when determining the fees they charge for Small Wireless Facilities within the ROW. Moreover, in order to simplify compliance, when a locality charges both types of recurring fees identified above (i.e., for access to the ROW and for use of or attachment to property in the ROW), the Commission sees no reason for concern with how it has allocated costs between those two types of fees. It is sufficient under the statute that the total of the two recurring fees reflects the total costs involved. Fees that cannot ultimately be shown by a state or locality to be a reasonable approximation of their costs, such as high fees designed to subsidize local government costs in another geographic area or accomplish some public policy objective beyond the providers' use of the ROW, are not “fair and reasonable compensation . . . for use of the public rights-of-way” under Section 253(c). Likewise, the Commission agrees with both industry and municipal commenters that excessive and arbitrary consulting fees or other costs should not be recoverable as “fair and reasonable compensation,” because they are not a function of the provider's “use” of the public ROW.

    22. In addition to requiring that compensation be “fair and reasonable,” Section 253(c) requires that it be “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.” The Commission has previously interpreted this language to prohibit states and localities from charging fees on new entrants and not on incumbents. Courts have similarly found that states and localities may not impose a range of fees on one provider but not on another and even some municipal commenters acknowledge that governments should not discriminate on the fees charged to different providers. The record reflects continuing concerns from providers, however, that they face discriminatory charges. The Commission reiterates its previous determination that state and local governments may not impose fees on some providers that they do not impose on others. The Commission would also be concerned about fees, whether one-time or recurring, related to Small Wireless Facilities, that exceed the fees for other wireless telecommunications infrastructure in similar situations, and to the extent that different fees are charged for similar use of the public ROW.

    23. Fee Levels Likely to Comply with Section 253. The Commission's interpretations of Section 253(a) and “fair and reasonable compensation” under Section 253(c) provides guidance for local and state fees charged with respect to one-time fees generally, and recurring fees for deployments in the ROW. Following suggestions for the Commission to “establish a presumptively reasonable `safe harbor' for certain ROW and use fees,” and to facilitate the deployment of specific types of infrastructure critical to the rollout of 5G in coming years, the Commission identifies in this section three particular types of fee scenarios and supply specific guidance on amounts that are presumptively not prohibited by Section 253. Informed by the its review of information from a range of sources, the Commission concludes that fees at or below these amounts presumptively do not constitute an effective prohibition under Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7) and are presumed to be “fair and reasonable compensation” under Section 253(c).

    24. Based on its review of the Commission's pole attachment rate formula, which would require fees below the levels described in this paragraph, as well as small cell legislation in twenty states, local legislation from certain municipalities in states that have not passed small cell legislation, and comments in the record, the Commission presumes that the following fees would not be prohibited by Section 253 or Section 332(c)(7): (a) $500 for non-recurring fees, including a single up-front application that includes up to five Small Wireless Facilities, with an additional $100 for each Small Wireless Facility beyond five, or $1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole (i.e., not a collocation) intended to support one or more Small Wireless Facilities, and (b) $270 per Small Wireless Facility per year for all recurring fees, including any possible ROW access fee or fee for attachment to municipally-owned structures in the ROW.

    25. By presuming that fees at or below the levels above comply with Section 253, the Commission assumes that there would be almost no litigation by providers over fees set at or below these levels. Likewise, the Commission's review of the record, including the many state small cell bills passed to date, indicate that there should be only very limited circumstances in which localities can charge higher fees consistent with the requirements of Section 253. In those limited circumstances, a locality could prevail in charging fees that are above this level by showing that such fees nonetheless comply with the limits imposed by Section 253—that is, that they are (1) a reasonable approximation of costs, (2) those costs themselves are reasonable, and (3) are non-discriminatory. Allowing localities to charge fees above these levels upon this showing recognizes local variances in costs.

    C. Other State and Local Requirements That Govern Small Facilities Deployment

    26. There are also other types of state and local land-use or zoning requirements that may restrict Small Wireless Facility deployments to the degree that they have the effect of prohibiting service in violation of Sections 253 and 332. In this section, the Commission discusses how those statutory provisions apply to requirements outside the fee context both generally, and with particular focus on aesthetic and undergrounding requirements.

    27. As discussed above, a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” The Commission's interpretation of that standard, as set forth above, applies equally to fees and to non-fee legal requirements. And as with fees, Section 253 contains certain safe harbors that permit some legal requirements that might otherwise be preempted by Section 253(a). Section 253(b) saves “requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. And Section 253(c) preserves state and local authority to manage the public rights-of-way.

    28. Given the wide variety of possible legal requirements, the Commission does not attempt here to determine which of every possible non-fee legal requirements are preempted for having the effect of prohibiting service, although the Commission's discussion of fees above should prove instructive in evaluating specific requirements. Instead, the Commission focuses on some specific types of requirements raised in the record and provide guidance on when those particular types of requirements are preempted by the statute.

    29. Aesthetics. The Commission sought comment on whether deployment restrictions based on aesthetic or similar factors are widespread and, if so, how Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) should be applied to them. The Commission provides guidance on whether and in what circumstances aesthetic requirements violate the Act. This will help localities develop and implement lawful rules, enable providers to comply with these requirements, and facilitate the resolution of disputes. The Commission concludes that aesthetics requirements are not preempted if they are (1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance.

    30. Like fees, compliance with aesthetic requirements imposes costs on providers, and the impact on their ability to provide service is just the same as the impact of fees. The Commission therefore draws on its analysis of fees to address aesthetic requirements. The Commission explained above that fees that merely require providers to bear the direct and reasonable costs that their deployments impose on states and localities should not be viewed as having the effect of prohibiting service and are permissible. Analogously, aesthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments are also permissible. In assessing whether this standard has been met, aesthetic requirements that are more burdensome than those the state or locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not permissible, because such discriminatory application evidences that the requirements are not, in fact, reasonable and directed at remedying the impact of the wireless infrastructure deployment. For example, a minimum spacing requirement that has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service would be considered an effective prohibition of service.

    31. Finally, in order to establish that they are reasonable and reasonably directed to avoiding aesthetic harms, aesthetic requirements must be objective—i.e., they must incorporate clearly-defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner—and must be published in advance. “Secret” rules that require applicants to guess at what types of deployments will pass aesthetic muster substantially increase providers' costs without providing any public benefit or addressing any public harm. Providers cannot design or implement rational plans for deploying Small Wireless Facilities if they cannot predict in advance what aesthetic requirements they will be obligated to satisfy to obtain permission to deploy a facility at any given site.

    32. The Commission appreciates that at least some localities will require some time to establish and publish aesthetics standards that are consistent with this Declaratory Ruling. Based on its review and evaluation of commenters' concerns, the Commission anticipates that such publication should take no longer than 180 days after publication of this decision in the Federal Register.

    33. Undergrounding requirements. The Commission understands that some local jurisdictions have adopted undergrounding provisions that require infrastructure to be deployed below ground based, at least in some circumstances, on the locality's aesthetic concerns. A number of providers have complained that these types of requirements amount to an effective prohibition. In addressing this issue, the Commission first reiterates that while undergrounding requirements may well be permissible under state law as a general matter, any local authority to impose undergrounding requirements under state law does not remove the imposition of such undergrounding requirements from the provisions of Section 253. In this sense, the Commission notes that a requirement that all wireless facilities be deployed underground would amount to an effective prohibition given the propagation characteristics of wireless signals. Thus, undergrounding requirements can amount to effective prohibitions by materially inhibiting the deployment of wireless service.

    34. Minimum spacing requirements. Some parties complain of municipal requirements regarding the spacing of wireless installations—i.e., mandating that facilities be sited at least 100, 500, or 1,000 feet, or some other minimum distance, away from other facilities, ostensibly to avoid excessive overhead “clutter” that would be visible from public areas. The Commission acknowledges that while some such requirements may violate 253(a), others may be reasonable aesthetic requirements. For example, under the principle that any such requirements be reasonable and publicly available in advance, it is difficult to envision any circumstances in which a municipality could reasonably promulgate a new minimum spacing requirement that, in effect, prevents a provider from replacing its preexisting facilities or collocating new equipment on a structure already in use. Such a rule change with retroactive effect would almost certainly have the effect of prohibiting service under the standards the Commission articulate here. Therefore, such requirements should be evaluated under the same standards as other aesthetic requirements.

    D. States and Localities Act in Their Regulatory Capacities When Authorizing and Setting Terms for Wireless Infrastructure Deployment in Public Rights of Way

    35. The Commission confirms that it interpretations today extend to state and local governments' terms for access to public ROW that they own or control, including areas on, below, or above public roadways, highways, streets, sidewalks, or similar property, as well as their terms for use of or attachment to government-owned property within such ROW, such as light poles, traffic lights, and similar property suitable for hosting Small Wireless Facilities. As explained below, for two alternative and independent reasons, the Commission disagrees with state and local government commenters who assert that, in providing or denying access to government-owned structures, these governmental entities function solely as “market participants” whose rights cannot be subject to federal preemption under Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7).

    36. First, this effort to differentiate between such governmental entities' “regulatory” and “proprietary” capacities in order to insulate the latter from preemption ignores a fundamental feature of the market participant doctrine. Specifically, Section 253(a) expressly preempts certain state and local “legal requirements” and makes no distinction between a state or locality's regulatory and proprietary conduct. Indeed, as the Commission has long recognized, Section 253(a)'s sweeping reference to “state [and] local statute[s] [and] regulation[s]” and “other State [and] local legal requirement[s]” demonstrates Congress's intent “to capture a broad range of state and local actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting entities from providing telecommunications services.” Section 253(b) mentions “requirement[s],” a phrase that is even broader than that used in Section 253(a) but covers “universal service,” “public safety and welfare,” “continued quality of telecommunications,” and “safeguard[s for the] rights of consumers.” The subsection does not recognize a distinction between regulatory and proprietary. Section 253(c), which expressly insulates from preemption certain state and local government activities, refers in relevant part to “manag[ing] the public rights-of-way” and “requir[ing] fair and reasonable compensation,” while eliding any distinction between regulatory and proprietary action in either context. The Commission has previously observed that Section 253(c) “makes explicit a local government's continuing authority to issue construction permits regulating how and when construction is conducted on roads and other public rights-of-way;” the Commission concludes here that, as a general matter, “manage[ment]” of the ROW includes any conduct that bears on access to and use of those ROW, notwithstanding any attempts to characterize such conduct as proprietary. This reading, coupled with Section 253(c)'s narrow scope, suggests that Congress's omission of a blanket proprietary exception to preemption was intentional and thus that such conduct can be preempted under Section 253(a). The Commission therefore construes Section 253(c)'s requirements, including the requirement that compensation be “fair and reasonable,” as applying equally to charges imposed via contracts and other arrangements between a state or local government and a party engaged in wireless facility deployment. This interpretation is consistent with Section 253(a)'s reference to “State or local legal requirement[s],” which the Commission has consistently construed to include such agreements. In light of the foregoing, whatever the force of the market participant doctrine in other contexts, the Commission believes the language, legislative history, and purpose of Sections 253(a) and (c) are incompatible with the application of this doctrine in this context. The Commission observes once more that “[o]ur conclusion that Congress intended this language to be interpreted broadly is reinforced by the scope of section 253(d),” which “directs the Commission to preempt any statute, regulation, or legal requirement permitted or imposed by a state or local government if it contravenes sections 253(a) or (b). A more restrictive interpretation of the term `other legal requirements' easily could permit state and local restrictions on competition to escape preemption based solely on the way in which [State] action [is] structured. The Commission does not believe that Congress intended this result.”

    37. Similarly, the Commission interprets Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)'s references to “any request[s] for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” broadly, consistent with Congressional intent. As described below, the Commission finds that “any” is unqualifiedly broad, and that “request” encompasses anything required to secure all authorizations necessary for the deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. In particular, the Commission finds that Section 332(c)(7) includes authorizations relating to access to a ROW, including but not limited to the “place[ment], construct[ion], or modif[ication]” of facilities on government-owned property, for the purpose of providing “personal wireless service.” The Commission observes that this result, too, is consistent with Commission precedent, which involved a contract that provided exclusive access to a ROW. As but one example, to have limited that holding to exclude government-owned property within the ROW even if the carrier needed access to that property would have the effect of diluting or completely defeating the purpose of Section 332(c)(7).

    38. Second, and in the alternative, even if Section 253(a) and Section 332(c)(7) were to permit leeway for states and localities acting in their proprietary role, the examples in the record would be excepted because they involve states and localities fulfilling regulatory objectives. In the proprietary context, “a State acts as a `market participant with no interest in setting policy.' ” The Commission contrasts state and local governments' purely proprietary actions with states and localities acting with respect to managing or controlling access to property within public ROW, or to decisions about where facilities that will provide personal wireless service to the public may be sited. As several commenters point out, courts have recognized that states and localities “hold the public streets and sidewalks in trust for the public” and “manage public ROW in their regulatory capacities.” These decisions could be based on a number of regulatory objectives, such as aesthetics or public safety and welfare, some of which, as the Commission notes elsewhere, would fall within the preemption scheme envisioned by Congress. In these situations, the State or locality's role seems to be indistinguishable from its function and objectives as a regulator. To the extent that there is some distinction, the temptation to blend the two roles for purposes of insulating conduct from federal preemption cannot be underestimated in light of the overarching statutory objective that telecommunications service and personal wireless services be deployed without material impediments.

    39. The Commission believes that Section 253(c) is properly construed to suggest that Congress did not intend to permit states and localities to rely on their ownership of property within a ROW as a pretext to advance regulatory objectives that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of covered services, and thus that such conduct is preempted. The Commission's interpretations here are intended to facilitate the implementation of the scheme Congress intended and to provide greater regulatory certainty to states, municipalities, and regulated parties about what conduct is preempted under Section 253(a). Should factual questions arise about whether a state or locality is engaged in such behavior, Section 253(d) affords state and local governments and private parties an avenue for specific preemption challenges.

    E. Responses to Challenges to the Commission's Interpretive Authority and Other Arguments

    40. The Commission rejects claims that it lacks authority to issue authoritative interpretations of Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) in this Declaratory Ruling. The Commission acts here pursuant to its broad authority to interpret key provisions of the Communications Act, consistent with the Commission's exercise of that interpretive authority in the past. In this instance, the Commission finds that issuing a Declaratory Ruling is necessary to remove what the record reveals is substantial uncertainty and to reduce the number and complexity of legal controversies regarding certain fee and non-fee state and local legal requirements in connection with Small Wireless Facility infrastructure. The Commission thus exercise its authority in this Declaratory Ruling to interpret Section 253 and Section 332(c)(7) and explain how those provisions apply in the specific scenarios at issue here.

    41. Nothing in Sections 253 or 332(c)(7) purports to limit the exercise of the Commission's general interpretive authority. Congress's inclusion of preemption provisions in Section 253(d) and Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) does not limit the Commission's ability pursuant to other sections of the Act to construe and provide its authoritative interpretation as to the meaning of those provisions. Any preemption under Section 253 and/or Section 332(c)(7)(B) that subsequently occurs will proceed in accordance with the enforcement mechanisms available in each context. But whatever enforcement mechanisms may be available to preempt specific state and local requirements, nothing in Section 253 or Section 332(c)(7) prevents the Commission from declaring that a category of state or local laws is inconsistent with Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) because it prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the relevant covered service.

    42. The Commission's interpretations of Sections 253 and Section 332(c)(7) are likewise not at odds with the Tenth Amendment and constitutional precedent, as some commenters contend. In particular, the Commission's interpretations do not directly “compel the states to administer federal regulatory programs or pass legislation.” The outcome of violations of Section 253(a) or Section 332(c)(7)(B) of the Act are no more than a consequence of “the limits Congress already imposed on State and local governments” through its enactment of Section 332(c)(7).

    43. The Commission also reject the suggestion that the limits Section 253 places on state and local rights-of-way fees and management will unconstitutionally interfere with the relationship between a state and its political subdivisions. As relevant to its interpretations here, it is not clear, at first blush, that such concerns would be implicated. Because state and local legal requirements can be written and structured in myriad ways, and challenges to such state or local activities could be framed in broad or narrow terms, the Commission declines to resolve such questions here, divorced from any specific context.

    II. Third Report and Order

    44. In this Third Report and Order, the Commission addresses the application of shot clocks to state and local review of wireless infrastructure deployments. The Commission does so by taking action in three main areas. First, the Commission adopts a new set of shot clocks tailored to support the deployment Small Wireless Facilities. Second, the Commission adopts a specific remedy that applies to violations of these new Small Wireless Facility shot clocks, which the Commission expects will operate to significantly reduce the need for litigation over missed shot clocks. Third, the Commission clarifies a number of issues that are relevant to all of the FCC's shot clocks, including the types of authorizations subject to these time periods.

    A. New Shot Clocks for Small Wireless Facility Deployments

    45. In 2009, the Commission concluded that it should use shot clocks to define a presumptive “reasonable period of time” beyond which state or local inaction on wireless infrastructure siting applications would constitute a “failure to act” within the meaning of Section 332. The Commission adopted a 90-day clock for reviewing collocation applications and a 150-day clock for reviewing siting applications other than collocations. The record here suggests that the two existing Section 332 shot clocks have increased the efficiency of deploying wireless infrastructure. Many localities already process wireless siting applications in less time than required by those shot clocks and a number of states have enacted laws requiring that collocation applications be processed in 60 days or less. Some siting agencies acknowledge that they have worked to gain efficiencies in processing siting applications and welcome the addition of new shot clocks tailored to the deployment of small scale facilities. Given siting agencies' increased experience with existing shot clocks, the greater need for rapid siting of Small Wireless Facilities nationwide, and the lower burden siting of these facilities places on siting agencies in many cases, the Commission takes this opportunity to update its approach to speed the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities.

    1. Two New Section 332 Shot Clocks for Deployment of Small Wireless Facilities

    46. In this section, the Commission adopts two new Section 332 shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities—60 days for review of an application for collocation of Small Wireless Facilities using a preexisting structure and 90 days for review of an application for attachment of Small Wireless Facilities using a new structure. These new Section 332 shot clocks carefully balance the well-established authority that states and local authorities have over review of wireless siting applications with the requirements of Section 332(c)(7)(ii) to exercise that authority “within a reasonable period of time . . . taking into account the nature and scope of the request.” Further, the Commission's decision is consistent with the BDAC's Model Code for Municipalities' recommended timeframes, which utilize this same 60-day and 90-day framework for collocation of Small Wireless Facilities and new structures and are similar to shot clocks enacted in state level small cell bills and the real world experience of many municipalities which further supports the reasonableness of its approach. The Commission's actions will modernize the framework for wireless facility siting by taking into consideration that states and localities should be able to address the siting of Small Wireless Facilities in a more expedited review period than needed for larger facilities.

    47. The Commission finds compelling reasons to establish a new presumptively reasonable Section 332 shot clock of 60 days for collocations of Small Wireless Facilities on existing structures. The record demonstrates the need for, and reasonableness of, expediting the siting review of these collocations. Notwithstanding the implementation of the current shot clocks, more streamlined procedures are both reasonable and necessary to provide greater predictability for siting applications nationwide for the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. The two current Section 332 shot clocks do not reflect the evolution of the application review process and evidence that localities can complete reviews more quickly than was the case when the existing Section 332 shot clocks were adopted nine years ago. Since 2009, localities have gained significant experience processing wireless siting applications. Indeed, many localities already process wireless siting applications in less than the required time and several jurisdictions require by law that collocation applications be processed in 60 days or less. With the passage of time, siting agencies have become more efficient in processing siting applications. These facts demonstrate that a shorter, 60-day shot clock for processing collocation applications for Small Wireless Facilities is reasonable.

    48. As the Commission found in 2009, collocation applications are generally easier to process than new construction because the community impact is likely to be smaller. In particular, the addition of an antenna to an existing tower or other structure is unlikely to have a significant visual impact on the community. The size of Small Wireless Facilities poses little or no risk of adverse effects on the environment or historic preservation. Indeed, many jurisdictions do not require public hearings for approval of such attachments, underscoring their belief that such attachments do not implicate complex issues requiring a more searching review.

    49. Further, the Commission finds no reason to believe that applying a 60-day time frame for Small Wireless Facility collocations under Section 332 creates confusion with collocations that fall within the scope of “eligible facilities requests” under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, which are also subject to a 60-day review. The type of facilities at issue here are distinctly different and the definition of a Small Wireless Facility is clear. Further, siting authorities are required to process Section 6409 applications involving the swap out of certain equipment in 60 days, and the Commission sees no meaningful difference in processing these applications than processing Section 332 collocation applications in 60 days. There is no reason to apply different time periods (60 vs. 90 days) to what is essentially the same review: Modification of an existing structure to accommodate new equipment. Finally, adopting a 60-day shot clock will encourage service providers to collocate rather than opting to build new siting structures which has numerous advantages.

    50. For similar reasons, the Commission also finds it reasonable to establish a new 90-day Section 332 shot clock for new construction of Small Wireless Facilities. Ninety days is a presumptively reasonable period of time for localities to review such siting applications. Small Wireless Facilities have far less visual and other impact than the facilities the Commission considered in 2009 and should accordingly require less time to review. Indeed, some state and local governments have already adopted 60-day maximum reasonable periods of time for review of all small cell siting applications, and, even in the absence of such maximum requirements, several are already reviewing and approving small-cell siting applications within 60 days or less after filing. Numerous industry commenters advocated a 90-day shot clock for all non-collocation deployments. Based on this record, the Commission finds review of an application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure warrants more review time than a mere collocation, but less than the construction of a macro tower. For the reasons explained below, the Commission also specifies today a provision that will initially reset these two new shot clocks in the event that a locality receives a materially incomplete application.

    2. Batched Applications for Small Wireless Facilities

    51. Given the way in which Small Wireless Facilities are likely to be deployed, in large numbers as part of a system meant to cover a particular area, the Commission anticipates that some applicants will submit “batched” applications: Multiple separate applications filed at the same time, each for one or more sites or a single application covering multiple sites. The Commission sought comment on whether batched applications should be subject to either longer or shorter shot clocks than would apply if each component of the batch were submitted separately. The Commission sees no reason why the shot clocks for batched applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities should be longer than those that apply to individual applications because, in many cases, the batching of such applications has advantages in terms of administrative efficiency that could actually make review easier. The Commission's decision flows from its current Section 332 shot clock policy. Under the two existing Section 332 shot clocks, if an applicant files multiple siting applications on the same day for the same type of facilities, each application is subject to the same number of review days by the siting agency. These multiple siting applications are equivalent to a batched application and therefore the shot clocks for batching should follow the same rules as if the applications were filed separately. Accordingly, when applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities are filed in batches, the shot clock that applies to the batch is the same one that would apply had the applicant submitted individual applications. Should an applicant file a single application for a batch that includes both collocated and new construction of Small Wireless Facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock will apply, to ensure that the siting authority has adequate time to review the new construction sites.

    52. The Commission recognizes the concerns raised by parties arguing for a longer time period for at least some batched applications but concludes that a separate rule is not necessary to address these concerns. Under the Commission's approach, in extraordinary cases, a siting authority, as discussed below, can rebut the presumption of reasonableness of the applicable shot clock period where a batch application causes legitimate overload on the siting authority's resources. Thus, contrary to some localities' arguments, the Commission's approach provides for a certain degree of flexibility to account for exceptional circumstances. In addition, consistent with, and for the same reasons as the Commission's conclusion below that Section 332 does not permit states and localities to prohibit applicants from requesting multiple types of approvals simultaneously, the Commission finds that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) similarly does not allow states and localities to refuse to accept batches of applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities.

    B. New Remedy for Violations of the Small Wireless Facilities Shot Clocks

    53. In adopting these new shot clocks for Small Wireless Facility applications, the Commission also provides an additional remedy that it expects will substantially reduce the likelihood that applicants will need to pursue additional and costly relief in court at the expiration of those time periods.

    54. The Commission determines that the failure of a state or local government to issue a decision on a Small Wireless Facility siting application within the presumptively reasonable time periods above will constitute a “failure to act” within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Therefore, a provider is, at a minimum, entitled to the same process and remedies available for a failure to act within the new Small Wireless Facility shot clocks as they have been under the FCC's 2009 shot clocks. But the Commission also adds an additional remedy for the new Small Wireless Facility shot clocks.

    55. State or local inaction by the end of the Small Wireless Facility shot clock will function not only as a Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) failure to act but also amount to a presumptive prohibition on the provision of personal wireless services within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Accordingly, the Commission would expect the state or local government to issue all necessary permits without further delay. In cases where such action is not taken, the Commission assumes, for the reasons discussed below, that the applicant would have a straightforward case for obtaining expedited relief in court.

    56. As discussed in the Declaratory Ruling, a regulation under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) constitutes an effective prohibition if it materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment. Missing shot clock deadlines would thus presumptively have the effect of unlawfully prohibiting service in that such failure to act can be expected to materially limit or inhibit the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services. Thus, when a siting authority misses the applicable shot clock deadline, the applicant may commence suit in a court of competent jurisdiction alleging a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), in addition to a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), as discussed above. The siting authority then will have an opportunity to rebut the presumption of effective prohibition by demonstrating that the failure to act was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, did not materially limit or inhibit the applicant from introducing new services or improving existing services.

    57. Given the seriousness of failure to act within a reasonable period of time, the Commission expects, as noted above, siting authorities to issue without any further delay all necessary authorizations when notified by the applicant that they have missed the shot clock deadline, absent extraordinary circumstances. Where the siting authority nevertheless fails to issue all necessary authorizations and litigation is commenced based on violations of Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and/or 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), the Commission expects that applicants and other aggrieved parties will likely pursue equitable judicial remedies. Given the relatively low burden on state and local authorities of simply acting—one way or the other—within the Small Wireless Facility shot clocks, the Commission thinks that applicants would have a relatively low hurdle to clear in establishing a right to expedited judicial relief.

    58. The Commission expects that courts will typically find expedited and permanent injunctive relief warranted for violations of Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Act when addressing the circumstances discussed in this Order. The Commission believes that this approach is sensible because guarding against barriers to the deployment of personal wireless facilities not only advances the goal of Section 332(c)(7)(B) but also policies set out elsewhere in the Communications Act and 1996 Act, as the Commission recently has recognized in the case of Small Wireless Facilities. This is so whether or not these barriers stem from bad faith. Nor does the Commission anticipate that there would be unresolved issues implicating the siting authority's expertise and therefore requiring remand in most instances.

    59. The guidance provided here should reduce the need for, and complexity of, case-by-case litigation and reduce the likelihood of vastly different timing across various jurisdictions for the same type of deployment. This clarification, along with the other actions the Commission takes in this Third Report and Order, should streamline the courts' decision-making process and reduce the possibility of inconsistent rulings. Consequently, the Commission believes that its approach helps facilitate courts' ability to “hear and decide such [lawsuits] on an expedited basis,” as the statute requires.

    60. The Commission's updated interpretation of Section 332(c)(7) for Small Wireless Facilities effectively balances the interest of wireless service providers to have siting applications granted in a timely and streamlined manner and the interest of localities to protect public safety and welfare and preserve their authority over the permitting process. The Commission's specialized deployment categories, in conjunction with the acknowledgement that in rare instances, it may legitimately take longer to act, recognize that the siting process is complex and handled in many different ways under various states' and localities' long-established codes. Further, the Commission's approach tempers localities' concerns about the inflexibility of a deemed granted proposal because the new remedy the Commission adopts here accounts for the breadth of potentially unforeseen circumstances that individual localities may face and the possibility that additional review time may be needed in truly exceptional circumstances. The Commission further finds that its interpretive framework will not be unduly burdensome on localities because a number of states have already adopted even more stringent deemed granted remedies

    C. Clarification of Issues Related to All Section 332 Shot Clocks 1. Authorizations Subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” Provision of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)

    61. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) requires state and local governments to act “within a reasonable period of time” on “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities.” The Commission has not addressed the specific types of authorizations subject to this requirement. After carefully considering these arguments, the Commission finds that “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) means all authorizations necessary for the deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. This interpretation finds support in the record and is consistent with the courts' interpretation of this provision and the text and purpose of the Act.

    62. The Commission's interpretation remains faithful to the purpose of Section 332(c)(7) to balance Congress's competing desires to preserve the traditional role of state and local governments in regulating land use and zoning, while encouraging the rapid development of new telecommunications technologies. Under the Commission's interpretation, states and localities retain their authority over personal wireless facilities deployment. At the same time, deployment will be kept on track by ensuring that the entire approval process necessary for deployment is completed within a reasonable period of time, as defined by the shot clocks addressed in this Third Report and Order.

    2. Codification of Section 332 Shot Clocks

    63. In addition to establishing two new Section 332 shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities, the Commission takes this opportunity to codify its two existing Section 332 shot clocks for siting applications that do not involve Small Wireless Facilities. In 2009 the Commission found that 90 days is a reasonable time frame for processing collocation applications and 150 days is a reasonable time frame to process applications other than collocations. Since these Section 332 shot clocks were adopted as part of a declaratory ruling, they were not codified in the Commission's rules. The Commission sought comment on whether to modify these shot clocks. The Commission finds no need to modify them here and will continue to use these shot clocks for processing Section 332 siting applications that do not involve Small Wireless Facilities. The Commission does, though, codify these two existing shot clocks in its rules alongside the two newly-adopted shot clocks so that all interested parties can readily find the shot clock requirements in one place.

    3. Collocations on Structures Not Previously Zoned for Wireless Use

    64. The Commission takes this opportunity to clarify that for purposes of the Section 332 shot clocks, attachment of facilities to existing structures constitutes collocation, regardless of whether the structure or the location has previously been zoned for wireless facilities. As the Commission stated in 2009, “an application is a request for collocation if it does not involve a `substantial increase in the size of a tower' as defined in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas.” The definition of “[c]ollocation” in the NPA provides for the “mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure.” The NPA's definition of collocation explicitly encompasses collocations on structures and buildings that have not yet been zoned for wireless use. To interpret the NPA any other way would be unduly narrow and there is no persuasive reason to accept a narrower interpretation. This is particularly true given that the NPA definition of collocation stands in direct contrast with the definition of collocation in the Spectrum Act, pursuant to which facilities only fall within the scope of an “eligible facilities request” if they are attached to towers or base stations that have already been zoned for wireless use.

    4. When Shot Clocks Start and Incomplete Applications

    65. In 2014 the Commission clarified that a shot clock begins to run when an application is first submitted, not when the application is deemed complete. The clock can be paused, however, if the locality notifies the applicant within 30 days that the application is incomplete. The locality may pause the clock again if it provides written notice within 10 days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. The Commission sought comment on these determinations.

    66. Based on the record, the Commission finds no cause to alter the Commission's prior determinations and now codifies them in its rules. Codified rules, easily accessible to applicants and localities alike, should provide helpful clarity. The complaints by states and localities about the sufficiency of some of the applications they receive are adequately addressed by the Commission's current policy, which preserves the states' and localities' ability to pause review when they find an application to be incomplete. The Commission does not find it necessary at this point to shorten the 30-day initial review period for completeness because, as was the case when this review period was adopted in the 2009, it remains consistent with review periods for completeness under existing state wireless infrastructure deployment statutes and still “gives State and local governments sufficient time for reviewing applications for completeness, while protecting applicants from a last minute decision that an application should be denied as incomplete.”

    67. However, for applications to deploy Small Wireless Facilities, the Commission implements a modified tolling system designed to help ensure that providers are submitting complete applications on day one. This step accounts for the fact that the shot clocks applicable to such applications are shorter than those established in 2009 and, because of which, there may instances where the prevailing tolling rules would further shorten the shot clocks to such an extent that it might be impossible for siting authorities to act on the application. For Small Wireless Facilities applications, the siting authority has 10 days from the submission of the application to determine whether the application is incomplete. The shot clock then resets once the applicant submits the supplemental information requested by the siting authority. Thus, for example, for an application to collocate Small Wireless Facilities, once the applicant submits the supplemental information in response to a siting authority's timely request, the shot clock resets, effectively giving the siting authority an additional 60 days to act on the Small Wireless Facilities collocation application. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness, the tolling rules that apply to non-Small Wireless Facilities would apply—that is, the shot clock would toll if the siting authority provides written notice within 10 days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.

    68. As noted above, multiple authorizations may be required before a deployment is allowed to move forward. For instance, a locality may require a zoning permit, a building permit, an electrical permit, a road closure permit, and an architectural or engineering permit for an applicant to place, construct, or modify its proposed personal wireless service facilities. All of these permits are subject to Section 332's requirement to act within a reasonable period of time, and thus all are subject to the shot clocks the Commission adopts or codifies here.

    69. The Commission also finds that mandatory pre-application procedures and requirements do not toll the shot clocks. The Commission concludes that the ability to toll a shot clock when an application is found incomplete or by mutual agreement by the applicant and the siting authority should be adequate to address these concerns. Much like a requirement to file applications one after another, requiring pre-application review would allow for a complete circumvention of the shot clocks by significantly delaying their start date. An application is not ruled on within “a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed” if the state or locality takes the full ordinary review period after having delayed the filing in the first instance due to required pre-application review. Indeed, requiring a pre-application review before an application may be filed is similar to imposing a moratorium, which the Commission has made clear does not stop the shot clocks from running. Therefore, the Commission concludes that if an applicant proffers an application, but a state or locality refuses to accept it until a pre-application review has been completed, the shot clock begins to run when the application is proffered.

    70. That said, the Commission encourages voluntary pre-application discussions, which may well be useful to both parties. The record indicates that such meetings can clarify key aspects of the application review process, especially with respect to large submissions or applicants new to a particular locality's processes and may speed the pace of review. To the extent that an applicant voluntarily engages in a pre-application review to smooth the way for its filing, the shot clock will begin when an application is filed, presumably after the pre-application review has concluded.

    71. The Commission also reiterates that the remedies granted under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) are independent of, and in addition to, any remedies that may be available under state or local law. Thus, where a state or locality has established its own shot clocks, an applicant may pursue any remedies granted under state or local law in cases where the siting authority fails to act within those shot clocks. However, the applicant must wait until the Commission shot clock period has expired to bring suit for a “failure to act” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).

    III. Procedural Matters A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    72. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), released in April 2017 (82 FR 22453, May 16, 2017). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are addressed below in Section 2. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

    1. Need for and Objectives of the Rules

    73. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission continues its efforts to promote the timely buildout of wireless infrastructure across the country by eliminating regulatory impediments that unnecessarily delay bringing personal wireless services to consumers. The record shows that lengthy delays in approving siting applications by siting agencies has been a persistent problem. With this in mind, the Third Report and Order establishes and codifies specific rules concerning the amount of time siting agencies may take to review and approve certain categories of wireless infrastructure siting applications. More specifically, the Commission addresses its Section 332 shot clock rules for infrastructure applications which will be presumed reasonable under the Communications Act. As an initial matter, the Commission establishes two new shot clocks for Small Wireless Facilities applications. For collocation of Small Wireless Facilities on preexisting structures, the Commission adopts a 60-day shot clock which applies to both individual and batched applications. For applications associated with Small Wireless Facilities new construction the Commission adopts a 90-day shot clock for both individual and batched applications. The Commission also codifies two existing Section 332 shot clocks for all other Non-Small Wireless Facilities that were established in 2009 without codification. These existing shot clocks require 90-days for processing of all other Non-Small Wireless Facilities collocation applications, and 150-days for processing of all other Non-Small Wireless Facilities applications other than collocations.

    74. The Third Report and Order addresses other issues related to both the existing and new shot clocks. In particular the Commission addresses the specific types of authorizations subject to the “Reasonable Period of Time” provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii), finding that “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities” under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) means all authorizations a locality may require, and to all aspects of and steps in the siting process, including license or franchise agreements to access ROW, building permits, public notices and meetings, lease negotiations, electric permits, road closure permits, aesthetic approvals, and other authorizations needed for deployment of personal wireless services infrastructure. The Commission also addresses collocation on structures not previously zoned for wireless use, when the four Section 332 shot clocks begin to run, the impact of incomplete applications on the Commission's Section 332 shot clocks, and how state imposed shot clocks remedies effect the Commission's Section 332 shot clocks remedies.

    75. The Commission discusses the appropriate judicial remedy that applicants may pursue in cases where a siting authority fails to act within the applicable shot clock period. In those situations, applicants may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction alleging a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) and seek injunctive relief granting the application. Notwithstanding the availability of a judicial remedy if a shot clock deadline is missed, the Commission recognizes that the Section 332 time frames might not be met in exceptional circumstances and has refined its interpretation of the circumstances when a period of time longer than the relevant shot clock would nonetheless be a reasonable period of time for action by a siting agency. In addition, a siting authority that is subject to a court action for missing an applicable shot clock deadline has the opportunity to demonstrate that the failure to act was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, did not materially limit or inhibit the applicant from introducing new services or improving existing services thereby rebutting the effective prohibition presumption.

    76. The rules adopted in the Third Report and Order will accelerate the deployment of wireless infrastructure needed for the mobile wireless services of the future, while preserving the fundamental role of localities in this process. Under the Commission's new rules, localities will maintain control over the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities, while at the same time the Commission's new process will streamline the review of wireless siting applications.

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

    77. Only one party—the Smart Cities and Special Districts Coalition—filed comments specifically addressing the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA. They argue that any shortening or alteration of the Commission's existing shot clocks or the adoption of a deemed granted remedy will adversely affect small local governments, special districts, property owners, small developers, and others by placing their siting applications behind wireless provider siting applications. Subsequently, NATOA filed comments concerning the draft FRFA. NATOA argues that the new shot clocks impose burdens on local governments and particularly those with limited resources. NATOA asserts that the new shot clocks will spur more deployment applications than localities currently process.

    78. These arguments, however, fail to acknowledge that Section 332 shot clocks have been in place for years and reflect Congressional intent as seen in the statutory language of Section 332. The record in this proceeding demonstrates the need for, and reasonableness of, expediting the siting review of certain facility deployments. More streamlined procedures are both reasonable and necessary to provide greater predictability. The current shot clocks do not reflect the evolution of the application review process and evidence that localities can complete reviews more quickly than was the case when the original shot clocks were adopted nine years ago. Localities have gained significant experience processing wireless siting applications and several jurisdictions already have in place laws that require applications to be processed in less time than the Commission's new shot clocks. With the passage of time, sitting agencies have become more efficient in processing siting applications and this, in turn, should reduce any economic burden the Commission's new shot clock provisions have on them.

    79. The Commission has carefully considered the impact of its new shot clocks on siting authorities and has established shot clocks that take into consideration the nature and scope of siting requests by establishing shot clocks of different lengths of time that depend on the nature of the siting request at issue. The length of these shot clocks is based in part on the need to ensure that local governments have ample time to take any steps needed to protect public safety and welfare and to process other pending utility applications. Since local siting authorities have gained experience in processing siting requests in an expedited fashion, they should be able to comply with the Commission's new shot clocks.

    80. The Commission has taken into consideration the concerns of the Smart Cities and Special Districts Coalition and NATOA. It has established shot clocks that will not favor wireless providers over other applicants with pending siting applications. Further, instead of adopting a deemed granted remedy that would grant a siting application when a shot clock lapses without a decision on the merits, the Commission provides guidance as to the appropriate judicial remedy that applicants may pursue and examples of exceptional circumstance where a siting authority may be justified in needing additional time to review a siting application then the applicable shot clock allows. Under this approach, the applicant may seek injunctive relief as long as several minimum requirements are met. The siting authority, however, can rebut the presumptive reasonableness of the applicable shot clock under certain circumstances. The circumstances under which a sitting authority might have to do this will be rare. Under this carefully crafted approach, the interests of siting applicants, siting authorities, and citizens are protected.

    3. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

    81. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.

    82. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

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

    84. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describe here, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses.

    85. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

    86. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government category show that the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data the Commission estimates that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

    87. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities.

    88. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of May 17, 2018, there are 264 Cellular licensees that will be affected by the Commission's actions. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

    89. Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-range, low-power radio for personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other services. Personal radio services include services operating in spectrum licensed under part 95 of the Commission's rules. These services include Citizen Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service. There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing. All such entities in this category are wireless, therefore the Commission applies the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), pursuant to which the SBA's small entity size standard is defined as those entities employing 1,500 or fewer persons. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission notes however that many of the licensees in this category are individuals and not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base an estimation of the number of small entities that may be affected by the Commission's actions in this proceeding.

    90. Public Safety Radio Licensees. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees as a general matter, include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services. Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms can be considered small. With respect to local governments, in particular, since many governmental entities comprise the licensees for these services, the Commission includes under public safety services the number of government entities affected. According to Commission records, there are a total of approximately 133,870 licenses within these services. There are 3,121 licenses in the 4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of March 29, 2017. The Commission estimates that fewer than 2,442 public safety radio licensees hold these licenses because certain entities may have multiple licenses.

    91. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio (PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR Licensees are small entities.

    92. According to the Commission's records, a total of approximately 400,622 licenses comprise PLMR users. Of this number there are a total of 3,374 licenses in the frequencies range 173.225 MHz to 173.375 MHz, which is the range affected by the Third Report and Order. The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of employees and does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this definition. The Commission however believes that a substantial number of PLMR licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific information.

    93. Multiple Address Systems. Entities using Multiple Address Systems (MAS) spectrum, in general, fall into two categories: (1) Those using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) those using the spectrum for private internal uses. With respect to the first category, Profit-based Spectrum use, the size standards established by the Commission define “small entity” for MAS licensees as an entity that has average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million over the three previous calendar years. A “Very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues of not more than $3 million over the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The majority of MAS operators are licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing approach that requires the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications.

    94. The Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a total of 11,653 site-based MAS station authorizations. Of these, 58 authorizations were associated with common carrier service. In addition, the Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a total of 3,330 Economic Area market area MAS authorizations. The Commission's licensing database also indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, of the 11,653 total MAS station authorizations, 10,773 authorizations were for private radio service. In 2001, an auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs was conducted. Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small businesses and won 611 licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226 MAS licenses in the Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six winning bidders won a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning bidders in this auction, five claimed small business status and won 1,891 licenses.

    95. With respect to the second category, Internal Private Spectrum use consists of entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal communications needs, MAS serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal users, the definition developed by the SBA would be more appropriate than the Commission's definition. The closest applicable definition of a small entity is the “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)” definition under the SBA rules. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms that may be affected by the Commission's action can be considered small.

    96. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high-speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).

    97. BRS—In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately there are approximately 86 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities (18 incumbent BRS licensees do not meet the small business size standard). After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, the Commission finds that there are currently approximately 133 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules.

    98. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

    99. EBS—The Educational Broadband Service has been included within the broad economic census category and SBA size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers since 2007. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are comprised of establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. The SBA's small business size standard for this category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small. In addition to Census Bureau data, the Commission's Universal Licensing System indicates that as of October 2014, there are 2,206 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,206 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.

    100. Location and Monitoring Service (LMS). LMS systems use non-voice radio techniques to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million. These definitions have been approved by the SBA. An auction for LMS licenses commenced on February 23, 1999 and closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses.

    101. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 and $49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or more. Based on this data the Commission therefore estimates that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.

    102. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,377. Of this total, 1,258 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on November 16, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 384. Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. There are also 2,300 low power television stations, including Class A stations (LPTV) and 3,681 TV translator stations. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

    103. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. The Commission estimates, therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

    104. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.” The SBA has established a small business size standard for this category as firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. Economic Census data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more. Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard the majority of such entities are small entities.

    105. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's Publications, Inc. Media Access Pro Radio Database (BIA) as of January 2018, about 11,261 (or about 99.92 percent) of 11,270 commercial radio stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,633 stations and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,738, for a total number of 11,371. The Commission notes, that the Commission has also estimated the number of licensed NCE radio stations to be 4,128. Nevertheless, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.

    106. The Commission also notes, that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, to be determined a “small business,” an entity may not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission further notes, that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on these basis, thus the Commission's estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

    107. FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations. FM translators and Low Power FM Stations are classified in the category of Radio Stations and are assigned the same NAICS Code as licensees of radio stations. This U.S. industry, Radio Stations, comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has established a small business size standard which consists of all radio stations whose annual receipts are $38.5 million dollars or less. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more. Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard, the Commission concludes that the majority of FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations are small.

    108. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). MVDDS is a terrestrial fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. It defined a very small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years; and an entrepreneur as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. These definitions were approved by the SBA. On January 27, 2004, the Commission completed an auction of 214 MVDDS licenses (Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten winning bidders won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses. Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status and won 144 of the licenses. The Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on December 7, 2005 (Auction 63). Of the three winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21 of the licenses, claimed small business status.

    109. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.

    110. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Thus, a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by the Commission's action can be considered small.

    111. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), the 39 GHz Service (39 GHz), the 24 GHz Service, and the Millimeter Wave Service where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. At present, there are approximately 66,680 common carrier fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet defined a small business size standard for microwave services. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012, show that there were 967 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.

    112. The Commission notes that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of licensees. The Commission also notes that it does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. The Commission estimates however, that virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

    113. Non-Licensee Owners of Towers and Other Infrastructure. Although at one time most communications towers were owned by the licensee using the tower to provide communications service, many towers are now owned by third-party businesses that do not provide communications services themselves but lease space on their towers to other companies that provide communications services. The Commission's rules require that any entity, including a non-licensee, proposing to construct a tower over 200 feet in height or within the glide slope of an airport must register the tower with the Commission's Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) system and comply with applicable rules regarding review for impact on the environment and historic properties.

    114. As of March 1, 2017, the ASR database includes approximately 122,157 registration records reflecting a “Constructed” status and 13,987 registration records reflecting a “Granted, Not Constructed” status. These figures include both towers registered to licensees and towers registered to non-licensee tower owners. The Commission does not keep information from which we can easily determine how many of these towers are registered to non-licensees or how many non-licensees have registered towers. Regarding towers that do not require ASR registration, we do not collect information as to the number of such towers in use and therefore cannot estimate the number of tower owners that would be subject to the rules on which the Commission seeks comment. Moreover, the SBA has not developed a size standard for small businesses in the category “Tower Owners.” Therefore, the Commission is unable to determine the number of non-licensee tower owners that are small entities. The Commission believes, however, that when all entities owning 10 or fewer towers and leasing space for collocation are included, non-licensee tower owners number in the thousands. In addition, there may be other non-licensee owners of other wireless infrastructure, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cells that might be affected by the measures on which the Commission seeks comment. The Commission does not have any basis for estimating the number of such non-licensee owners that are small entities.

    115. The closest applicable SBA category is All Other Telecommunications, and the appropriate size standard consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Thus, under this SBA size standard a majority of the firms potentially affected by the Commission's action can be considered small.

    5. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    116. The Third Report and Order does not establish any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for companies involved in wireless infrastructure deployment. In addition to not adopting any reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements, the Commission takes significant steps to reduce regulatory impediments to infrastructure deployment and, therefore, to spur the growth of personal wireless services. Under the Commission's approach, small entities as well as large companies will be assured that their deployment requests will be acted upon within a reasonable period of time and, if their applications are not addressed within the established time frames, applicants may seek injunctive relief granting their siting applications. The Commission, therefore, has taken concrete steps to relieve companies of all sizes of uncertainly and has eliminated unnecessary delays.

    117. The Third Report and Order also does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements on state and local governments. While some commenters argue that additional shot clock classifications would make the siting process needlessly complex without any proven benefits, the Commission concludes that any additional administrative burden from increasing the number of Section 332 shot clocks from two to four is outweighed by the likely significant benefit of regulatory certainty and the resulting streamlined deployment process. The Commission's actions are consistent with the statutory language of Section 332 and therefore reflect Congressional intent. Further, siting agencies have become more efficient in processing siting applications and will be able to take advantage of these efficiencies in meeting the new shot clocks. As a result, the additional shot clocks that the Commission adopts will foster the deployment of the latest wireless technology and serve consumer interests.

    6. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

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

    119. The steps taken by the Commission in the Third Report and Order eliminate regulatory burdens for small entities as well as large companies that are involved with the deployment of person wireless services infrastructure. By establishing shot clocks and guidance on injunctive relief for personal wireless services infrastructure deployments, the Commission has standardized and streamlined the permitting process. These changes will significantly minimize the economic burden of the siting process on all entities, including small entities, involved in deploying personal wireless services infrastructure. The record shows that permitting delays imposes significant economic and financial burdens on companies with pending wireless infrastructure permits. Eliminating permitting delays will remove the associated cost burdens and enabling significant public interest benefits by speeding up the deployment of personal wireless services and infrastructure. In addition, siting agencies will be able to utilize the efficiencies that they have gained over the years processing siting applications to minimize financial impacts.

    120. The Commission considered but did not adopt proposals by commenters to issue “Best Practices” or “Recommended Practices,” and to develop an informal dispute resolution process and mediation program, noting that the steps taken in the Third Report and Order address the concerns underlying these proposals to facilitate cooperation between parties to reach mutually agreed upon solutions. The Commission anticipates that the changes it has made to the permitting process will provide significant efficiencies in the deployment of personal wireless services facilities and this in turn will benefit all companies, but particularly small entities, that may not have the resources and economies of scale of larger entities to navigate the permitting process. By adopting these changes, the Commission will continue to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, while reducing the burden on small entities by removing unnecessary impediments to the rapid deployment of personal wireless services facilities and infrastructure across the country.

    7. Report to Congress

    121. The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Third Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) also will be published in the Federal Register.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    122. This Third Report and Order does not contain new or revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.

    C. Congressional Review Act

    123. The Commission will send a copy of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    IV. Ordering Clauses

    124. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 7, 201, 253, 301, 303, 309, 319, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 157, 201, 253, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, that this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in WT Docket No. 17-79 is hereby adopted.

    125. It is further ordered that part 1 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth in the final rules of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, and that these changes shall be effective January 14, 2019.

    126. It is further ordered that this Third Report and Order shall be effective January 14, 2019. The Declaratory Ruling and the obligations set forth therein are effective on the same day that this Third Report and Order becomes effective. It is our intention in adopting the foregoing Declaratory Ruling and these rule changes that, if any provision of the Declaratory Ruling or the rules, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be unlawful, the remaining portions of such Declaratory Ruling and the rules not deemed unlawful, and the application of such Declaratory Ruling and the rules to other person or circumstances, shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.

    127. It is further ordered that, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), the period for filing petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order will commence on the date that a summary of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order is published in the Federal Register.

    128. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    129. It is further ordered that this Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order shall be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Environmental protection, Historic preservation, Radio, Telecommunications.

    Federal Communications Commission. Cecilia Sigmund, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Final Rules

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

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

    47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; Sec. 102(c), Div. P, Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084; 28 U.S.C. 2461, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Add subpart U, consisting of §§ 1.6001 through 1.6003, to read as follows: Subpart U—State and Local Government Regulation of the Placement, Construction, and Modification of Personal Wireless Service Facilities Sec. 1.6001 Purpose. 1.6002 Definitions. 1.6003 Reasonable periods of time to act on siting applications.
    § 1.6001 Purpose.

    This subpart implements 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7) and 1455.

    § 1.6002 Definitions.

    Terms not specifically defined in this section or elsewhere in this subpart have the meanings defined in this part and the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. Terms used in this subpart have the following meanings:

    (a) Action or to act on a siting application means a siting authority's grant of a siting application or issuance of a written decision denying a siting application.

    (b) Antenna, consistent with § 1.1320(d), means an apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services. For purposes of this definition, the term antenna does not include an unintentional radiator, mobile station, or device authorized under part 15 of this chapter.

    (c) Antenna equipment, consistent with § 1.1320(d), means equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna.

    (d) Antenna facility means an antenna and associated antenna equipment.

    (e) Applicant means a person or entity that submits a siting application and the agents, employees, and contractors of such person or entity.

    (f) Authorization means any approval that a siting authority must issue under applicable law prior to the deployment of personal wireless service facilities, including, but not limited to, zoning approval and building permit.

    (g) Collocation, consistent with § 1.1320(d) and the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, appendix B of this part, section I.B, means—

    (1) Mounting or installing an antenna facility on a pre-existing structure; and/or

    (2) Modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure.

    (3) The definition of “collocation” in § 1.6100(b)(2) applies to the term as used in that section.

    (h) Deployment means placement, construction, or modification of a personal wireless service facility.

    (i) Facility or personal wireless service facility means an antenna facility or a structure that is used for the provision of personal wireless service, whether such service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services.

    (j) Siting application or application means a written submission to a siting authority requesting authorization for the deployment of a personal wireless service facility at a specified location.

    (k) Siting authority means a State government, local government, or instrumentality of a State government or local government, including any official or organizational unit thereof, whose authorization is necessary prior to the deployment of personal wireless service facilities.

    (l) Small wireless facilities, consistent with § 1.1312(e)(2), are facilities that meet each of the following conditions:

    (1) The facilities—

    (i) Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in § 1.1320(d); or

    (ii) Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or

    (iii) Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;

    (2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of “antenna” in § 1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume;

    (3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;

    (4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of this chapter;

    (5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and

    (6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in § 1.1307(b).

    (m) Structure means a pole, tower, base station, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used for the provision of personal wireless service (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services).

    § 1.6003 Reasonable periods of time to act on siting applications.

    (a) Timely action required. A siting authority that fails to act on a siting application on or before the shot clock date for the application, as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, is presumed not to have acted within a reasonable period of time.

    (b) Shot clock period. The shot clock period for a siting application is the sum of—

    (1) The number of days of the presumptively reasonable period of time for the pertinent type of application, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section; plus

    (2) The number of days of the tolling period, if any, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.

    (c) Presumptively reasonable periods of time—(1) Review periods for individual applications. The following are the presumptively reasonable periods of time for action on applications seeking authorization for deployments in the categories set forth in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section:

    (i) Review of an application to collocate a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure: 60 days.

    (ii) Review of an application to collocate a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure: 90 days.

    (iii) Review of an application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 90 days.

    (iv) Review of an application to deploy a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 150 days.

    (2) Batching. (i) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, all of which fall within a category set forth in either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (iii) of this section, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is equal to that for a single deployment within that category.

    (ii) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, the components of which are a mix of deployments that fall within paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section and deployments that fall within paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is 90 days.

    (iii) Siting authorities may not refuse to accept applications under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

    (d) Tolling period. Unless a written agreement between the applicant and the siting authority provides otherwise, the tolling period for an application (if any) is as set forth in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.

    (1) For an initial application to deploy Small Wireless Facilities, if the siting authority notifies the applicant on or before the 10th day after submission that the application is materially incomplete, and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information and the specific rule or regulation creating the obligation to submit such documents or information, the shot clock date calculation shall restart at zero on the date on which the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete.

    (2) For all other initial applications, the tolling period shall be the number of days from—

    (i) The day after the date when the siting authority notifies the applicant in writing that the application is materially incomplete and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information that the applicant must submit to render the application complete and the specific rule or regulation creating this obligation; until

    (ii) The date when the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete;

    (iii) But only if the notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section is effectuated on or before the 30th day after the date when the application was submitted; or

    (3) For resubmitted applications following a notice of deficiency, the tolling period shall be the number of days from—

    (i) The day after the date when the siting authority notifies the applicant in writing that the applicant's supplemental submission was not sufficient to render the application complete and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information that need to be submitted based on the siting authority's original request under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section; until

    (ii) The date when the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete;

    (iii) But only if the notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section is effectuated on or before the 10th day after the date when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the siting authority's request under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.

    (e) Shot clock date. The shot clock date for a siting application is determined by counting forward, beginning on the day after the date when the application was submitted, by the number of calendar days of the shot clock period identified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section and including any pre-application period asserted by the siting authority; provided, that if the date calculated in this manner is a “holiday” as defined in § 1.4(e)(1) or a legal holiday within the relevant State or local jurisdiction, the shot clock date is the next business day after such date. The term “business day” means any day as defined in § 1.4(e)(2) and any day that is not a legal holiday as defined by the State or local jurisdiction.

    § 1.40001 [Redesignated as § 1.6100 and Amended]
    3. Redesignate § 1.40001 as § 1.6100 and, in newly redesignated § 1.6100, remove and reserve paragraph (a). Subpart CC—[Removed] 4. Remove subpart CC.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22234 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 199 Monday, October 15, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0899; Product Identifier 2018-NM-099-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the inner skin at the lower fastener row is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require a general visual inspection of certain lap splice inspection areas for any repair common to the fuselage skin lap splice inspection areas, repetitive dual frequency eddy current (DFEC) inspections of a certain lap splice inner skin for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0899.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0899; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712 4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0899; Product Identifier 2018-NM-099-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    We have received a report indicating the inner skin at the lower fastener row is subject to WFD. The inner skin at the lap splice could also have scratches that can grow into scratch cracks, which could interact with multi-site damage (MSD) fastener hole fatigue cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in accelerated crack growth rate, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of certain lap splice inspection areas for any repair common to the fuselage skin lap splice inspection areas, repetitive DFEC inspections of the S-14 lap splice inner skin for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0899.

    Explanation of Requirements Bulletin

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept into Boeing service bulletins.

    In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the development of a new process in which the service information more clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition in the “Accomplishment Instructions.” The new process results in a Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 451 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators General visual inspection Up to 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $510 $0 Up to $510 Up to $230,010. Repetitive DFEC inspections Up to 124 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $10,540 per inspection cycle 0 Up to $10,540 per inspection cycle Up to $4,753,540 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0899; Product Identifier 2018-NM-099-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 29, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the inner skin at the lower fastener row is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to address scratches that can grow into scratch cracks, which could interact with multi-site damage (MSD) fastener hole fatigue cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in accelerated crack growth rate, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0111, dated May 21, 2018, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018.

    (h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”

    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing for alternative inspections or repair instructions, this AD requires alternative inspection or repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (3) Inspections performed in accordance with Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018, are not necessary in areas where existing FAA approved repairs cover the affected inspection areas; provided the outermost repair doubler extends a minimum of three rows of fasteners above and below the original group of lap splice fasteners subject to the inspection. Damage tolerance inspections specified for existing repairs must continue. Inspections outside of the repaired boundaries are still required as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0111 RB, dated May 21, 2018.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712 4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 20, 2018. John P. Piccola, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21966 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0807; Product Identifier 2018-NM-003-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that revealed the wheel axles of the main landing gear (MLG) were machined with a radius as small as 0.4 millimeters and a determination that the life limit for the affected wheel axles of the MLG must be reduced. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine the part number and serial number of each MLG wheel axle and replacement of affected parts prior to exceeding the reduced life limits. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0807; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3229.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0807; Product Identifier 2018-NM-003-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0150, dated July 16, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In the past, EASA received a report, via Airbus and Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Ltd, from a MRO [Maintenance Repair Organization], concerning a specific repair accomplished on certain MLG wheel axles. Investigations revealed that the axles were machined with a radius as small as 0.4 mm.

    This condition, if not corrected, has a detrimental effect on the fatigue lives of these parts, possibly affecting the structural integrity of the aeroplane. Fatigue analyses were performed and the results indicated that the life limit of the affected MLG wheel axles must be reduced to below the one stated in the A330 and A340 Airbus Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) Part 1.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2011-0170 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-08-03, Amendment 39-17420 (78 FR 23105, April 18, 2013) (“AD 2013-08-03”)], which required the replacement of the MLG wheel axles before exceeding the new reduced demonstrated life limit. After that [EASA] AD was issued, it was discovered that additional MLG wheel axles were subject to repairs by the same MRO. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0067, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0170, which was superseded, and required the replacement of this additional batch of affected MLG wheel axles.

    Since EASA AD 2013-0067 was issued, it was reported that two additional MROs have accomplished similar incorrect repairs on additional MLG wheel axles, necessitating implementation of a reduced life limit. The affected MLG wheel axles, as well as the related life limits, have been published in Airbus SB A330-32-3282 and SB A340-32-4311, as applicable to aeroplane type.

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0245, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0067, which was superseded, to require identification and replacement of the affected MLG wheel axles.

    Since EASA AD 2017-0245, it was determined that some aeroplane models were missing from the Tables in Appendix 1 [of EASA AD 2017-0245]. It was also determined that the compliance times [of EASA AD 2017-0245] needed to be clarified.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD fully retains the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0245, which is superseded, and introduces the necessary clarifications. This [EASA] AD also contains some editorial changes to meet the current [EASA] AD writing standards, without affecting the technical content or requirements.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0807.

    Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2013-08-03

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2013-08-03. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine the part number and serial number of each MLG wheel axle and replacement of affected parts prior to exceeding the reduced life limits. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2013-08-03.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-32-3282, Revision 03, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 24, 2017; and Service Bulletin A340-32-4311, Revision 03, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 24, 2017. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the MLG wheel axles to determine the part number and serial number, and replacing the affected MLG wheel axles. This service information also specifies reduced life limits for the affected MLG wheel axles. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $4,930

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

    Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 (per part) $40,000 (per part) $41,360 (per part). Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0807; Product Identifier 2018-NM-003-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 29, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2013-08-03, Amendment 39-17420 (78 FR 23105, April 18, 2013) (“AD 2013-08-03”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD.

    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs), except those on which Airbus Modification 54500 has been embodied in production.

    (2) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except MSNs 0896, 0905, and 0913 (which are specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD), and except those on which Airbus Modification 54500 has been embodied in production.

    (3) Model A330-343 airplanes, MSNs 0896, 0905, and 0913, except those on which the actions in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3273 have been embodied in service.

    (4) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 54500 has been embodied in production.

    (5) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 54500 has been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that revealed the wheel axles of the main landing gear (MLG) were machined with a radius as small as 0.4 millimeters and a determination that the life limit for the affected wheel axles of the MLG must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue of the wheel axles of the MLG, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, the affected MLG wheel axles are listed by part number and serial number in Appendix 01 (Maintenance Repair Organization (MRO) 1), Appendix 02 (MRO 2), and Appendix 03 (MRO 3) of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3282, Revision 03, dated October 24, 2017; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4311, Revision 03, dated October 24, 2017; as applicable.

    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable MLG wheel axle is an affected MLG wheel axle that has not exceeded the applicable post-repair life limit values as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, table 2 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, or table 3 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD; or a part that is not an affected MLG wheel axle.

    (3) For the purpose of this AD, the term “post-repair life limits” represents the time-in-service, flight cycles, or flight hours, whichever occurs first, accumulated since repair by the affected MRO specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, table 2 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, or table 3 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD.

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EP15OC18.004 EP15OC18.005 EP15OC18.006 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C (h) Inspection To Determine Part Number and Serial Number

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Do an inspection of each MLG wheel axle (left-hand and right-hand sides) to determine the part number and serial number. A review of airplane delivery or maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination, in lieu of inspecting a MLG wheel axle, provided those records can be relied upon for that purpose and the part number and serial number of the affected part can be positively identified from that review.

    (i) Replacement of Affected MLG Wheel Axles

    If any affected MLG wheel axle is found: Within the compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, table 2 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, or table 3 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD; replace each repaired MLG wheel axle with a serviceable MLG wheel axle, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3282, Revision 03, dated October 24, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4311, Revision 03, dated October 24, 2017; as applicable. Regardless of the applicable post-repair life limits as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, table 2 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, or table 3 to paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (i) of this AD, the life limits as specified in Airbus A330/A340 Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) Part 1 cannot be exceeded.

    (j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, any affected MLG wheel axle repaired by MRO 1, MRO 2, or MRO 3 may be installed on an airplane, provided the MLG wheel axle is a serviceable part as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

    (k) Terminating Action for AD 2013-08-03

    Accomplishing the inspection and replacement required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2013-08-03.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0150, dated July 16, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0807.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3229.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; phone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 25, 2018. John P. Piccola, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-21973 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0829; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-23] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Milwaukee, WI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, Milwaukee, WI. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Timmerman VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. This action would also replace the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0829; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-23, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    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 http://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:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, Milwaukee, WI, to support IFR operations at this airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0829; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-23.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

    Amending Class D airspace to within a 3.9-mile radius (reduced from a 4.4-mile radius) of Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, Milwaukee, WI; and updating the airspace designation from “Milwaukee, Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, WI” to “Milwaukee, WI”, removing the city from the airport name, and making an editorial change replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement” to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and

    Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from an 8.9-mile radius) of Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, Milwaukee, WI; adding an extension within 2 miles each side of the 218° bearing from Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.7 miles southwest of the airport; adding an extension within 9 miles west and 6 miles east of the 328° bearing from the Lawrence J. Timmerman: RWY 15L-LOC extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the airport.

    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Timmerman VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AGL WI D Milwaukee, WI [Amended] Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, WI (Lat. 43°06′39″ N, long. 88°02′04″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,200 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, excluding that airspace within the Milwaukee, WI, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL WI E5 Milwaukee, WI [Amended] General Mitchell International Airport, WI (Lat. 42°56′49″ N, long. 87°53′49″ W) Batten International Airport, WI (Lat. 42°45′40″ N, long. 87°48′50″ W) Waukesha County Airport, WI (Lat. 43°02′28″ N, long. 88°14′13″ W) Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, WI (Lat. 43°06′37″ N, long. 88°02′04″ W) Lawrence J. Timmerman: RWY 15L-LOC (Lat. 43°06′20″ N, long. 88°01′44″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 8.4-mile radius of General Mitchell International Airport, and within an 6.6-mile radius of Batten International Airport, and within a 7.5-mile radius of Waukesha County Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 282° bearing from Waukesha County Airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 10.5 miles west of Waukesha County Airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 218° bearing from the Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.7 miles northwest of Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport, and within 9 miles west and 6 miles east of the 328° bearing from the Lawrence J. Timmerman: RWY15-LOC extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10 miles from the Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22175 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2892; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-2] RIN-2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Jackman, ME, and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Newton Field, ME AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Newton Field, Jackman, ME, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures serving the airport. Also, this action would remove duplicative Class E airspace for Newton Field, ME. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of this airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg. Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202)-366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2015-2892; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    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 would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Newton Field, Jackman, ME, and remove duplicative Newton Field, ME, information to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2015-2892 and Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-2) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-2892; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANE-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, 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 Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 12.4-mile (increased from a 6-mile) radius of Newton Field, Jackman, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

    This action would also make an editorial correction to remove the duplicate airspace published in the Order under the designation Newton Field, ME.

    The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    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 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and 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 Jackman, ME [Amended] Newton Field, ME (Lat. 45°37′58″ N, long. 70°14′56″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.4-mile radius of Newton Field, excluding that airspace outside the United States.

    ANE ME E5 Newton Field, ME [Removed]
    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 3, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22264 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0828; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-22] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lawrenceville, IL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawrenceville-Vincennes International Airport, Lawrenceville, IL, and Mount Carmel Municipal Airport, Mount Carmel, IL. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Lawrenceville VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0828; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-22, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    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 http://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:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawrenceville-Vincennes International Airport, Lawrenceville, IL, and Mount Carmel Municipal Airport, Mount Carmel, IL, to support IFR operations at these airports.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0828; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-22.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Lawrenceville-Vincennes International Airport, Lawrenceville, IL; removing the Lawrenceville VOR/DME and the associated extension to the northeast of the Lawrenceville-Vincennes International Airport; and removing the extension to the south of Mount Carmel Municipal Airport, Mount Carmel, IL.

    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Lawrenceville VOR, which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.

    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 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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, and 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. AGL IL E5 Lawrenceville, IL [Amended] Lawrenceville-Vincennes International Airport, IL (Lat. 38°45′51″ N, long. 87°36′20″ W) Mount Carmel Municipal Airport, IL (Lat. 38°36′24″ N, long. 87°43′36″ W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Lawrenceville-Vincennes International Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Mount Carmel Municipal Airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22172 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0827; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-6] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; West Union, IA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at George L. Scott Municipal Airport, West Union, IA, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA is proposing this action due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Waukon VHF omnidirectional range (VOR), which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0827; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-6 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    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:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at George L. Scott Municipal Airport, West Union, IA, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0827; Airspace Docket No. 18-ACE-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at George L. Scott Municipal Airport, West Union, IA, by updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Additionally, an edit would be made removing the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

    The FAA is proposing this action due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Waukon VOR, which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.

    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 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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, and 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. ACE IA E5 West Union, IA [Amended] George L. Scott Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 42°59′07″ N, long. 91°47′26″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of George L. Scott Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22176 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0879; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-24] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Oscoda, MI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E surface airspace at Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, Oscoda, MI. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Au Sable VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures at the airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates for the airport in the associated airspace would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Airspace redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0879; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-24, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    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 http://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:

    Walter Tweedy Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, Oscoda, MI, to support IFR operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0879; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-24.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E surface airspace within a 4.5-mile radius of Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, Oscoda, MI by removing the Au Sable VOR/DME and the associated extension to the southwest of the airport, due to the decommissioning of the Au Sable VOR, which provided navigation guidance to the instrument procedures at the airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.

    Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport in this airspace, and in Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas. AGL MI E2 Oscoda, MI [Amended] Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, MI (Lat. 44°27′06″ N, long. 83°23′39″ W)

    Within a 4.5-mile radius of Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MI E5 Oscoda, MI [Amended] Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport, MI (Lat. 44°27′06″ N, long. 83°23′39″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 3, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22192 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0626; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-9] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Engelhard, NC AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hyde County Airport, Engelhard, NC, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures serving this airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposed rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg Ground Floor, Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202)- 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0626; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    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 Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This 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 would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hyde County Airport, Engelhard, NC, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0626; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, 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 Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Hyde County Airport, Engelhard, NC, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at Hyde County Airport.

    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 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and 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. ASO NC E5 Engelhard, NC [New] Hyde County Airport, NC (Lat. 35°33′43″ N, long. 75°57′20″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Hyde County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 3, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22257 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 [REG-104872-18] RIN 1545-BO66 Removal of Regulations on Advance Payments for Goods and Long-Term Contracts AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to streamline IRS regulations by removing regulations that are no longer necessary after the enactment of recent tax legislation. Specifically, these regulations would remove existing regulations regarding advance payments for goods and long-term contracts. The regulations would affect accrual method taxpayers who receive advance payments for goods, including those for inventoriable goods.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by January 14, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA: LPD:PR (REG-104872-18), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-104872-18), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-104872-18).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Charles Gorham, (202) 317-5091, or Joanna L. Trebat, (202) 317-6890; concerning submissions of comments and requests for a hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions

    This document proposes to remove § 1.451-5 of the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1), and its cross-references, relating to the treatment of advance payments for goods and long-term contracts under section 451 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).

    In general, section 451 provides that the amount of any item of gross income is included in gross income for the taxable year in which it is received by the taxpayer, unless, under the method of accounting used in computing taxable income, the amount is to be properly accounted for as of a different period.

    Under § 1.451-1, accrual method taxpayers generally include items of income in the taxable year when all the events have occurred that fix the right to receive the income and the amount of the income can be determined with reasonable accuracy (the “all events” test).

    Section 1.451-5 generally allows accrual method taxpayers to defer the inclusion of income for advance payments for goods until the taxable year in which they are properly included in income under the taxpayer's method of accounting for federal income tax purposes if that method results in the advance payments being included in gross income no later than when the advance payments are recognized in gross receipts under the taxpayer's method of accounting for financial reporting purposes.

    Section 13221 of “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018,” Public Law 115-97 (the “Act”), amended section 451 by redesignating section 451(b) through (i) as (d) through (k) and adding new subsections (b) and (c).

    New section 451(b) generally requires that for accrual method taxpayers the all events test with respect to a particular item of gross income must not be treated as met any later than when the item is taken into account as revenue in a taxpayer's applicable financial statement, or such other financial statement as the Secretary may prescribe.

    New section 451(c) generally requires an accrual method taxpayer that receives any advance payment described in section 451(c)(4) during the taxable year to include the advance payment in income in the taxable year of receipt or make an election to: (1) Include any portion of the advance payment in income in the taxable year of receipt to the extent required under new section 451(b); and (2) include the remaining portion of the advance payment in income in the following taxable year. The election to defer advance payments of goods and services under new section 451(c) is similar to the rules regarding the treatment of advance payments for goods, services, and other specified items provided in Revenue Procedure 2004-34, 2004-1 CB 991. See H.R. Rep. No. 115-466, at 429 (2017) (Conf. Rep.).

    New section 451(c) and its election to defer advance payments override the deferral method provided by § 1.451-5. See H.R. Rep. No. 115-466, at 429 n.880 (2017) (Conf. Rep.). Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to remove § 1.451-5 and its cross references. Removing § 1.451-5 also will ensure that the new deferral rules of section 451(c) apply uniformly and consistently to all taxpayers as well as simplify tax administration.

    The rules of section 446 regarding changes in methods of accounting will apply to taxpayers changing a method of accounting for advance payments from a method described in § 1.451-5 to another method. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on whether any changes to existing procedural rules under section 446 for changes in methods of accounting are necessary or desirable as a result of removing § 1.451-5.

    Proposed Applicability Date

    The removal of these regulations would apply as of the date the Treasury decision adopting this notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal Register.

    Special Analyses

    This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations. Because the proposed regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are timely submitted to the IRS in the preamble under the ADDRESSES section. All comments submitted will be made available at www.regulations.gov for public inspection and copying.

    A public hearing will be scheduled, if requested, by any person who timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of this document is Joanna L. Trebat, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). Other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in its development.

    List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    26 CFR Part 602

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are proposed to be amended as follows:

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.381(c)(4)-1 is amended by revising the second sentence of paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 1.381(c)(4)-1 Method of accounting.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * * The installment method under section 453, the mark-to-market method under section 475, the amortization of bond premium under section 171, the percentage of completion method under section 460, the recurring item exception of § 1.461-5, and the income deferral method under section 455 are examples of special methods of accounting. * * *

    Par. 3. Section 1.382-7 is amended by revising the third sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1.382-7 Built in gains and losses.

    (a) * * * Examples to which this paragraph (a) will apply include, but are not limited to, income received prior to the change date that is deferred under section 455 or Rev. Proc. 2004-34 (2004-1 CB 991 (June 1, 2004)) (or any successor revenue procedure) (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b)).

    § 1.451-5 [Removed]
    Par. 4. Section 1.451-5 is removed.
    § 1.861-18 [Amended]
    Par. 5. Section 1.861-18 is amended in paragraph (i)(4) by: 1. Removing Example 2; 2. Designating Examples 1 and 3 as paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii), respectively; and 3. In the heading for newly designated paragraph (i)(4)(ii), removing “3” and adding “2” in its place.
    § 1.6655-0 [Amended]
    Par. 6. Section 1.6655-0 is amended by removing the entries for § 1.6655-2(f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(i)(A) and redesignating the entry for § 1.6655-2(f)(3)(i)(B) as § 1.6655-2(f)(3)(i).
    § 1.6655-2 [Amended]
    Par. 7. Section 1.6655-2 is amended by removing paragraphs (f)(3)(i) heading and (f)(3)(i)(A) and redesignating (f)(3)(i)(B) as (f)(3)(i). Par. 8. Section 1.6655-6 is amended in paragraph (c) by: 1. Revising the heading and introductory text; 2. Removing Example 1; 3. Designating Example 2 as paragraph (c)(1) and revising the heading of newly designated paragraph (c)(1); and 3. Adding a reserved paragraph (c)(2).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1.6655-6 Methods of accounting.

    (c) Example. The following example illustrates the rules of this section:

    (1)

    Example.

    * * *

    PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Par. 9. Add an authority citation for part 602 to read as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805.

    § 602.101 [Amended]
    Par. 10. Section 602.101 is amended by removing the entry for § 1.451-5 and the parenthetical authority citation at the end of the section. Kirsten Wielobob, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22025 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-104266-18] RIN 1545-BO12 Guidance Regarding the Transition Tax Under Section 965 and Related Provisions; Hearing AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to section 965 of the Internal Revenue Code as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was enacted on December 22, 2017.

    DATES:

    The public hearing is being held on Monday, October 22, 2018, at 10 a.m. The IRS must receive speakers' outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Tuesday, October 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present a valid photo identification to enter the building.

    Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-104226-18), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-104226-18), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-104226-18).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Leni C. Perkins (202) 317-6934; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-104226-18) that was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39514).

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by October 9, 2018, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by Tuesday, October 16, 2018.

    A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or by contacting the Publications and Regulations Branch at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).

    Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2018-22345 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter VI [Docket ID ED-2018-OPE-0076] RIN 1840-AD36, 1840-AD37, 1840-AD38, 1840-AD40, 1840-AD44 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Negotiator Nominations and Schedule of Committee Meetings—Accreditation and Innovation AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committee.

    SUMMARY:

    We announce our intention to establish one negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The committee will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the proposed regulations. We request nominations for individual negotiators who represent key stakeholder constituencies for the issues to be negotiated to serve on the committee, and we set a schedule for committee meetings. We also announce the creation of three subcommittees, and request nominations for individuals with pertinent expertise to participate on the subcommittees.

    DATES:

    We must receive your nominations for negotiators to serve on the committees on or before November 15, 2018. The dates, times and locations of the committee meetings are set out in the Schedule for Negotiations and Subcommittee Meetings section in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your nominations for negotiators to Aaron Washington, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 294-12, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 453-7241. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about the content of this document, including information about the negotiated rulemaking process or the nomination submission process, contact: Aaron Washington, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 294-12, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 453-7241. Email: [email protected]

    For information about negotiated rulemaking in general, see The Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title IV Regulations, Frequently Asked Questions at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg-reg-faq.html or contact: Aaron Washington, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 294-12, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 453-7241. Email: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 31, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 36814) an announcement of our intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee under section 492 of the HEA to develop proposed regulations related to a number of higher education practices and issues, including: (1) Accreditation; (2) distance learning and educational innovation; (3) TEACH grants; and (4) participation by faith-based educational entities.

    We also announced three public hearings at which interested parties could comment on the topics suggested by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) and suggest additional topics for consideration for action by the negotiated rulemaking committees. Those hearings took place on September 6, 2018 in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2018 in New Orleans, Louisiana, and on September 13, 2018 in Sturtevant, Wisconsin. We invited parties to comment and submit topics for consideration in writing as well. Transcripts from the public hearings are available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2018/index.html.

    Written comments submitted in response to the July 31, 2018, document may be viewed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Instructions for finding comments are available on the site under “How to Use Regulations.gov” in the “Help” section. Individuals can enter docket ID ED-2018-OPE-0076 in the search box to locate the appropriate docket.

    Regulatory Issues

    After considering the information received at the public hearings and the written comments, we have decided to establish a single Accreditation and Innovation negotiated rulemaking committee and three topic-based subcommittees to ensure sufficient representation of subject matter experts for each topic. We believe the addition of a TEACH Grants subcommittee, scheduling additional days for the committee meetings, and the use of redlined regulatory text as the starting point of negotiations instead of issue papers will address concerns raised by commenters and ensure proper attention to each topic.

    We list the specific topics the committee is likely to address under Committee Topics, below.

    We intend to select negotiators for the committee who represent the interests significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiations. In so doing, we will comply with the requirement in section 492(b)(1) of the HEA that the individuals selected must have demonstrated expertise or experience in the relevant topics proposed for negotiations. We will also select individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA. Our goal is to establish a committee that will allow significantly affected parties to be represented while keeping the committee size manageable.

    We generally select a primary and alternate negotiator for each constituency represented on a committee. The primary negotiator participates for the purpose of determining consensus. The alternate participates for the purpose of determining consensus in the absence of the primary. Only the primary negotiator may speak during the negotiations unless the primary negotiator is absent for the day or a significant portion of a day, in which case the alternate may speak during the negotiations.

    In addition, individuals who are not selected as members of the committee will be able to observe the committee meetings, will have access to the individuals representing their constituencies, and may be able to participate in informal working groups on various issues between the meetings.

    Committee Topics

    The Accreditation and Innovation Committee will address the Secretary's recognition of accrediting agencies and related institutional eligibility issues (34 CFR parts 602 and 600), as well as various technical corrections. The specific topics for negotiation will likely include:

    • Requirements for accrediting agencies in their oversight of member institutions and programs.

    • Criteria used by the Secretary to recognize accrediting agencies, emphasizing criteria that focus on educational quality and deemphasizing those that are anti-competitive.

    • Simplification of the Department's recognition and review of accrediting agencies.

    • Clarification of the core oversight responsibilities amongst each entity in the regulatory triad, including accrediting agencies, States, and the Department to hold institutions accountable.

    • Clarification of the permissible arrangements between an institution of higher education and another organization to provide a portion of an education program (34 CFR 668.5).

    • The roles and responsibilities of institutions and accrediting agencies in the teach-out process (34 CFR 600.32(d) and 602.24).

    • Elimination of regulations related to programs that have not been funded in many years.

    • Needed technical changes and corrections to program regulations that have been identified by the Department.

    As part of the negotiated rulemaking process, we are forming three subcommittees: The Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee; the Faith-Based Entities Subcommittee; and the TEACH Grants Subcommittee, to make recommendations to the committee. The committee will ultimately make determinations based on subcommittee recommendations, and committee discussions, on:

    • Regulatory changes required to ensure equitable treatment of brick-and-mortar and distance education programs; enable expansion of direct assessment programs, distance education, and competency-based education; and to clarify disclosure and other requirements of state authorization.

    • Protections to ensure that accreditors recognize and respect institutional mission, and evaluate an institution's policies and educational programs based on that mission; and remove barriers to the eligibility of faith-based entities to participate in the title IV, HEA programs.

    • TEACH Grant requirements and ways to reduce and correct the inadvertent conversion of grants to loans.

    1. The topics that the Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee is likely to address include, but are not limited to:

    • Simplification of State authorization requirements related to programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses, including disclosures about such programs to enrolled and prospective students and other State authorization issues (34 CFR 600.9 and 668.50).

    • The definition of “regular and substantive interaction,” as that term is used in the definitions of “correspondence course” and “distance education” (34 CFR 600.2, 600.7, and 668.10).

    • The definition of the term “credit hour” (34 CFR 600.2, 602.24 and 668.8).

    • The requirement that an institution demonstrates a reasonable relation between the length of a program and entry-level requirements for the recognized occupation for which the program prepares the student (34 CFR 668.8 (e)(1)(iii) and 668.14(b)(26)).

    • The barriers to innovation in postsecondary education and to student completion, graduation, or employment, including, but not limited to, regulatory barriers in the Department's institutional eligibility regulations and student assistance general provisions (34 CFR part 600 and 34 CFR part 668).

    • Direct assessment programs and competency-based education, focusing on the ability of institutions to develop, and students to progress through, innovative programs responsive to student, employer, and societal needs, including consideration of regulations that are barriers to implementation of such programs, such as certain requirements for term-based academic calendars and satisfactory academic progress.

    2. The topics that the TEACH Grants Subcommittee is likely to address include, but are not limited to: The simplification and clarification of TEACH Grant program requirements to minimize the inadvertent grant-to-loan conversions and to provide opportunities to correct erroneous conversions (34 CFR part 686).

    3. The topics that the Faith-Based Institutions Subcommittee is likely to address include, but are not limited to: Requirements for accrediting agencies to honor institutional mission and various provisions of the regulations regarding the eligibility of faith-based entities to participate in the title IV, HEA programs, including the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, and the eligibility of students to obtain certain benefits under those programs (34 CFR 600.11 and parts, 674, 675, 676, 682, 685, 690, 692, and 694).

    These subcommittees will address the specified issues and make recommendations to the committee. Subcommittees are not authorized to make decisions for the committee. The subcommittees may be comprised of some Accreditation and Innovation Committee members (negotiators) as well as individuals who are not committee members, but who have expertise that will be helpful in developing proposed regulations. Therefore, in addition to asking for nominations for individual negotiators who represent key stakeholder constituencies for issues to be negotiated to serve on the committee (see Constituencies for Negotiator Nominations), we are asking for nominations for individuals with specific types of expertise to serve on one of the three subcommittees (see Areas of Expertise for the Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee, Areas of Expertise for the Faith-Based Entities Subcommittee, and Areas of Expertise for the TEACH Grants Subcommittee). The subcommittees' meetings will be held between committee meetings (see Schedule for Negotiations and Subcommittee Meeting). Before the conclusion of the negotiations, each subcommittee will present any recommendations for regulatory changes to the Accreditation and Innovation Committee for its consideration. Only the committee has power to reach consensus on regulations.

    Constituencies for Negotiator Nominations

    We have identified the following constituencies as having interests that are significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiations. The Department plans to seat as negotiators individuals for organizations or groups representing these constituencies.

    Accreditation and Innovation Committee

    • Students.

    • Legal assistance organizations that represent students.

    • Financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.

    • National Accreditation Agencies.

    • Regional Accreditation Agencies.

    • Programmatic Accreditation Agencies.

    • Institutions of higher education primarily offering distance education.

    • Institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B and F, and title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA.

    • Two-year public institutions of higher education.

    • Four-year public institutions of higher education.

    • Faith-based institutions of higher education.

    • Private, nonprofit institutions of higher education.

    • Private, proprietary institutions of higher education.

    • Employers.

    • Veterans.

    The goal of the committee is to develop proposed regulations that reflect a final consensus of the committee. Consensus means that there is no dissent by any member of a negotiating committee, including the committee member representing the Department. However, the Department seeks consensus independently on the predetermined sets of topics addressed by each subcommittee and the committee. Although only the committee, not the subcommittees, can vote on consensus, the issues will be divided into groups by the Department and the committee will have an opportunity to vote on each.

    An individual selected as a negotiator is expected to represent the interests of his or her organization or group and participate in the negotiations in a manner consistent with the goal of developing proposed regulations on which the committee will reach consensus. If consensus is reached, all members of the organization or group represented by a negotiator are bound by the consensus and are prohibited from commenting negatively on the resulting proposed regulations. The Department will not consider any such negative comments on the proposed regulations that are submitted by a member of such an organization or group.

    Areas of Expertise for the Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee

    The Department plans to select individuals from organizations or groups with expertise in direct assessment programs, distance education, and competency-based education. The subcommittee will focus on the ability of institutions to develop, and students to progress through, innovative programs responsive to student, employer, and societal needs. This subcommittee could consider revisions to regulations that are barriers to implementation of such programs, including certain requirements for term-based academic calendars and satisfactory academic progress. Nominations must include evidence of the nominee's specific knowledge in these areas, citing specific topics outlined in the Committee Topics section. Such individuals from organizations or groups may include but are not limited to, representatives of:

    • Students.

    • Legal assistance organizations that represent students.

    • Private, nonprofit institutions of higher education, with knowledge of direct assessment programs and competency-based education.

    • Private, for-profit institutions of higher education, with knowledge of direct assessment programs and competency-based education.

    • Public institutions of higher education, with knowledge of direct assessment programs and competency-based education.

    • Accrediting agencies.

    • Associations or organizations that provide guidance to or represent institutions with direct assessment programs and competency-based education.

    • Financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.

    • Academic executive officers at postsecondary institutions.

    • Non-profit organizations supporting inter-State agreements related to State authorization of distance or correspondence education programs.

    • State higher education executives.

    Areas of Expertise for the Faith-Based Entities Subcommittee

    The Department plans to select individuals from organizations or groups with expertise in the eligibility of faith-based entities to participate in the title IV, HEA programs. These would include, but are not limited to, individuals with knowledge of the Federal Work Study programs, the title IV, HEA discretionary grant programs, accreditation, and other areas of the Department's postsecondary education regulations that contain specific provisions concerning faith-based entities. Nominations must include evidence of the nominee's specific knowledge in these areas. Such individuals from organizations or groups may include but are not limited to, representatives of:

    • Students.

    • Faith-based entities eligible for title IV, HEA programs.

    • Officers of institution-based Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program grantees.

    • Institutions of higher education with knowledge of faith-based entities' participation in the title IV, HEA programs.

    • Institutions of higher education with knowledge of faith-based entities' participation in the title IV, HEA programs and that are eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, Parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA.

    • Accrediting agencies.

    • Associations or organizations that focus on issues related to faith-based entities or the participation of faith-based entities in Federal programs.

    • Financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.

    Areas of Expertise for the TEACH Grants Subcommittee

    The Department plans to select individuals from organizations or groups with expertise in teacher education programs, student financial aid, and high-need teacher education programs. Nominations must include evidence of the nominee's specific knowledge in these areas. Such individuals from organizations or groups may include but are not limited to, representatives of:

    • Students who are or have been TEACH Grant recipients.

    • Legal assistance organizations that represent students.

    • Financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.

    • State primary and secondary education executive officers.

    • Institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH grants and that are eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, Parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA.

    • Two-year institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH grants.

    • Four-year institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH grants.

    • Organizations or associations that represent the interests of students who participate in title IV programs.

    • Organizations or associations that represent financial aid administrators.

    Nominations

    Nominations should include:

    • The committee or subcommittee for which the nominee is nominated.

    • The name of the nominee, the organization or group the nominee represents, and a description of the interest that the nominee represents.

    • Evidence of the nominee's expertise or experience in the topics proposed for negotiations.

    • The nominee's commitment that he or she will actively and respectfully participate in good faith in the development of the proposed regulations with the goal of reaching consensus and without disparaging other committee members, their organizations, or their motives.

    • The nominee's contact information, including address, telephone number, and email address.

    For a better understanding of the negotiated rulemaking process, prior to committing to participate, nominees should review The Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title IV Regulations, Frequently Asked Questions at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg-reg-faq.html.

    Nominees will be notified whether or not they have been selected as soon as the Department's review process is completed.

    Schedule for Negotiations and Subcommittee Meetings

    The Accreditation and Innovation Committee will meet for three sessions on the following dates:

    Session 1: January 14-16, 2019 Session 2: February 19-22, 2019 Session 3: March 25-28, 2019

    Sessions will run from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The January committee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The February committee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The March committee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The committee meetings are open to the public.

    The Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee will meet on the following dates:

    Meeting 1: January 17-18, 2019 Meeting 2: February 12-13, 2019 Meeting 3: March 11-12, 2019

    Meetings will run from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The January subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The February subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The March subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The subcommittee meetings will be made available through a Department-provided livestream.

    The Faith-Based Entities Subcommittee will meet on the following dates:

    Meeting 1: January 17-18, 2019 Meeting 2: February 12-13, 2019 Meeting 3: March 11-12, 2019

    Meetings will run from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The January subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The February subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The March subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The subcommittee meetings will be made available through a Department-provided livestream.

    The TEACH Grants Subcommittee will meet on the following dates:

    Meeting 1: January 17-18, 2019 Meeting 2: February 12-13, 2019 Meeting 3: March 11-12, 2019

    Meetings will run from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The January subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The February subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The March subcommittee meetings will be held at a location in the Washington, DC area to be determined.

    The subcommittee meetings will be made available through a Department-provided livestream.

    The Department will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register announcing the locations of each meeting.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting Aaron Washington, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 294-12, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 453-7241. Email: [email protected]

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Documents Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents publish by the Department.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1098a.

    Dated: October 11, 2018. Michael Brickman, Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary, Delegated the Duties and Responsibilities of the Principal Deputy Under Secretary, Delegated to Perform the Duties of Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22506 Filed 10-11-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0366; FRL-9984-72] RIN 2070-AB27 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of August 1, 2018 (FRL-9981-16) for significant new use rules (SNURs) for 145 chemical substances. This document reopens the comment period for the proposed rule until November 14, 2018. EPA is reopening the comment period because it received a request to extend the comment period but the request was received too late to publish an extension of the comment period before the comment period expired.

    DATES:

    Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0366 must be received on or before November 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of August 1, 2018 (83 FR 37455) (FRL-9981-16).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; 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:

    This document reopens the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of August 1, 2018. In that document, EPA proposed SNURs for 145 chemical substances. EPA received a request to extend the comment period for 30 days but the request was received too late to publish an extension of the comment period before the comment period expired. EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 30 days.

    Note that in the August 1, 2018 issue of the Federal Register including the proposed SNURs for 145 chemical substances, the Agency also issued direct final SNURs for these chemical substances (83 FR 37702) (FRL-9970-23); that action was withdrawn on September 26, 2018 (83 FR 48546) (FRL-9983-72) before it became effective because of the receipt of negative comments. EPA will address all adverse public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of August 1, 2018. If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 5, 2018. Tala R. Henry, Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22399 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0414; FRL-9984-69] RIN 2070-AB27 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of August 17, 2018 for significant new use rules (SNURs) for 27 chemical substances. EPA is reopening the comment period because it received a request to extend the comment period but the request was received too late to publish an extension of the comment period before the comment period expired.

    DATES:

    This document reopens the comment period for the proposed rule until October 30, 2018. Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0414 must be received on or before October 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41039) (FRL-9981-82).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; 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:

    This document reopens the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41039) (FRL-9981-82). That document proposed SNURs for 27 chemical substances. EPA received a request to extend the comment period for 15 days but the request was received too late to publish an extension of the comment period before the comment period expired. EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 15 days.

    Note that in the August 17, 2018 issue of the Federal Register including the proposed SNURs for 27 chemical substances, the Agency also issued direct final SNURs for these chemical substances (83 FR 40986) (FRL-9971-37). As of the date of signature of this action to reopen the comment period on the proposed rule, that direct final rule was in the process of being withdrawn because of the receipt of negative comments. EPA will address all adverse public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41039) (FRL-9981-82). If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 5, 2018. Tala R. Henry, Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22400 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 05-311; FCC 18-131] Implementation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission seeks comment on two cable franchising issues raised by the remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Montgomery County, Md. et al. v. FCC. The Commission tentatively concludes that, with limited exceptions, “cable-related, in-kind contributions” required by a franchising agreement should be treated as “franchise fees” subject to the statutory five percent cap on franchise fees set forth in Communications Act. It also tentatively concludes that the mixed-use network ruling should be applied to incumbent cable operators to prohibit LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate the provision of most non-cable services, including telecommunications services and information services such as broadband internet access service, offered over a cable system by an incumbent cable operator. These tentative conclusions are intended to promote competition by fostering parity between incumbents and new entrants and helping to ensure that local franchising requirements do not discourage cable operators from investing in new facilities and services.

    DATES:

    Comments for this proceeding are due on or before November 14, 2018; reply comments are due on or before December 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 05-311, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information, contact Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7454.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-131, adopted on September 24, 2018 and released on September 25, 2018. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    This Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain any proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.

    Synopsis I. Introduction

    1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM), we address two issues raised by the remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Montgomery County, Md. et al. v. FCC, which addressed challenges to rules and guidance adopted by the Commission governing how local franchising authorities (LFAs) may regulate incumbent cable operators and cable television services. Specifically, we tentatively conclude that we should treat cable-related, “in-kind” contributions required by a franchising agreement as “franchise fees” subject to the statutory five percent cap on franchise fees set forth in section 622 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), with limited exceptions. We also tentatively conclude that we should apply our prior mixed-use network ruling to incumbent cable operators, thus prohibiting LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate the provision of most non-cable services, such as broadband internet access service, offered over a cable system by an incumbent cable operator. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions, which we believe faithfully interpret relevant statutory provisions and will promote competition by fostering parity between incumbents and new entrants and helping to ensure that local franchising requirements do not discourage cable operators from investing in new facilities and services. We also seek comment on whether the proposals and tentative conclusions discussed in this Second FNPRM, as well as prior Commission decisions in this proceeding addressing LFA regulation of cable operators, should be applied to state-level franchising actions and state regulations that impose requirements on local franchising.

    II. Background

    2. Any entity seeking to offer “cable service” as a “cable operator” must comply with the cable franchising provisions of Title VI of the Communications Act. Section 621(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a cable operator from providing cable service without first obtaining a cable franchise. Section 621(a)(1) circumscribes the power of LFAs to award or deny such franchises. As originally enacted by Congress as part of the 1984 Cable Act, section 621(a)(1) simply stated that “[a] franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction.” In a 1990 Report to Congress, however, the Commission concluded that in order “[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video marketplace, the Congress should . . . forbid local franchising authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service.” In response to this Report, Congress revised section 621(a)(1) in 1992 to provide that “[a] franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.”

    3. In 2007, finding that the existing operation of the local franchising process constituted an unreasonable barrier to new entrants in the marketplace for cable services and to their deployment of broadband, the Commission issued the First Report and Order, which adopted new rules and guidance to implement section 621(a)(1). The Commission concluded that section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only the ultimate unreasonable denial of a competitive franchise application, but also the establishment by LFAs of procedures and other requirements that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise. To eliminate unreasonable barriers to entry into the marketplace for cable services and to encourage investment by new video entrants in broadband facilities, the Commission adopted rules and guidance construing the meaning of “unreasonable” for purposes of section 621(a)(1), including rules and guidance governing the treatment of certain costs and fees charged to new entrants into the marketplace for cable services and the regulation of new entrants' “mixed-use” networks (i.e., facilities used to provide both cable services and non-cable services).

    4. With respect to costs and fees, the Commission determined that unless certain specified costs, fees, and other compensation required by LFAs are counted toward the statutory five percent cap on franchise fees, an LFA's demand for such fees could result in an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise to a new entrant. Under section 622(b) of the Act, the amount of franchise fees that an LFA may collect from a cable operator for any twelve-month period is limited to five percent of the cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services. Section 622(g)(2) sets forth certain exclusions from the term “franchise fee.” In particular, section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes “requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages.” Such “incidental” requirements or charges may be assessed by an LFA without counting toward the five percent cap. The Commission concluded that, with respect to franchise agreements for new entrants, non-incidental franchise-related costs required by LFAs must count toward the five percent franchise fee cap and provided guidance as to what constitutes such non-incidental franchise-related costs. The Commission found that non-incidental costs include attorney fees and consultant fees, application or processing fees that exceed the reasonable cost of processing the application, acceptance fees, free or discounted services provided to an LFA, any requirement to lease or purchase equipment from an LFA at prices higher than market value, and in-kind payments.

    5. The Commission further found that in the context of some franchise negotiations, LFAs have required from new entrants “in-kind” payments or contributions that are unrelated to the provision of cable services. The Commission clarified that any requests for in-kind contributions made by LFAs unrelated to the provision of cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap.

    6. Additionally, the Commission clarified that a cable operator may not be required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services. As noted above, section 622(b) provides that the “franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services.” The Commission noted that it had determined in the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling that an LFA may not assess franchise fees on non-cable services, such as cable modem service, stating that “revenue from cable modem service would not be included in the calculation of gross revenues from which the franchise fee ceiling is determined.” Although that decision related specifically to internet access service revenues, the Commission concluded that the same would be true for other “non-cable” service revenues.

    7. Regarding mixed-use networks (i.e., networks that provide broadband, voice services, and other non-cable services in addition to video programming services), the Commission clarified that LFAs' jurisdiction applies only to the provision of video programming services over new entrants' cable systems. To the extent that a new entrant provides non-cable services and/or operates facilities that do not qualify as a cable system, the Commission concluded that it is unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a franchise based on issues related to such services or facilities. The Commission further clarified that an LFA may not use its video franchising authority to attempt to regulate a new entrant's entire network beyond the provision of cable services. The Commission found that “the provision of video services pursuant to a cable franchise does not provide a basis for customer service regulation by local law or franchise agreement of a cable operator's entire network, or any services beyond cable services.” The Commission based its decision on the common carrier exception to the definition of “cable system” in section 602(7)(C) of the Act, which explicitly states that a common carrier facility subject to Title II is considered a cable system only “to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming. . . .” The Commission preempted local regulations that attempt to regulate any non-cable services offered by new entrants, finding that such regulations are beyond the scope of LFAs' authority and inconsistent with section 602(7)(C).

    8. The rules adopted in the First Report and Order applied only to new entrants applying for cable franchises. Concurrently with its adoption of those rules, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on whether to apply the findings in the First Report and Order to incumbent cable operators as they negotiate renewal of their existing franchise agreements, noting that many of these findings also appeared germane to existing franchisees.

    9. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission extended a number of the rules adopted in the First Report and Order to incumbent cable operators. The Commission concluded that the findings in the First Report and Order interpreting section 622 should apply equally to incumbents and new entrants because Section 622 “does not distinguish between incumbent providers and new entrants.” Thus, the Commission found that in-kind contributions are not to be regarded as “incidental” and therefore must count toward the five percent franchise fee cap for incumbent cable operators. The Commission further found that the clarification that a cable operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services applies to incumbent cable operators. The Commission also determined that its findings on mixed-use networks provided in the First Report and Order should apply equally to incumbents and new entrants, noting that these findings relied on its statutory interpretation of “cable system” in section 602(7)(C), which “does not distinguish between incumbent providers and new entrants.” The Commission thus clarified that LFAs' jurisdiction over incumbent cable operators applies only to the provision of cable services over cable systems and that an LFA may not use its franchising authority to regulate non-cable services offered by incumbent cable operators.

    10. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued a decision rejecting LFA challenges to the First Report and Order. With respect to franchise fees charged to new entrants, the court upheld the Commission's listing of the non-incidental charges that fall within the purview of the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, which includes in-kind payments. The court found that the Commission's interpretation of the phrase “incidental to” in section 622(g)(2)(D) of the Act was reasonable and therefore was entitled to deference under Chevron.

    11. In 2015, the Commission issued an order responding to several LFA petitions for reconsideration of the Second Report and Order. LFAs challenged the inclusion of in-kind payments in calculating the franchise fee cap for incumbent cable operators, arguing that the Commission's findings in the Second Report and Order give an overly expansive scope to section 622(g)(2)(D) and expanded the definition of in-kind payments set forth in the First Report and Order. The Commission disagreed, finding that the Second Report and Order merely extended the First Report and Order's conclusions regarding application of the term “incidental” in section 622(g)(2)(D) to incumbent cable operators. The Commission also rejected LFAs' arguments that the First Report and Order included in the franchise fee cap only in-kind payments that are unrelated to cable service, not in-kind payments that are related to cable service. The Commission observed that in a section entitled “Charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a franchise,” the First Report and Order identified “free or discounted services provided to an LFA” as one type of “non-incidental” cost that counted toward the franchise fee cap. The Commission explained that in that context, the First Report and Order was referring to free or discounted cable services. The Commission further found that consistent with the First Report and Order, the Second Report and Order noted that non-incidental in-kind payments must count toward the five percent franchise fee cap for incumbent cable operators and did not expressly limit this requirement to in-kind payments that are unrelated to cable service.

    12. The Order on Reconsideration also declined to modify the conclusions in the Second Report and Order regarding mixed-use networks. The Commission observed that the Second Report and Order extended the Commission's findings on mixed-use networks to incumbent cable operators, clarifying that LFAs' jurisdiction over incumbent cable operators is limited to the provision of cable services over cable systems and that LFAs may not use their franchising authority to regulate non-cable services provided by incumbent cable operators. The Commission rejected the LFAs' argument that the legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act indicates that they have authority over cable systems in their provision of non-cable services, explaining that while the legislative history discusses what constitutes a cable service, it does not address whether localities may regulate non-cable services provided over cable systems.

    13. In Montgomery County, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed challenges by LFAs to the Second Report and Order and the Order on Reconsideration. The court rejected LFA arguments that non-cash exactions are not “franchise fees” as defined by section 622(g)(1), noting that section 622(g)(1) defines “franchise fee” to include “any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind” and that the terms “tax” and “assessment” can include nonmonetary exactions. The court found, however, that the fact that the term “franchise fee” can include in-kind contributions “does not mean that it necessarily does include every one of them.” The court concluded that the Commission failed to offer any explanation in the Second Report and Order or in the Order on Reconsideration as to why section 622(g)(1) allows it to treat cable-related, “in-kind” exactions as franchise fees. LFAs had claimed that the Commission's interpretation would limit their ability to enforce statutory requirements for PEG channel capacity and for build-out obligations in low-income areas, and the court noted that the Commission's orders did not reflect any consideration of this LFA concern. The court also stated that the FCC failed to define what “in-kind” means. The court therefore vacated as arbitrary and capricious the Second Report and Order and the Order on Reconsideration to the extent that they treat cable-related, “in-kind” exactions as “franchise fees” under section 622(g)(1). The court directed the Commission to determine and explain on remand to what extent cable-related, in-kind contributions are “franchise fees” under the Act.

    14. The court in Montgomery County also agreed with LFAs that neither the Second Report and Order nor the Order on Reconsideration offer a valid statutory basis for the application of the mixed-use ruling to bar LFAs from regulating the provision of non-telecommunications services by incumbent cable operators. (The court noted that the LFAs' primary concern with the mixed-use ruling is that it would prevent them from regulating “institutional networks” or “I-Nets”—communication networks which are constructed or operated by the cable operator and which are generally available only to subscribers who are not residential customers—even though the Act makes clear that LFAs may regulate I-Nets. The court observed, however, that the Commission acknowledged that its mixed-use ruling was not meant to prevent LFAs from regulating I-Nets.) The court stated that the Commission's decision in the First Report and Order to apply the mixed-use ruling to new entrants had been defensible because section 602(7)(C) of the Act expressly states that LFAs may regulate Title II carriers only to the extent that they provide cable services and the Commission found that new entrants generally are Title II carriers. The court observed that in extending the mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable operators in the Second Report and Order, the Commission merely relied on the First Report and Order's interpretation of section 602(7)(C), noting that section 602(7)(C) “does not distinguish between incumbent providers and new entrants.” The court found, however, that this reasoning is not an affirmative basis for the Commission's decision in the Second Report and Order to apply the mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable operators because section 602(7)(C) by its terms applies only to Title II carriers and “many incumbent cable operators are not Title II carriers.” The court further found that the Order on Reconsideration did not offer any statutory explanation for the Commission's decision to extend the mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable operators. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Commission's extension of the mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable operators that are not common carriers was arbitrary and capricious. The court vacated the mixed-use ruling as applied to those incumbent cable operators and remanded for the Commission “to set forth a valid statutory basis, if there is one, for the rule as so applied.”

    15. As we address the court's remand in this proceeding, we view the proposals discussed below as part of the Commission's larger, ongoing effort to reduce regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment. For example, the Commission's open wireline and wireless infrastructure proceedings have advanced a number of regulatory reforms to spur wireline and wireless service deployment, and additional reforms remain under consideration for future Commission action. In the wireline proceeding, the Commission has already enacted numerous reforms to our rules and procedures regarding pole attachments, copper retirement, and discontinuances of legacy services that will better enable providers to invest in next-generation networks. In the wireless proceeding, to enable and to speed the deployment of advanced wireless services throughout the United States, we revised the rules and procedures for deployments subject to the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act. We also made changes to the historic preservation review requirement for replacement utility poles, and have sought comment on a proposal that would make existing infrastructure available for additional wireless deployments on towers that previously have been unavailable. Similarly, with this item, we seek to faithfully interpret the statutory provisions at issue in a way that preserves incentives for all cable operators to deploy infrastructure that can be used to provide numerous services, including video, voice, and broadband internet access service, to consumers.

    III. Discussion A. Cable-Related, In-Kind Contributions

    16. We tentatively conclude that we should treat cable-related, in-kind contributions required by LFAs from cable operators as a condition or requirement of a franchise agreement as “franchise fees” subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap set forth in section 622 of the Act, with limited exceptions as described below. We tentatively conclude that this interpretation is most consistent with the statutory language and legislative history and seek comment on our analysis.

    17. Section 622(b) directs that “the franchise fees paid by a cable operator” for any 12-month period “shall not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues.” Section 622(g)(1) defines “franchise fee” broadly to include “any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable operator . . . solely because of their status as such.” The court in Montgomery County acknowledged that the term “franchise fee” can include in-kind contributions, but stated that further explanation was necessary in order for the Commission to conclude that cable-related, in-kind contributions are covered within the definition. We note that the broad definition of “franchise fee” in the statute covers “any kind” of tax, fee, or assessment, without distinguishing between whether it is related or unrelated to the provision of cable service. The legislative history, in discussing the definition of “franchise fee,” likewise suggests no such distinction was intended by Congress. The court's decision in Montgomery County did not disturb the Commission's treatment of in-kind contributions unrelated to the provision of cable services as franchise fees subject to the statutory five percent cap. We see no basis in the statute or legislative history for distinguishing between in-kind contributions unrelated to the provision of cable services and cable-related, in-kind contributions for purposes of the five percent franchise fee cap. If in-kind contributions unrelated to the provision of cable services were not treated as franchise fees, LFAs could easily evade the five percent cap by requiring any manner of in-kind contributions, rather than a monetary fee. Likewise, if cable-related, in-kind contributions are not counted as franchise fees, LFAs could circumvent the five percent cap by requiring, for example, unlimited free or discounted cable services and facilities for LFAs, in addition to a five percent franchise fee. We believe this result would be contrary to Congress's intent as reflected in the broad definition of “franchise fee” in the statute. We seek comment on this analysis.

    18. Section 622(g)(2) sets forth five exclusions from the term “franchise fee.” To begin with, section 622(g)(2)(A) excludes “any tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability.” The legislative history explains that a tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability includes “such payments as a general sales tax, an entertainment tax imposed on other entertainment businesses as well as the cable operator, and utility taxes or utility user taxes.” By definition, a tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability does not cover cable-related, in-kind contributions. Thus, we tentatively conclude the exclusion set forth in subsection (A) is not applicable here. Additionally, section 622(g)(2)(E) excludes fees imposed under the Copyright Act under title 17, United States Code, and thus does not appear to apply to cable-related, in-kind contributions. Furthermore, section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes “requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages.” Although the statute does not define the term “incidental,” based on the interpretive canon of noscitur a sociis, the exemplary list delineated within the text of the provision—i.e., “bonds,” “security funds,” “letters of credit, “insurance,” “indemnification,” “penalties,” and “liquidated damages”—suggests that the term refers to costs or requirements related to assuring that a cable operator is financially and legally qualified to operate a cable system, not to cable-related, in-kind contributions. The legislative history similarly explains that a “franchise fee is defined so as not to include any bonds, security funds, or other incidental requirements for costs necessary to the enforcement of the franchise.” The court in Alliance upheld the Commission's determination that under section 622(g)(2)(D), the term “incidental” is “limited to the list of incidentals in the statutory provision, as well as other minor expenses.” The Commission has determined that non-incidental costs required by LFAs must count toward the five percent franchise fee cap. The First Report and Order listed various examples of non-incidental costs, including in-kind payments unrelated to provision of cable service. For the reasons stated above, we tentatively conclude that cable-related, in-kind contributions, such as free or discounted cable services demanded by an LFA, likewise do not qualify as “incidental” charges under the exclusion in subsection (D). We seek comment on this analysis.

    19. Additionally, section 622(g)(2)(B) contains an exclusion for PEG support payments, but only with respect to franchises granted prior to 1984. To the extent that any such franchises are still in effect, we tentatively conclude that under section 622(g)(2)(B), PEG support payments made pursuant to such franchises are cable-related, in-kind contributions excluded from the five percent franchise fee cap. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Finally, for any franchise granted after 1984, section 622(g)(2)(C) contains a narrow exclusion covering PEG “capital costs which are required by the franchise.” The legislative history explains that with “regard[ ] [to] PEG access in new franchises, payments for capital costs required by the franchise to be made by the cable operator are not defined as fees under this provision.” The court in Alliance affirmed the Commission's interpretation of the exemption in section 622(g)(2)(C) as being limited to “those costs incurred in or associated with the construction of PEG access facilities.” Accordingly, under the statute, for purposes of franchises granted after 1984, we tentatively conclude that PEG capital costs required by the franchise are in-kind, cable-related contributions excluded from the five percent cap. We seek comment on the above analysis. We also understand that costs for studio equipment are treated as capital costs for purposes of section 622(g)(2)(C) by both cable operators and LFAs given that most PEG facilities are already constructed. We seek comment on this practice.

    20. We tentatively conclude that treating cable-related, in-kind contributions as “franchise fees” would not undermine provisions in the Act that authorize or require LFAs to impose cable-related obligations on franchisees. We note, in this regard, that the Act authorizes LFAs to require that channel capacity be designated for PEG use and that channel capacity on I-Nets be designated for educational and governmental use. The fact that the Act authorizes LFAs to impose such obligations does not, however, mean that the value of these obligations should be excluded from the five percent cap on franchise fees. Indeed, the statute suggests otherwise. Section 622(g)(2) carves out only limited exclusions for PEG-related costs—i.e., PEG support payments required by any franchise granted prior to 1984 and PEG capital costs required by any franchise granted after 1984. Section 622(g)(2) makes no mention of an I-Net-related exclusion, nor does it contain a general exclusion for all PEG related costs. Since Congress enacted the PEG and I-Net provisions at the same time it added the franchise fee provisions, it could have explicitly excluded those costs in addressing the scope of the PEG-related costs in that subsection if it had intended they not count toward the cap. Based on this, we tentatively find that treating all cable-related, in-kind contributions as “franchise fees,” unless expressly excluded by the statute, would best effectuate the statutory purpose. To the extent that an LFA wishes to impose such obligations, the LFA can count the value of the services or facilities towards the cable operator's franchise fee payment, if the services or facilities are not exempt from the franchise fee cap in section 622(g)(2). In our view, an LFA should not be permitted to make an end run around the statutory cap by requiring a cable operator to pay franchise fees equal to five percent of its gross revenues for cable services and also assume the costs of cable-related, in-kind contributions. We seek comment on this view.

    21. LFAs have previously suggested that our proposed interpretation would treat as franchise fees all costs related to franchise requirements, even those allowed under the Cable Act. We disagree. For example, the Act directs LFAs “to assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides,” a mandate which may cause LFAs to impose build-out obligations on cable operators. Although these obligations are not free for cable operators, we do not propose to interpret build-out obligations as contributions to the LFA. Because build-out obligations (unlike I-Net facilities) involve the construction of facilities that are not specifically for the use or benefit of the LFA or any other entity designated by the LFA, but rather are part of the provision of cable service in the franchise area and the facilities ultimately may result in profit to the cable operator, we do not think they should be considered contributions to an LFA. Under this approach, the cost that these obligations impose on cable operators would not count toward the five-percent franchise fee cap. We seek comment on this proposed interpretation. We also seek comment on whether there are other requirements besides build-out obligations that are not specifically for the use or benefit of the LFA or an entity designated the LFA and therefore should not be considered contributions to an LFA.

    22. Additionally, we tentatively conclude that this treatment of cable-related, in-kind contributions should be applied to both new entrants and incumbent cable operators. As discussed above, in adopting rules and guidance implementing section 621(a)(1), including rules governing the treatment of certain costs and fees charged by LFAs, the Commission found that the existing operation of the local franchising process constituted an unreasonable barrier to new entrants in the marketplace for cable services and to their deployment of broadband. Specifically, the Commission found that the local franchising process unreasonably delays new entrants from upgrading their networks to provide video services, which discourages investment in the fiber-based infrastructure necessary for the provision of broadband services by depriving new entrants of revenues needed to offset the costs of such deployment. We acknowledge that this distinguishes new entrants from incumbent cable operators, who have already deployed their infrastructure for both video and broadband. Nevertheless, we believe that applying the same treatment of cable-related, in-kind contributions to both new entrants and incumbent cable operators would ensure a more level playing field and that the Commission should not place its thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any competitor. Moreover, as the Commission has previously observed, Section 622 “does not distinguish between incumbent providers and new entrants.” We seek comment on this proposal.

    23. We seek comment on the effect, if any, that our statutory interpretation would have on LFAs' ability to impose cable-related, in-kind obligations on new entrants and incumbents consistent with the statutory provisions described above. To the extent that commenters assert that it would unreasonably hamper LFAs' ability to impose such obligations, we request that they provide specific cost data or other information to support their position. Conversely, what effect, if any, would excluding cable-related, in-kind contributions from “franchise fees” (i.e., allowing LFAs to seek unlimited cable-related, in-kind contributions on top of the five percent franchise fee permitted by section 622) have on new entrants and incumbents? Would such exclusion likely delay or deter infrastructure investment by new competitors? Would it affect incumbent cable operators' ability to invest in new facilities and services, including improving broadband services? We also seek comment on the costs and benefits to consumers of our proposed treatment of cable-related, in-kind contributions.

    24. We propose to define “cable-related, in-kind contributions” to include “any non-monetary contributions related to the provision of cable services provided by cable operators as a condition or requirement of a local franchise agreement, including but not limited to free or discounted cable services and the use of cable facilities or equipment. It does not include the cost of build-out requirements.” Under this proposed definition, cable-related, in-kind contributions would not have to be provided directly to the LFA to be subject to the statutory five percent cap; rather, any cable-related, in-kind contributions provided to the LFA or any other entity designated by the LFA as a condition or requirement of a franchise agreement would be subject to the cap, if not expressly exempt under section 622(g)(2). We seek comment on this proposed definition. We request commenters to provide examples of the types of cable-related, “in-kind” contributions that have been or are being required by LFAs. We further propose that cable-related, in-kind contributions be valued for purposes of the franchise fee cap at their fair market value. We seek comment on this proposal, and how such a market valuation should be performed. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether cable-related, in-kind contributions should be valued at the cost to the cable operator.

    B. Mixed-Use Networks

    25. We tentatively conclude that the mixed-use network ruling should be applied to incumbent cable operators to the extent that they offer or begin offering non-cable services. Thus, we propose to prohibit LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate most non-cable services offered over cable systems by incumbent cable operators. Non-cable services offered by incumbent cable operators include telecommunications services and non-telecommunications services. Telecommunications services offered by incumbent cable operators may include, for example, some business data services. Non-telecommunications services offered by incumbent cable operators may include information services, such as broadband internet access services, and private carrier services, such as certain types of business data services. Incumbent cable operators may also offer facilities-based interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) service, which has not been classified by the Commission as either a telecommunications service or an information service but is clearly not a cable service. We seek comment on whether there are other services offered by incumbent cable operators that are not listed above that are relevant to our analysis.

    26. As an initial matter, we note that the court in Montgomery County vacated the mixed-use rule only as applied to incumbent cable operators that are not common carriers. The court, however, appears to have left undisturbed application of the mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable operators that are also common carriers. As explained above, some incumbent cable operators provide telecommunications services over their facilities. Under section 3(51) of the Act, a “provider of telecommunications services” is a “telecommunications carrier,” which the statute directs “shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” Thus, an incumbent cable operator, to the extent it offers telecommunications service, would be treated as a common carrier subject to Title II of the Act. Section 602(7)(C) of the Act, in turn, excludes from the term “cable system” “a facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of title II of this Act, except that such facility shall be considered a cable system . . . to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of [cable service].” Accordingly, to the extent that any incumbent cable operators offer any telecommunications services, we tentatively conclude that they are covered under the common carrier exception in section 602(7)(C), and thus can be regulated by LFAs only to the extent they provide cable service. Although we recognize that there are distinctions between the obstacles faced by new entrants and incumbent cable operators, we see no basis in the statute to treat differently incumbent cable operators that are common carriers and new entrants that are common carriers for purposes of application of the common carrier exception. We thus tentatively conclude that the mixed-use network ruling prohibits LFAs from regulating the provision of any services other than cable services offered over the cable systems of incumbent cable operators that are common carriers, or from regulating any facilities and equipment used in the provision of any services other than cable services offered over the cable systems of incumbent cable operators that are common carriers (with the exception of I-Nets, as noted above). We seek comment on this analysis and the tentative conclusions.

    27. In addition, we seek comment on LFAs' authority to regulate the provision of non-cable services by incumbent cable operators that are not also common carriers. We also seek comment on LFAs' authority to regulate a non-common carrier new entrant's provision of information services. We request information on the extent to which incumbent cable operators are not also common carriers. Are the incumbent cable operators that are also common carriers mostly the largest incumbent cable operators? Regarding non-cable services provided by incumbent cable operators that are not common carriers, we tentatively conclude that section 624(b) of the Act prohibits LFAs from using their franchising authority to regulate the provision of information services, including broadband internet access service. Under section 624(b), LFAs “may not . . . establish requirements for video programming or other information services.” Section 624 does not define the term “information services,” but the “definitions” section of the legislative history distinguishes “information service” from “cable service.” The House Report states that “[a]ll services offered by a cable system that go beyond providing generally-available video programming or other programming are not cable services” and “a cable service may not include `active information services' such as at-home shopping and banking that allow transactions between subscribers and cable operators or third parties.” We also find significant that the description of “information services” contained in the 1984 Cable Act's legislative history—i.e., “services providing subscribers with the capacity to engage in transactions or to store, transfer, forward, manipulate, or otherwise process information or data [which] would not be cable services”—corresponds closely to the 1996 Telecommunications Act's definition of “information service” contained in section 3(24) of the Act—i.e., “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications.” For all the reasons stated above, we believe that for purposes of section 624(b), interpreting “information services” to have the meaning set forth in section 3(24) of the Act would best reflect Congressional intent. We further note that the Commission recently reinstated the “information service” classification of broadband internet access service. We seek comment on this analysis.

    28. Based on the above analysis, we tentatively conclude that the statute also bars LFAs from regulating the provision of broadband internet access and other information services by incumbent cable operators that are not common carriers. Although section 624(b)(2)(B) allows franchising authorities to enforce requirements for “broad categories of video programming or other services,” when read in light of Section 624(b)(1) and the legislative history, we believe that Congress intended to bar LFAs from regulating information services. We further note that under section 624(b), “the franchising authority, to the extent related to the establishment or operation of a cable system . . . may establish requirements for facilities and equipment.” In light of our tentative finding that section 624(b)(1) bars LFAs from regulating information services, we do not believe this provision authorizes LFAs to regulate facilities or equipment to the extent they are used to provide such services, including broadband internet access service. We seek comment on this interpretation and our tentative conclusion. Would such an interpretation best effectuate the statutory purpose? We also seek comment on the extent to which LFAs currently attempt to regulate the provision of information services by incumbent cable operators or the facilities and equipment used in the provision of such services. Do LFAs require incumbent cable operators to obtain a separate franchise or pay franchise fees in connection with their provision of broadband internet access or other information services, and if so, what are the circumstances and rationale for such requirements? What other franchise requirements do LFAs impose on information services provided by incumbent cable operators? What effect, if any, do such franchise requirements have on the deployment of new information services, including broadband internet access service?

    29. In any event, we believe that LFA regulation of such services would be inconsistent with longstanding federal policy. The Commission has previously concluded that broadband internet access service is “a jurisdictionally interstate service because `a substantial portion of internet traffic involves accessing interstate or foreign websites.'” Therefore, we tentatively conclude that LFAs may not regulate such interstate services and that doing so would frustrate the light-touch information service framework established by Congress that the Commission has previously found necessary to promote investment and innovation. In the Restoring internet Freedom Order, the Commission concluded that “regulation of broadband internet access service should be governed principally by a uniform set of federal regulations, rather than by a patchwork that includes separate state and local requirements.” The Commission found that allowing state and local governments to regulate broadband internet access service could disrupt the procompetitive, deregulatory goals of the federal regulatory regime and impair the provision of broadband internet access service by requiring each provider to comply with a patchwork of separate and potentially conflicting requirements across all of the different jurisdictions in which it operates. The Commission therefore preempted any state or local measures that would impose rules or requirements that it had repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in that order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service addressed in that order. Among other things, the Commission expressly preempted any “economic” or “public utility-type” regulations, including entry and exit restrictions. For similar reasons, we tentatively conclude that entry and exit restrictions include a requirement that an incumbent cable operator obtain a franchise to provide broadband internet access service and that LFAs therefore are expressly preempted from requiring incumbent cable operators to obtain franchises to provide broadband internet access service. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether there are other regulations imposed by LFAs on incumbent cable operators' provision of broadband internet access service that should be considered entry and exit restrictions, or other types of economic or public utility-type regulations, preempted by the Commission.

    30. Moreover, we tentatively conclude that it would be contrary to the goals of the Communications Act to permit LFAs to treat incumbent cable operators that are not also common carriers differently than incumbent cable operators and new entrants that are also common carriers in their provision of information services, including broadband internet access services. Incumbent cable operators and new entrants (whether they are common carriers or non-common carriers) often compete against each other in the same markets, and often provide nearly identical services to consumers. Thus, to regulate incumbent cable operators that are not also common carriers more strictly, by permitting LFAs to place franchise requirements on their non-cable services and assess fees on these services, could put these incumbents at a competitive disadvantage that section 621 was intended to avoid. This competitive disadvantage could impact not only the incumbents' provision of broadband internet access and other information services, but also their provision of cable services. Such a result could ultimately have a negative impact on consumers, thereby undermining the goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Act to “promote competition” across communications providers and “to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers” by reducing regulation. We seek comment on this analysis. We believe these same concerns would apply to new entrants that are not common carriers and seek comment on this analysis with respect to such entities.

    31. Finally, we seek comment on whether there are any other statutory provisions that relate to the authority of LFAs to regulate the provision of non-cable services offered over a cable system by an incumbent cable operator or the facilities and equipment used in the provision of such services. For example, NCTA cites several additional provisions in support of its assertion that the Commission should apply the mixed-use network ruling to incumbent cable operators: Section 621(a)(2) of the Act; Section 622 of the Act; Section 624(e) of the Act; Section 230(b) of the Act; and Section 253 of the Act. We seek comment on the extent to which these and any other relevant statutory provisions relate to the authority of LFAs to regulate the provision of non-cable services offered over a cable system by an incumbent cable operator.

    C. State Franchising Regulations

    32. We seek comment on whether to apply the proposals and tentative conclusions set forth herein, as well as the Commission's decisions in the First Report and Order and Second Report and Order, as clarified in the Order on Reconsideration, to franchising actions taken at the state level and state regulations that impose requirements on local franchising. In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted time limits for LFAs to render a final decision on a new entrant's franchise application and established a remedy for applicants that do not receive a decision within the applicable time frame; concluded that it was unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a franchise to a new entrant on the basis of unreasonable build-out mandates; clarified which revenue-generating services should be included in a new entrant's franchise fee revenue base and which franchise-related costs should and should not be included within the statutory five percent franchise fee cap; concluded that LFAs may not make unreasonable demands of new entrants relating to PEG channels and I-Nets; adopted the mixed-use network ruling for new entrants; and preempted local franchising laws, regulations, and agreements to the extent they conflict with the rules adopted in that order. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission extended to incumbent cable operators the rulings in the First Report and Order relating to franchise fees and mixed-use networks and the PEG and I-Net rulings that were deemed applicable to incumbent cable operators, i.e., the findings that the non-capital costs of PEG requirements must be offset from the cable operator's franchise fee payments, that it is not necessary to adopt standard terms for PEG channels, and that it is not per se unreasonable for LFAs to require the payment of ongoing costs to support PEG, so long as such support costs as applicable are subject to the franchise fee cap. As explained above, the Commission limited its decisions in the First Report and Order and Second Report and Order to actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not specifically circumscribed the LFA's authority, finding that many of the state franchising laws had been in effect for only a short period of time and that it did not have a sufficient record to apply these decisions to franchising decisions where a state is involved. The Commission, however, indicated that it would revisit this issue in the future if it received evidence that the findings in the First Report and Order and/or the Second Report and Order were of practical relevance to the franchising process at the state level. More than ten years has passed since the Commission first considered whether to apply its decisions interpreting section 621(a)(1) to state-level franchising actions and state regulations that impose requirements on local franchising. Accordingly, we invite comment on whether we should apply the proposals and tentative conclusions discussed above, as well as any or all aspects of the Commission's decisions in the First Report and Order and Second Report and Order, to state level franchising actions and state regulations that impose requirements on local franchising. Is there any statutory basis to maintain the distinction between state-level franchising actions and local franchising actions? Do state level franchising actions or state regulations governing the local franchise process today impede competition or discourage investment in infrastructure that can be used to provide services, including video, voice, and broadband internet access service, to consumers?

    IV. Procedural Matters A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the Second FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Second FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

    B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act) prohibits local franchising authorities (LFAs) from unreasonably refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable television services. The Commission has adopted rules implementing section 621(a)(1), including rules governing the treatment of certain costs and fees charged to cable operators by LFAs and LFAs' regulation of cable operators' “mixed-use” networks (i.e., facilities used to provide both cable services and non-cable services). In Montgomery County, Md. et al. v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed challenges to these rules. The court directed the Commission on remand to provide an explanation for its decision to treat cable-related, in-kind contributions charged to cable operators by LFAs as “franchise fees” subject to the statutory five percent cap on franchise fees set forth in section 622(g) of the Act. The court also directed the Commission to provide a statutory basis for its decision to extend its “mixed-use” ruling—which prohibits LFAs from regulating the provision of services other than cable services offered over cable systems used to provide both cable services and non-cable services—to incumbent cable operators that are not common carriers.

    3. The Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that cable-related, in-kind contributions required by LFAs from cable operators as a condition or requirement of a franchise agreement should be treated as “franchise fees” subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap set forth in section 622 of the Act, with limited exceptions. For any franchise granted prior to 1984, section 622(g)(2)(B) contains an exclusion for PEG support payments. For any franchise granted after 1984, section 622(g)(2)(C) contains a narrow exclusion covering in-kind, cable related payments for “capital costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental [PEG] access facilities.” Accordingly, the Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that PEG support payments required by franchises granted prior to 1984 and PEG capital costs required by franchises granted after 1984 are cable-related, in-kind contributions excluded from the five percent cap. The Second FNPRM also tentatively concludes that this treatment of cable-related, in-kind contributions should be applied to both new entrants and incumbent cable operators. The Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that doing so would ensure a more level playing field and that the FCC should not place its thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any competitor.

    4. The Second FNPRM proposes to define “cable-related, in-kind contributions” to include “any non-monetary contributions related to the provision of cable services provided by cable operators as a condition or requirement of a local franchise agreement, such as free or discounted cable services, and the use of cable facilities or equipment. It does not include the cost of franchise obligations that do not directly benefit the LFA, including, but not limited to, build-out requirements.” The Second FNPRM further proposes that cable-related, in-kind contributions be valued for purposes of the franchise fee cap at their fair market value.

    5. Additionally, the Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that the mixed-use network ruling should be applied to incumbent cable operators to the extent that they offer or begin offering non-cable services, prohibiting LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate certain non-cable services offered over cable systems by incumbent cable operators. The Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that the mixed-use network ruling prohibits LFAs from regulating the provision of any services other than cable services offered over the cable systems of incumbent cable operators that are common carriers. Further, the Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that LFAs may not use their franchising authority to regulate incumbent cable operators' provision of information services, including broadband internet access service. The Second FNPRM also tentatively concludes that consistent with the Commission's decision in the Restoring internet Freedom Order, which preempted any state or local measures that would impose rules or requirements that the Commission repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in that order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service addressed in that order, LFAs are expressly preempted from requiring incumbent cable operators to obtain franchises to provide broadband internet access service.

    6. The Second FNPRM also seeks comment on whether to apply the proposals and tentative conclusions discussed in the instant proceeding, as well as the Commission's decisions in the First Report and Order and Second Report and Order, as clarified in the Order on Reconsideration, to franchising actions taken at the state level and state regulations imposing requirements on local franchising.

    C. Legal Basis

    7. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 303. 602, 621, 622, and 624 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, 522, 541, 542, and 544.

    D. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    8. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.

    9. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses.

    10. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

    11. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the local government category shows that the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

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

    13. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 4,600 cable operators nationwide, all but 9 are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 4,600 systems nationwide, 3,900 have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this second size standard, the Commission believes that most cable systems are small.

    14. Cable System Operators. The Act also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 52,403,705 cable subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on the available data, we find that all but nine independent cable operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, we note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under the definition in the Communications Act.

    15. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide subscription services. The open video system framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for the OVS service, the Commission relies on data currently available from the U.S. Census for the year 2012. According to that source, there were 3,117 firms that in 2012 were Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of these, 3,083 operated with less than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be considered small. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities. The Commission further notes that it has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 116 areas, and some of these are currently providing service. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity. Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.

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

    16. The rules proposed in the Second FNPRM would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements and any compliance requirements imposed by the proposed rules are expected to have only a de minimis effect on small governmental jurisdictions. LFAs would continue to perform their role of reviewing and making decisions on applications for cable franchises and any modifications to the local franchising process resulting from the proposed rules would further streamline that process. The proposed rules would streamline the local franchising process by providing guidance as to the appropriate treatment of cable-related, in-kind contributions demanded by LFAs for purposes of the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, what constitutes “cable-related, in-kind contributions,” and how such contributions are to be valued. In addition, the proposed rules would streamline the local franchising process by making clear that LFAs may not use their video franchising authority to regulate the provision of certain non-cable services offered over cable systems by incumbent cable operators.

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

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

    2. To the extent that the proposed rules are matters of statutory interpretation, we tentatively find that the proposed rules are statutorily mandated and therefore no meaningful alternatives exist. Moreover, as noted above, the proposed rules are expected to have only a de minimis effect on small governmental jurisdictions. The proposed rules would streamline the local franchising process by providing additional guidance to LFAs.

    3. In addition, the proposal to treat cable-related, in-kind contributions as “franchise fees” subject the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, with one limited exception, would benefit small cable operators by ensuring that LFAs do not circumvent the statutory five percent cap by demanding, for example, unlimited free or discounted services. This in turn would help to ensure that local franchising requirements do not deter small cable operators from investing in new services and facilities.

    G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    4. None.

    H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    5. This document does not contain any proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.

    I. Ex Parte Rules

    6. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    J. Filing Procedures

    7. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    8. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

    9. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    10. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7454.

    V. Ordering Clauses

    11. Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in Sections 1, 4(i), 303, 602, 621, 622, and 624 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, 522, 541, 542, and 544, this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

    12. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22356 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 199 Monday, October 15, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Zoetis, LLC of Kalamazoo, Michigan, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 9,528,094, “ATTENUATED AFRICAN SWINE FEVER VIRUS VACCINE BASED IN THE DELETION OF MGF GENES”, issued on December 27, 2016 and U.S. Patent No. 9,808,520, “RATIONALLY DEVELOPED AFRICAN SWINE FEVER ATTENUATED VIRUS STRAIN PROTECTS AGAINST CHALLENGE WITH PARENTAL VIRUS GEORGIA 2007 ISOLATE”, issued on November 7, 2017.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian T. Nakanishi of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in these inventions are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license these inventions as Zoetis, LLC of Kalamazoo, Michigan has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22283 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via teleconference on Monday November 5, 2018, from 12-1 p.m. EDT for the purpose of reviewing received testimony and gathering future testimony on education funding in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday November 5, 2018, at 12 p.m. EDT.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 866-575-6539, Conference ID: 6328919.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll free number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Ohio Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion: Education Funding in Ohio Public Comment Adjournment Dated: October 9, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22330 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday October 30, 2018 from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Central time. The Committee will discuss themes and findings from testimony heard as part of their current study on civil rights and school funding in Kansas, in preparation to issue a report to the Commission on the topic.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Tuesday October 30, 2018 from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Central time.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 1-877-260-1479, Conference ID: 6173345.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll free number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Kansas Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introduction Review of Testimony: Civil Rights and School Funding in Kansas Public Comment Adjournment Dated: October 9, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22328 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meetings of the Nebraska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday November 6, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time. The Committee will discuss civil rights concerns in the state as they work to identify their next topic of study.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Tuesday November 6, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 1-877-260-1479, Conference ID: 8153626.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or (312) 353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public may listen to this discussion through the above call in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Nebraska Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Civil Rights in Nebraska: Project topics Future Plans and Actions Public Comment Adjournment Dated: October 9, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22329 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 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 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Institute of Technology and Standards (NIST).

    Title: SURF (Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship) Program Student Information Application.

    OMB Control Number: 0693-0042.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular Submission (renewal with changes of currently approved information collection instrument).

    Number of Respondents: 650.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 325.

    Needs and Uses: The SURF Program provides an opportunity for the NIST laboratories to encourage outstanding undergraduate students to pursue careers in science and engineering. The program also provides research opportunities for students to work with internationally known NIST scientists, to expose them to cutting-edge research, and promote the pursuit of graduate degrees in science and engineering.

    The purpose of this collection is to gather information requested on behalf of the NIST SURF Program for both Gaithersburg and Boulder campuses. The information is submitted by the university on behalf of the student applicants. The student information is utilized by laboratory program coordinators and technical evaluators to determine student eligibility, select students to appropriate research projects, which match their needs, interests, and academic preparation, and ultimately, make offers to participate in the program. The information includes: Student name, host institution, email address/contact information, permanent address, choice of SURF-specific location (Boulder and/or Gaithersburg), class standing, research preference for NIST laboratories/projects they wish to apply to (for Boulder, 6 project choices and for Gaithersburg, 2 laboratory choices), previous SURF participation/mentor identification, academic major/minor, current overall GPA, need for housing and gender (for housing purposes only), special skills (laboratory, computer programming etc.), availability dates, resume, personal statement of commitment and research interests, two letters of recommendation, academic transcripts, ability to verify U.S. citizenship or permanent legal residency, acknowledgement of housing request, background check, and requirements for REAL ID Act.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: Annually.

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

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22346 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 2062] Approval of Expansion of Subzone 116A, Motiva Enterprises LLC, Jefferson and Hardin Counties, Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for “. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of subzones for specific uses;

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zone of Southeast Texas, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 116, has made application to the Board to expand Subzone 116A on behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC to include an additional site in Port Arthur, Texas (FTZ Docket B-44-2018, docketed July 2, 2018);

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (83 FR 31724, July 9, 2018) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves the expansion of Subzone 116A on behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC, as described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.

    Dated: October 9, 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 Alternate Chairman Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22369 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 2063] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 74; (Expansion of Service Area) Under Alternative Site Framework; Baltimore, Maryland

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for “ . . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;

    Whereas, the Baltimore Development Corporation on behalf of the City of Baltimore, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 74, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-21-2017, docketed April 5, 2017) for authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Howard and Queen Anne's Counties, Maryland, as described in the application, adjacent to the Baltimore Customs and Border Protection port of entry;

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (82 FR 17186-17187, April 10, 2017) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:

    The application to reorganize FTZ 74 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

    Dated: October 9, 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, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22368 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-160-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone 114—Peoria, Illinois; Application for Subzone; Winpak Heat Seal Corporation; Pekin, Illinois

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by EDC, Inc., The Economic Development Council for the Peoria Area, grantee of FTZ 114, requesting subzone status for the facility of Winpak Heat Seal Corporation, located in Pekin, Illinois. 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 Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on October 9, 2018.

    The proposed subzone (24.6 acres) is located at 1821 Riverway Drive, Pekin. The application states that a notification of proposed production activity will be submitted. Any such request will be published separately for public comment. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 114.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 26, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to December 10, 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 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 9, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22370 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-091] Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable October 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Halle at (202) 482-0176, or Keith Haynes at (202) 482-5139, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 28, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of certain steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter (certain steel wheels) from the People's Republic of China.1 The preliminary determination is currently due no later than November 1, 2018.

    1See Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 45104 (September 5, 2018).

    Postponement of the Preliminary Determination

    Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue a preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reason for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny it.2

    2See 19 CFR 351.205(e).

    On September 25, 2018, Dexstar Wheel, a division of Americana Development, Inc. (the petitioner) submitted a timely request pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone fully the preliminary determination. The petitioner stated that the purpose of its request was to provide Commerce with adequate time to solicit information from the respondents and to allow Commerce sufficient time to analyze respondents' questionnaire responses.3

    3See Letter from the petitioner, “Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 Inches in Diameter from China (C-570-091) Petitioner's Request to Postpone the Deadline for the Preliminary Determination,” dated September 25, 2018.

    For the reasons stated above, and because there is are compelling reasons to deny the petitioner's request, Commerce, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 65 days (i.e., 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determination no later than January 7, 2019.4 Pursuant to section 705(a)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

    4 The actual deadline is January 5, 2019, which is a Saturday. Commerce's practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22365 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-086, A-549-839] Steel Propane Cylinders From the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

    DATES:

    Applicable October 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Cornfield or Laura Griffith at (202) 482-3855, or (202) 482-6430, respectively (People's Republic of China (China)) and Cindy Robinson or Stephanie Moore at (202) 482-3797, or (202) 482-3692, respectively (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 11, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan, and Thailand.1 On June 20, 2018, Commerce terminated its antidumping duty investigation of imports of steel propane cylinders from Taiwan, following the petitioners'2 withdrawal of the petition and request that the investigation be terminated.3 Because Commerce has terminated its investigation of steel propane cylinderes from Taiwan, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)'s investigation is also terminated.4 The preliminary determinations for China and Thailand are currently due no later than October 29, 2018.

    1See Steel Propane Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 83 FR 28196 (June 18, 2018).

    2 The petitioners are Worthington Industries and Manchester Tank &, Equipment Co.

    3See Steel Propane Cylinders from Taiwan: Termination of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 83 29748 (June 26, 2018).

    4See ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-1418 (Preliminary). See also Steel Propane Cylinders from Taiwan, Termination of Investigation, 83 FR 31174 (July 3, 2018).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determinations

    Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.5

    5See 19 CFR 351.205(e).

    On October 1, 2018, the petitioners submitted timely requests to postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations.6 The petitioners stated that they requested postponement because Commerce is still gathering data and questionnaire responses from the foreign producers in these investigations, and additional time is necessary for interested parties to respond to additional requests from Commerce before Commerce makes its preliminary determinations.

    6See letter from the petitioners, “Steel Propane Cylinders from the People's Republic of China and Thailand—Petitioners' Request to Extend the Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determination” dated October 1, 2018.

    For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the petitioners' request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (i.e., 190 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations no later than December 18, 2018. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: October 9, 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. 2018-22367 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-502] Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand are being, or are likely to be sold, at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable: October 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Toni Page or Kathryn Wallace, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398 or (202) 482-6251, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 9, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the 2016-2017 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pipes and tubes from Thailand.1 For a discussion of the events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.2

    1See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 83 FR 15127 (April 9, 2018) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).

    2See Memorandum, “Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this review are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. For a full description of the scope, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

    3Id.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 A list of issues raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 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 it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 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/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4Id.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we have made certain changes to Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited's (Pacific Pipe); Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd.'s (Saha Thai); and Thai Premium Pipe Co., Ltd.'s (Thai Premium) weighted-average dumping margins. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of Review

    We determine that, for the period March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Producer or exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin (percent)
  • Pacific Pipe Company Limited 30.61 Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd 28.00 Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd 30.98
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, in accordance with the final results of this review. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for an importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c), or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above in the Final Results of Review, including those for which Commerce may determine had no shipments during the POR, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or another completed segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this or a previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the “all-others” rate of 15.67 percent established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.5 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Antidumping Duty Order; Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986).

    Notification to Importers

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

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (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 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

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: October 4, 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 Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Comments III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Discussion of the Comments Comment 1: Whether to Accept Certain New Factual Information Regarding Particular Market Situation (PMS) Allegation Comment 2: Whether Commerce Improperly Made PMS Adjustments to the Respondents' Cost of Production. Comment 3: PMS Adjustments to Pacific Pipe's and Saha Thai's Calculations Comment 4: Sales Date Parameters of Pacific Pipe's Home Market and U.S. Sales Programs Comment 5: Pacific Pipe's Fixed Overhead Costs Comment 6: Assignment of Surrogate Costs to Certain Pacific Pipe Home Market Sales Comment 7: Pacific Pipe's Home Market Discounts and Rebates Comment 8: Sales Date Parameters of Saha Thai's Home Market and U.S. Sales Programs Comment 9: Saha Thai's Duty Drawback Adjustment Comment 10: Differential Pricing Analysis of Saha Thai's U.S. Sales Comment 11: Sales Date Parameters of Thai Premium's Home Market Sales Program Comment 12: Assignment of Surrogate Costs to Certain Thai Premium Home Market Sales Comment 13: Revision of Variable Names in Thai Premium's Home Market Program VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-22237 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice of Findings Regarding Non-U.S. Commercial Availability of Satellite Imagery With Respect to Israel ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Consistent with the requirement that commercial remote sensing licensees operate their systems in a manner that protects national security concerns, foreign policy and international obligations, Section 1064, Public Law 104-201, (the 1997 Defense Authorization Act), referred to as the Kyl-Bingaman Amendment, requires that “[a] department or agency of the United States may issue a license for the collection or dissemination by a non-Federal entity of satellite imagery with respect to Israel only if such imagery is no more detailed or precise than satellite imagery of Israel that is available from commercial sources.” Pursuant to this law, the Department of Commerce will make findings as to the level of detail or precision of satellite imagery of Israel available from commercial sources. The Department has found that imagery over Israel is not readily and consistently available in sufficient quantities from non-U.S. sources at under the 2 m Ground Sample Distance (GSD) resolution limit currently set by the Department; therefore, the Department is not changing this resolution limit.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This Notice informs U.S. satellite operators collecting imagery over Israel or with plans to collect imagery over Israel that current restrictions regarding data collection/dissemination of imagery over Israel remain in place with the resolution limit at 2 m GSD. This Notice is consistent with the requirement that the Department of Commerce review non-U.S. commercial availability of imagery over Israel and any input from licensees or from the general public and publish findings of this review in the Federal Register.

    To determine what imagery is “available from commercial sources,” the Department looks to what “level of imagery resolution [is] readily and consistently available in sufficient quantities from non-U.S. sources.” Licensing of Private Land Remote-Sensing Space Systems, 71 FR 24474, 24479 (Apr. 25, 2006). After a recent investigation and analysis, the Department determined that imagery over Israel is not readily and consistently available in sufficient quantities from non-U.S. sources at under 2 m GSD to consider sub-2 m imagery “commercially available.”

    There are non-U.S. commercial sources that are capturing imagery at lower than the 2 m resolution limit, but very little of this imagery is available for sale. Further, the imagery is not easily accessible enough to be readily available. A customer must apply to acquire the imagery. Even if their application is granted and the customer is able to buy imagery at under 2 m, the license terms of the sale often restrict the customer from further disseminating the imagery. Therefore, the Department has determined that commercial imagery is not readily or consistently available from non-U.S. sources in sufficient quantities to be considered commercially available.

    The Department of Commerce may re-evaluate this finding in the future as additional information is made available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tahara Dawkins, Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office, NOAA Satellite and Information Services, 1335 East-West Highway, Suite G-101, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone (301) 713-3385, email [email protected]

    Tahara Dawkins, Director, Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22366 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive Patent License to Dilatant, LLC; Kansas City, MO AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Dilatant, LLC; a company having its principle place of business at 1111 West 46th Street #45, Kansas City, MO 64112, an exclusive license.

    DATES:

    Written objections must be filed not later than 15 days following publication of this announcement.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written objections to U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technology Transfer and Outreach Office, RDRL-DPT/Annmarie Martin, Building 321 Room 113, 6375 Johnson Rd., Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Annmarie Martin, (410) 278-9106, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army plans to grant an exclusive license to Dilatant, LLC in the field of use related to head and body resistant systems incorporating rate-actuated tethers for use in automotive racing applications relative to the following—

    • “Rate-Responsive, Stretchable Devices”, US Patent No. 9,303,717, Filing Date June 26, 2013, Issue Date April 5, 2016.

    • “Rate-Responsive, Stretchable Devices (Further Improvements)”, US Patent No. 9,958,023, Filing Date March 1, 2016, Issue Date May 1, 2018.

    • “Head Restraint System Having a Rate Sensitive Device”, US Patent Application No. 15/366,578, Filed December 1, 2016.

    The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). Competing applications completed and received by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.

    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22362 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Business Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Chief Management Officer, 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 Business Board will take place.

    DATES:

    Open to the public Wednesday, November 7, 2018 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The address for the meeting is Room 3E928 in the Pentagon, Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roma Laster, (703) 695-7563 (Voice), (703) 614-4365 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155. Website: http://dbb.defense.gov/. 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.

    For meeting information please contact Mr. Steve Cruddas, Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155, email: [email protected], telephone (703) 697-2168. A copy of the public agenda and other documentation may be obtained from the Board's website at http://dbb.defense.gov/meetings.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The mission of the Board is to examine and advise the Secretary of Defense on overall DoD management and governance. The Board provides independent advice which reflects an outside private sector perspective on proven and effective best business practices that can be applied to the DoD. The Board will receive an update from its subcommittee on the 2019 NDAA-directed study on industry-government exchange.

    Agenda: 1:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m.-Update on 2019 NDAA-directed study on Industry-Government Exchange 2:45 p.m.-3:00 p.m.-Public comments (if time permits) 3:00 p.m.-Public session adjourned.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Steve Cruddas at the email or telephone number listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section no later 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 1, 2018 to register and make arrangements for a Pentagon escort, if necessary. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Mr. Steve Cruddas at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Statements: Written comments should be received by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Board for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to mailbox address: [email protected] in either Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word format. Please note that since the Board operates under the provisions of the FACA, as amended, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the Board's website.

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22297 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; Cancellation AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting; cancellation.

    SUMMARY:

    On September 24, 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) published a notice that announced the next meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council, which was to take place on Thursday, October 18, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. DoD is publishing this notice to announce that this federal advisory committee meeting has been cancelled and will be re-scheduled at a later date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Story, (571) 372-5345 (Voice), (571) 372-0884 (Facsimile), OSD Pentagon OUSD P-R Mailbox Family Readiness Council, [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community & Family Policy), Office of Family Readiness Policy, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, Room 3G15. Website: https://www.militaryonesource.mil/web/mos/military-family-readiness-council.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the cancellation of the October 18, 2018 meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    On September 24, 2018 (83 FR 48296-48297), the DoD published a notice that announced an October 18, 2018 meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council. DoD is publishing this notice to announce that this federal advisory committee meeting has been cancelled and will be re-scheduled at a later date. The re-scheduled meeting will be announced in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 10, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22371 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Case Number 2018-001] Energy Conservation Program: Notice of Application From Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co. for a Small Business Exemption From the Department of Energy's Rough Service Lamps Energy Conservation Standards AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of application for a small business exemption and request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the receipt of and publishes an application for a small business exemption submitted by Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co. (Aero-Tech) requesting an exemption from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) rough service lamp energy conservation standards. Specifically, the application requests a two-year exemption from compliance with the standards beginning on January 25, 2018, the compliance date for the standards. DOE is publishing the non-confidential portion of Aero-Tech's application and soliciting comments, data, and information concerning the application.

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before December 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by Case Number “2018-001,” by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include Case No. 2018-001 in the subject line of the message.

    Postal Mail: Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Small Business Exemption Case No. 2018-001, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

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

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

    The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-PET-0016. The docket web page contains simple instruction on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section IV for information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected]

    Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency for certain types of consumer products. These products include rough service lamps, the focus of this document (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(A)).

    1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the EPS Improvement Act of 2017, Public Law 115-115 (January 12, 2018).

    2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated as Part A.

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4), DOE is required to collect unit sales data for calendar years 2010 through 2025, in consultation with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), for rough service, shatter-resistant, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and vibration service lamps. For each of these five lamp types, DOE, in consultation with NEMA, must also construct a model based on coincident economic indicators that closely match the historical annual growth rates of each lamp type to provide a neutral comparison benchmark estimate of future unit sales (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(B). Section 321(a)(3)(B) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) in part amends paragraph 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) through (H), which direct DOE to initiate an accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy conservation standard for these lamps if the actual annual unit sales of any of the lamp types in any year between 2010 and 2025 exceed the benchmark estimate of unit sales by at least 100 percent (i.e., are greater than 200 percent of the anticipated sales) (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)-(H)). If the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) does not complete the accelerated rulemakings within one year from the end of the previous calendar year during which predicted sales were exceeded, there is a “backstop requirement” for each lamp type, which would establish, by statute, energy conservation standard levels and related requirements. Id.

    DOE published a notice of data availability in April 2016, which indicated that the shipments of vibration service lamps were over 7 million units in 2015. 81 FR 20261, 20263 (April 7, 2016; April 2016 NODA). This equates to 272.5 percent of the benchmark estimate, which was 2,594,000 units. Id. Therefore, vibration service lamps exceeded the statutory threshold for the first time, thus triggering an accelerated rulemaking to be completed no later than December 31, 2016. Id.

    Furthermore, NEMA submitted revised data for rough service lamps following the publication of the April 2016 NODA. The revised data showed sales of 10,914,000 rough service lamps in 2015, which exceeded 100% of the benchmark estimate of 4,967,000 units for 2015. This resulted in a requirement for DOE to initiate an accelerated rulemaking for rough service lamps. In an October 2016 notice of proposed definition and data availability, DOE indicated it must conduct an energy conservation standards rulemaking for rough service lamps to be completed no later than the end of the 2016 calendar year. 81 FR 71794, 71800 (Oct. 18, 2016).

    Since unit sales for vibration service lamps and rough service lamps exceeded 200 percent of the benchmark estimates in 2015, and DOE did not complete an energy conservation standards rulemaking for these lamps by the end of calendar year 2016, the backstop requirements were triggered.

    For rough service lamps, the backstop requires the lamps to: (1) Have a shatter-proof coating or equivalent technology that complies with NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken and to provide effective containment over the life of the lamp; (2) have a maximum 40-watt limitation; and (3) be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii)). DOE codified this statutory backstop requirement at 10 CFR 430.32(bb), which became effective January 25, 2018. 82 FR 60845 (Dec. 26, 2017).

    II. Aero-Tech Application for a Small Business Exemption

    Aero-Tech submitted an application, pursuant to Subpart E of 10 CFR part 430, requesting a two-year small business exemption from the DOE rough service lamps energy conservation standards found in 10 CFR 430.32(bb). Aero-Tech is asking for an exemption from the standards on the basis of its status as a small business. According to Aero-tech, failure to receive a small business exemption would likely result in a lessening of competition in the market for lighting companies.

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(t), DOE may grant a temporary exemption from an applicable energy conservation standard to a manufacturer if DOE finds that the annual gross revenues of such manufacturer from all its operations (including the manufacture and sale of covered products) does not exceed $8,000,000 for the 12-month period preceding the date of the application. In making this finding, DOE must account for the annual gross revenues of any other person who controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, such manufacturer (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)(1)). The Secretary may not grant an exemption with respect to any type (or class) of covered product subject to an energy conservation standard unless the Secretary finds, after obtaining the written views of the Attorney General, that a failure to allow an exemption would likely result in a lessening of competition. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)(2)) See also, subpart E of 10 CFR part 430.

    III. Consultations With Other Agencies

    The notice of Aero-Tech's application for exemption will be transmitted to the Attorney General by the Secretary along with: (a) A statement of the facts and of the reasons for the exemption, and (b) copies of all documents submitted. 10 CFR 430.54.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of Aero-Tech's application for a small business exemption from the rough service lamps energy conservation standards found in 10 CFR 430.32(bb), pursuant to Subpart E of 10 CFR part 430. DOE is publishing the non-confidential portion of Aero-Tech's application in this notice. DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by December 14, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the application.

    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    Signed in Washington, DC, on October 9, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. May 23, 2018 Ashley Armstrong U.S. Department of Energy Small Business Exemptions, Appliance Standards Program Mailstop EE-5B 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 RE: Application for Small Business Exemption for Rough Service Bulbs

    10 CFR430.32 (bb)

    1) Applicant name is Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co., 534 Pratt Avenue, Schaumburg, IL 60193

    2) We are applying for exemption of 10 CFR430.32 (bb)

    3) Ray and Kathy Schlosser started Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co. in 1987 as a specialty 20,000 hour Rough Service Bulb Co. . After Osram Sylvania sold their Co to the Chinese in 2016, the Chinese did not wish to supply raw materials to my small factory in South Carolina; therefore I had to start importing Rough Service Light Bulbs from China. As of today my rough service light bulbs come from Everlite (H.K.) Ltd. In China, they are my Supplier.

    4) Due to the ban on rough service light bulbs until January of 2020 that the Department of Energy was enforcing, I put together a business plan to implement my new LED bulb line with the time frame of getting my LED bulbs off and running by January of 2020 where it could replace the incandescent sales. Therefore we are asking for an exemption until January 25, 2020 because without it we won't be in business and we will have to close our doors. If we don't continue to sell it will reduce the competition and eliminate ourselves as a player as we are a competitor of a number of Lighting Companies.

    5) Our 2016 and 2017 tax return is attached for your review

    6) Failure to grant this exemption would mean that our sales would decrease further. We need our Incandescent line to continue to maintain our Revenues in addition to the LED line of products. Without these bulbs we will lose a good portion of our customer base. We would lose 70% of our business.

    If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at the below email address or call me direct at 847-352-4900, press 0 to Page Ray. We urgently await your reply we are out of stock on a number of key items that we need to reorder.

    Sincerely, Ray M. Schlosser, President.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22373 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project Nos. 2332-111, 2601-056, 2603-049, and 2619-036] Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Northbrook Carolina Hydro II, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On August 9, 2018, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (transferor) and Northbrook Carolina Hydro II, LLC filed an application for transfer of licenses for the following projects.

    Project No. Project names Locations P-2332-111 Gaston Shoals Broad River, Cherokee County, SC and Cleveland County, NC. P-2601-056 Bryson Oconaluftee River, Swain County, NC. P-2603-049 Franklin Little Tennessee River, Macon County, NC. P-2619-036 Mission Hiwassee River, Clay and Cherokee counties, NC.

    The transferor and transferee seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for the above mentioned projects from the transferor to the transferee.

    Applicant Contacts: For Transferor: Mr. Jeffrey G. Lineberger, PE, Director, Water Strategy & Hydro Licensing, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 S. Church Street, Mail Code EC12Y, Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone: 704-382-5942, Email: [email protected]

    For Transferee: Mr. Kyle Kroeger, Co-President, Northbrook Carolina Hydro II, LLC, c/o North Sky Capital, 33 South 6th Street, Suite 4646, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-435-7150, [email protected]

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735 or [email protected]

    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 Days from the issuance date of this notice, by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number(s) P-2332-111, P-2601-056, P-2603-049, and P-2619-036.

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22385 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER19-59-000] Blue Cloud Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Blue Cloud Wind Energy, 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 29, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22353 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-156-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.

    Description: Supplement to September 14, 2018 Application for Authorization of Transaction under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et al. of American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC19-5-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-3-000.

    Applicants: R-WS Antelope Valley Gen-Tie, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of R-WS Antelope Valley Gen-Tie, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-4-000.

    Applicants: Phoebe Energy Project, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of Phoebe Energy Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5223.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-5-000.

    Applicants: Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of Terna Energy USA Holding Corporation.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1348-005; ER14-1349-005; ER10-3057-003; ER10-1810-002; ER10-2950-012.

    Applicants: The Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide Corporation, Dow Pipeline Company, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Spruance Genco, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 29, 2018 Triennial Market Power Analysis for the Central Region of The Dow Chemical Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/4/18.

    Accession Number: 20181004-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2522-002.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3243 City of Piggott, AR Municipal Light, Water and Sewer to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2523-002.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3244 City of Malden ? Board of Public Works to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5165.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-86-002.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing re Discontinuing Netting Internal Bilateral Trans for Uplift to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1970-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-10-09_SA 3080 Compliance OTP-East River Sub 1st Revised T-T (Blair) to be effective 9/17/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2264-001.

    Applicants: Macquarie Energy Trading LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Petition for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 10/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5204.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2325-001.

    Applicants: Sunbury Generation LP.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Resubmission of Addendum to Market-Based Rate Notice of Change in Status to be effective 10/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5009.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2448-002.

    Applicants: Robindale Retail Power Services, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Request to Amend Filing to Withdraw and Administratively Reject Addendum to be effective 9/29/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5006.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-62-000.

    Applicants: OneEnergy Baker Point Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Initial Rate Schedule to be effective 12/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-64-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Emera Maine.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Changes to ISO New England OATT Schedule 21-EM to be effective 12/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-65-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA SA No. 4451; Queue No. AA1-063A to be effective 4/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-66-000.

    Applicants: Conemaugh Power Pass-Through Holders LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff Application to be effective 10/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5211.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-67-000.

    Applicants: NRG REMA LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule Filing and Request for Waiver & Expedited Action to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-68-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-10-09_SA 3169 Crittenden Wind—EAI GIA (J662) to be effective 9/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5218.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/30/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22350 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-136-000.

    Applicants: JERA Power Compass, LLC, Dighton Power, LLC, Marco DM Holdings, L.L.C., Marcus Hook Energy, L.P., Marcus Hook 50, L.P., Milford Power, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to August 9, 2018 Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et al. of JERA Power Compass, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181001-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-2-000.

    Applicants: SR Millington, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of SR Millington, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/4/18.

    Accession Number: 20181004-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-53-000.

    Applicants: SR Millington, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application to be effective 11/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/4/18.

    Accession Number: 20181004-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-54-000.

    Applicants: Northeastern Power Company.

    Description: Request for Waiver, et al. of Northeastern Power Company.

    Filed Date: 10/4/18.

    Accession Number: 20181004-5176.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-55-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-10-05_SA 3174 MP-GRE Switch Change Out Agreement (Lakeland) to be effective 10/6/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-56-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-NCEMPA NITSA (SA No. 268) Amendment to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5041.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-57-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Raymond Wind Farm Interconnection Agreement to be effective 9/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-58-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 367, ANPP Hassayampa with Sun Streams to be effective 9/7/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-59-000.

    Applicants: Blue Cloud Wind Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Blue Cloud Wind Energy, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 10/28/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5169.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH19-1-000.

    Applicants: Northwest Natural Holding Company.

    Description: Northwest Natural Holding Company submits FERC 65-A Exemption Notification.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5166.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/18.

    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 5, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22326 Filed 10-12-18; 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: RP19-38-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amended Negotiated Rates—STEP-CFE 911544, 911545 to be effective 10/4/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/4/18.

    Accession Number: 20181004-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-39-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreement Amendment (SWG Nov 2018) to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/4/18.

    Accession Number: 20181004-5185.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-41-000.

    Applicants: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: URL Changes to be effective 11/5/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5165.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-43-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: URL Changes to be effective 11/5/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5170.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-44-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate—Sempra—911550 eff 10-6-18 to be effective 10/6/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/5/18.

    Accession Number: 20181005-5171.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-45-000.

    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: eTariff filing per 1430: Hardy Storage 501-G Request for Waiver to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5003.

    Comments Due: NOON p.m. ET-10/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-46-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Statement of Negotiated Rates Version 8.0.0—Highpoint Operating Corporation to be effective 10/8/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5010.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-47-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2—Broad Run Expansion Project—Amendment to GTA to be effective 10/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181009-5011.

    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 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22351 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-191-000] Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on October 4, 2018, pursuant to section 292.402 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 292.402, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. (Wolverine or Petitioner) on behalf of itself and its distribution cooperative members (Distribution Members), filed a petition for declaratory order requesting a partial waiver of certain obligations imposed on Wolverine and its Distribution Members under the Commission's regulations 1 implementing Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    1 18 CFR 292.303(a)-(b).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the 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 proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on October 19, 2018.

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22355 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER19-53-000] SR Millington, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of SR Millington, 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 25, 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 5, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22327 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-534-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Northern Lights 2019 Expansion and Rochester Projects

    On July 27, 2018, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-534-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposal has two major components, known as the Northern Lights 2019 Expansion Project and the Rochester Project, which together would provide approximately 138,504 dekatherms per day of upstream firm natural gas transportation service to serve increased markets for industrial, commercial, and residential uses.

    On August 10, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the projects. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the projects.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA November 21, 2018 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline February 19, 2019

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The projects consist of new pipeline and compression facilities, all in the state of Minnesota. The Rochester Project component includes 12.6 miles of new 16-inch-diameter pipeline in Olmsted County (Rochester Greenfield Lateral); increase of maximum allowable operating pressure on an 8-mile-long segment of 16-inch-diameter pipeline in Freeborn and Mower Counties; a new town border station in Olmsted County, including a pig receiver; relocation of a regulator from Freeborn to Mower County; and appurtenant facilities, including two valves and a pig launcher at milepost (MP) 0.0 of the Rochester Greenfield Lateral.

    The Northern Lights Expansion Project component includes 10.0 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Hennepin and Wright Counties; 4.3 miles of new 8-inch-diameter pipeline loop extension in Morrison County; 1.6 miles of new 6-inch-diameter pipeline loop in Le Sueur County; 3.1 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline extension in Carver County; a new 11,153-horsepower (hp) compressor station in Carver County; an additional 15,900 hp of compression at the existing Faribault Compressor Station in Rice County; an additional 15,900 hp of compression at the existing Owatonna Compressor Station in Steele County; and appurtenant facilities, including valves, pig launchers, and pig receivers in Hennepin, Wright, Morrison, Le Sueur, and Carver Counties.

    Background

    On February 6, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Northern Lights 2019 Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI addressed both the Northern Lights 2019 Expansion and the Rochester Project components, and was issued during the pre-filing review of the projects in Docket No. PF18-1-000 and was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.

    In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office; one Native American tribe; ten landowners; and one public interest group. The primary issues raised by the commentors were karst terrain, groundwater, surface waterbodies, special status species, property values, local economy, land use, and air quality and noise impacts from construction and operation of pipeline facilities. All substantive comments will be addressed in the EA.

    The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the projects are available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-534), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: October 9, 2018 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22383 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-178-000] Alaska Gasline Development Corporation; Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., in Room 3M-2A and B at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The technical conference will provide an opportunity for Commission staff and representatives from Alaska Gasline Development Corporation to discuss clarifications on the Commission staff's October 2, 2018 environmental data request for the Alaska LNG Project. While all interested persons and Commission staff are permitted to attend, no comments or statements during the conference will be permitted. Further, there will be no discussion of Critical Energy Infrastructure Information or privileged material. For further information please contact James Martin at (202) 502-8045 or email [email protected]

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22354 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-549-000] Equitrans, LP; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on September 21, 2018, Equitrans, LP (Equitrans), 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-33311, filed an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking authorization to abandon series of 18 Injection/Withdrawal (I/W) wells in Equitrans' Swarts Complex by sale, abandoning the associated well lines in place, and abandoning any associated appurtenant facilities. These wells in the Swarts Complex that are within the area that an incumbent coal mining company has designated for expansion of its mining operations over an approximate ten and a half year period commencing in December 2018. These Swarts Complex facilities are located in Greene County, Pennsylvania, as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Paul W. Diehl, Counsel, Midstream, Equitrans, LP, 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15222, or call (412) 395-5540, or by email: [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 26, 2018.

    Dated: October 5, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22384 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER19-11-000] Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Peetz Logan Interconnect, 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 29, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 9, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22352 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-OECA-2014-0054; FRL—9985-02-OEI] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (EPA ICR Number 1657.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0387), 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. This is a proposed extension of the ICR. 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 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-OECA-2014-0054, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2970; fax number: 202-564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 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: Respondents are owners or operators of facilities that produce pulp, paper, or paperboard by employing kraft, soda, sulfite, semi-chemical, or mechanical pulping processes using wood; or any process using secondary or non-wood fiber and that emits 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. Affected sources are all the hazardous air pollutant emission points or the HAP emission points in the pulping and bleaching system for mechanical pulping processes using wood and any process using secondary or non-wood fiber.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of pulp and paper production facilities. Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart S).

    Estimated number of respondents: 114 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 44,438 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $5,191,626 (per year), includes $841,000 in annualized capital or operations and maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This decrease is not due to any program changes. The currently approved burden estimates contain requirements from the previous regulation as well as duplicate burden activities. In preparing this ICR renewal, EPA has removed duplicate items and updated the ICR so that it only reflects current requirements. This results in an apparent decrease in burden.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22404 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0097; FRL-9984-68] Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of Findings for August 2018 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 5(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its review of TSCA section 5(a) notices when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA on TSCA section 5(a) notices during the period from August 1, 2018 to August 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Greg Schweer, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-8469; 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. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0097, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period from August 1, 2018 to August 31, 2018.

    III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a) notice and make one of the following specific findings:

    • The chemical substance or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;

    • The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance or significant new use;

    • The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;

    • The chemical substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to the substance; or

    • The chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

    Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant under the conditions of use. The term “conditions of use” is defined in TSCA section 3 to mean “the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”

    EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its review of a TSCA section 5(a) notice when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to PMNs, MCANs, and SNUNs submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.

    The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.

    IV. Statements of Administrator Findings Under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C)

    In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:

    • EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.

    • Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).

    • Website link to EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).

    EPA case number: J-18-0001; Chemical identity: Modified Corynebacterium glutamicum (generic name); website link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-93.

    EPA case number: J-18-0012; Chemical identity: Genetically modified yeast (generic name); website link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-94.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 4, 2018. Greg Schweer, Chief, New Chemicals Management Branch, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22394 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0578; FRL-9984-18] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, 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 Confidential Business Information (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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

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

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

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    III. New Active Ingredients

    1. File Symbol: 67690-IE. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0096. Applicant: SePRO Corporation, 11550 North Meridian St., Suite 600, Carmel, IN 46032. Product name: SP2700 2%. Active ingredient: Plant activator and fungicide—Ningnanmycin at 2.0%. Proposed use: For control of fungal and viral diseases on cherries, cucurbits, grapes, lettuce, ornamentals, peppers, pome fruits, snap beans, strawberries, tobacco, tomatoes, rice, seed treatment, soybean, wheat, and turf.

    2. File Symbol: 67690-IG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0096. Applicant: SePRO Corporation, 11550 North Meridian St., Suite 600, Carmel, IN 46032. Product name: SP2700 Technical. Active ingredient: Plant activator and fungicide—Ningnanmycin at 2%. Proposed use: Manufacturing use.

    3. File Symbol: 87978-A. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0570. Applicant: AgBiTech Pty Ltd, 8 Rocla Ct., Glenvale, Queensland 4350, Australia (c/o MacIntosh & Associates, Inc., 1203 Hartford Ave., St. Paul, MN 55116-1622). Product name: Surtivo Soy. Active ingredients: Insecticides—Chrysodeixis includens Nucleopolyhedrovirus isolate #460 at 17.1% and Helicoverpa armigera Nucleopolyhedrovirus ABA-NPV-U at 17.1%. Proposed use: Field and greenhouse.

    4. File Symbol: 87978-L. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0570. Applicant: AgBiTech Pty Ltd, 8 Rocla Ct., Glenvale, Queensland 4350, Australia (c/o MacIntosh & Associates, Inc., 1203 Hartford Ave., St. Paul, MN 55116-1622). Product name: ChinNPV Liquid Formulation. Active ingredient: Insecticide—Chrysodeixis includens Nucleopolyhedrovirus isolate #460 at 32.0%. Proposed use: Field and greenhouse.

    5. File Symbol: 91873-R. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0122. Applicant: Evolva, Duggingerstrasse 23, 4153 Reinach, Switzerland (c/o SciReg Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192). Product name: Nootkatone. Active ingredient: Insecticide and arachnicide—Nootkatone at 99.4%. Proposed use: Manufacturing use.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 1, 2018. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22392 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, Classified Activities AGENCY:

    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, Classified Activities.

    The Statement is available on the FASAB website at http://www.fasab.gov/accounting-standards/. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority:

    Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

    Dated: October 4, 2018. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22375 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0508] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before November 14, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0508.

    Title: Parts 1 and 22 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Individuals or households, and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 15,465 respondents; 16,183 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.13 hours-10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion, quarterly, and semi-annual reporting requirements; Third-party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,606 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $19,138,350.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information. The information to be collected will be made available for public inspection. Applicants may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be given confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: Part 22 contains the technical and legal requirements for radio stations operating in the Public Mobile Services. The information collected is used to determine on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to grant licenses authorizing construction and operation of wireless telecommunications facilities to common carriers. Further, this information is used to develop statistics about the demand for various wireless licenses and/or the licensing process itself, and occasionally for rule enforcement purposes.

    This revised information collection reflects deletion of a rule applicable to all licensees and applicants governed by Part 22 of the Commission's rules, as adopted by the Commission in a Third Report and Order in WT Docket Nos. 12-40 (Cellular Third R&O) (FCC 18-92). The Cellular Third R&O deleted certain Part 22 rules that either imposed administrative and recordkeeping burdens that are outdated and no longer serve the public interest, or that are largely duplicative of later-adopted rules and are thus no longer necessary. Among the rule deletions and of relevance to this information collection, the Commission deleted rule section 22.303, resulting in discontinued information collection for that rule section.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22391 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0149, OMB 3060-0741] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before November 14, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]. Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the webpage <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the webpage called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0149.

    Title: Part 63, Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, FCC 18-74.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 80 respondents; 88 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 6-62 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and third-party disclosure requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 214 and 402 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,086 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $27,900.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Information filed in section 214 applications has generally been non-confidential. Requests from parties seeking confidential treatment are considered by Commission staff pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of a currently approved collection to OMB. The Commission will submit this information collection to OMB after this 60-day comment period. Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires that a carrier must first obtain FCC authorization either to (1) construct, operate, or engage in transmission over a line of communications; or (2) discontinue, reduce or impair service over a line of communications. Part 63 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) implements Section 214. Part 63 also implements provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 pertaining to video which was approved under this OMB Control Number 3060-0149. In 2009, the Commission modified Part 63 to extend to providers of interconnected Voice of internet Protocol (VoIP) service the discontinuance obligations that apply to domestic non-dominant telecommunications carriers under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. In 2014, the Commission adopted improved administrative filing procedures for domestic transfers of control, domestic discontinuances and notices of network changes, and among other adjustments, modified Part 63 to require electronic filing for applications for authorization to discontinue, reduce, or impair service under section 214(a) of the Act. In July 2016, the Commission concluded that applicants seeking to discontinue a legacy time division multiplexing (TDM)-based voice service as part of a transition to a new technology, whether internet Protocol (IP), wireless, or another type (technology transition discontinuance application) must demonstrate that an adequate replacement for the legacy service exists in order to be eligible for streamlined treatment and revised part 63 accordingly. The Commission concluded that an applicant for a technology transition discontinuance may demonstrate that a service is an adequate replacement for a legacy voice service by certifying or showing that one or more replacement service(s) offers all of the following: (i) Substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the applicant service; (ii) compliance with existing federal and/or industry standards required to ensure that critical applications such as 911, network security, and applications for individuals with disabilities remain available; and (iii) interoperability and compatibility with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities determined to be key to consumers and competitors (the “adequate replacement test”).

    In June 2018, the Commission further modified the rules applicable to section 214(a) discontinuance applications. First, all carriers, whether dominant or non-dominant, that seek approval to grandfather data services below speeds of 25 Mbps download speed and 3 Mbps upload speed are now subject to a uniform reduced public comment period of 10 days and an automatic grant period of 25 days. Second, all carriers, whether dominant or non-dominant, seeking authorization to discontinue data services below speeds of 25 Mbps download speed and 3 Mbps upload speed that have previously been grandfathered for a period of at least 180 days are subject to a uniform reduced public comment period of 10 days and an automatic grant period of 31 days, provided they submit a statement as part of their discontinuance application that they have received Commission authority to grandfather the services at issue at least 180 days prior to the filing of the discontinuance application. This statement must reference the file number of the prior Commission authorization to grandfather the services the carrier now seeks to permanently discontinue. Third, carriers are no longer required to file an application to discontinue, reduce, or impair any service for which it has had no customers and no request for service for at least a 30-day period immediately preceding the discontinuance. Fourth, all carriers, whether dominant or non-dominant, that seek approval to discontinue legacy voice service can obtain further streamlined processing with a public comment period of 15 days and an automatic grant period of 31 days, provided (1) they offer a stand-alone interconnected VoIP service throughout the service area, and (2) at least one alternative stand-alone, facilities-based voice service is available from an unaffiliated provider throughout the affected service area (the “alternative options test”). Finally, all carriers, whether dominant or non-dominant, that seek approval to grandfather legacy voice service are now subject to a uniform reduced public comment period of 10 days and an automatic grant period of 25 days. The Commission estimates that it will receive three fewer section 214(a) discontinuance applications annually in light of the Commission's forbearance from applying its section 214(a) discontinuance requirements to services for which the carrier has had no customers and no reasonable requests for service during the preceding 30-day period. The Commission also anticipates that the number of respondents and responses under the adequate replacement test will likely decrease from 5 and 25, respectively, to 2 and 10, respectively. The remaining 15 responses previously attributable to the adequate replacement test will likely proceed pursuant to the less rigorous alternative options test. The Commission estimates that the total annual burden of the entire collection, as revised, is reduced from 1,923 hours to 1,086 hours.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0741.

    Title: Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, GN Docket No. 17-84.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,357 respondents; 573,928 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-4.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; recordkeeping and third-party disclosure requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 222 and 251.

    Total Annual Burden: 575,448 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 251, is designed to accelerate private sector development and deployment of telecommunications technologies and services by spurring competition. Section 222(e) is also designed to spur competition by prescribing requirements for the sharing of subscriber list information. These information collection requirements are designed to help implement certain provisions of sections 222(e) and 251, and to eliminate operational barriers to competition in the telecommunications services market. Specifically, these information collection requirements will be used to implement (1) local exchange carriers' (“LECs”) obligations to provide their competitors with dialing parity and non-discriminatory access to certain services and functionalities; (2) incumbent local exchange carriers' (“ILECs”) duty to make network information disclosures; and (3) numbering administration. The revisions to this collection relate to changes in one of many components of the currently approved collection—specifically, certain reporting, recordkeeping and/or third-party disclosure requirements under section 251(c)(5). In November 2017, the Commission adopted new rules concerning certain information collection requirements implemented under section 251(c)(5) of the Act, pertaining to network change disclosures. Most of the changes to those rules applied specifically to a certain subset of network change disclosures, namely notices of planned copper retirements. In addition, the changes removed a rule that prohibits incumbent LECs from engaging in useful advanced coordination with entities affected by network changes. In June 2018, the Commission revised its network change disclosure rules to (1) revise the types of network changes that trigger an incumbent LEC's public notice obligation, and (2) extend the force majeure provisions applicable to copper retirements to all types of network changes. The changes are aimed at removing unnecessary regulatory barriers to the deployment of high-speed broadband networks. The Commission estimates that these revisions do not result in any change to the total annual burden hours or any additional outlays of funds for hiring outside contractors or procuring equipment as the changes eliminate notices that are subsumed by notice obligations that remain in force or simply codify procedures available to a small number of incumbent LECs by waiver orders.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-22387 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new matching program.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), this notice announces the establishment of a computer matching program the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission” or “Agency”) and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will conduct with four non-Federal agencies. The purpose of this matching program is to verify the eligibility of applicants to and subscribers of the Universal Service Fund (USF) Lifeline program, which is administered by USAC under the direction of the FCC. More information about this program is provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    DATES:

    Written comments are due on or before November 14, 2018. This computer matching program will commence on November 14, 2018, unless comments are received that require a contrary determination, and will conclude on April 15, 2020.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Mr. Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Room 1-C216, FCC, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under FCC direction. Consumers qualify for Lifeline through proof of income or participation in a qualifying program, such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit. In a Report and Order adopted on March 31, 2016, the Commission ordered USAC to create a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (“National Verifier”), including the National Lifeline Eligibility Database (LED), that would match data about Lifeline applicants and subscribers with other data sources to verify the eligibility of an applicant or subscriber. The Commission found that the National Verifier would reduce compliance costs for Lifeline service providers, improve service for Lifeline subscribers, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

    Participating Agencies

    • Missouri Department of Social Services;

    • North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services;

    • Pennsylvania Department of Human Services; and

    • Tennessee Department of Human Services.

    Authority for Conducting the Matching Program

    47 U.S.C. 254; 47 CFR 54.400 et seq.; Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006-21, paras. 126-66 (2016) (2016 Lifeline Modernization Order).

    Purpose(s)

    In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the FCC required USAC to develop and operate a National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier) to improve efficie