Federal Register Vol. 83, No.215,

On October 17, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (FR DOC# 2018-22149, Page 52377) a Notice of Solicitation for Applications. Applications were required to be received on or before November 1, 2018. We are extending the submission period to November 15, 2018.

We are soliciting nominations from interested organizations and individuals from among ranching and farming producers (industry), related government, civil rights, State, and Tribal agricultural agencies, academic institutions, commercial banking entities, trade associations, and related nonprofit enterprises. An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's background and experience. Nomination forms are available on the internet at https://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/ad-755 or may be obtained from Mrs. Kenya Nicholas at the email address or telephone number noted above.

The Secretary will fill up to 15 vacancies from among those organizations and individuals solicited in order to obtain the broadest possible representation on the Committee. Equal opportunity practices, in line with the USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

On October 17, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (FR DOC# 2018-22146, Page 52376) a Notice of Solicitation for Applications. Applications were required to be received on or before November 1, 2018. We are extending the submission period to November 15, 2018.

We are soliciting nominations from interested organizations and individuals from among ranching and farming producers (industry), related government, State, and Tribal agricultural agencies, academic institutions, commercial banking entities, trade associations, and related nonprofit enterprises. An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Nomination packages should include a nomination form along with a cover letter or resume that documents the nominee's background and experience. Nomination forms are available on the internet at https://www.ocio.usda.gov/document/ad-755 or may be obtained from Mrs. Kenya Nicholas at the email address or telephone number noted above.

The Secretary will fill up to 20 vacancies from among those organizations and individuals solicited in order to obtain the broadest possible representation on the Committee. Equal opportunity practices, in line with the USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to renew the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection for two years. The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary on meat and poultry inspection programs, pursuant to sections 7(c), 24, 301(a)(3), and 301(c) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 607(c), 624, 645, 661(a)(3), and 661(c), and to sections 5(a)(3), 5(c), 8(b), and 11(e) of the poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 454(a)(3), 454(c), 457(b), and 460(e).

A copy of the current charter and other information about the committee can be found at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/advisory-committees/nacmpi.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication online through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination, any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: [email protected].

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Title: Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record.

OMB Number: 0596-0215 renewal.

Expiration Date of Approval: 11/30/2018

Type of Request: Extension with Revision.

Abstract: All Federal agencies must comply with equal opportunity laws:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

• Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.

• The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended.

• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

• Executive orders prohibiting discrimination in the delivery of all programs and services to the public.

Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal financial assistance are prohibited from discriminating. Federal financial assistance is defined as, “Federal monies given by grants, cooperative agreements, commercial special use permits, training, loan/temporary assignment of Federal personnel, or loan/use of Federal property at below market value.”

The equal opportunity laws require agencies to conduct compliance reviews to ensure that entities receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the government are adhering to the nondiscrimination statutes. The statutes require that prior to awarding support or issuing permits, the Federal government shall conduct pre-award reviews to ensure that potential recipients understand their responsibilities to provide services equitable pursuant to the law. Thereafter, during the partnership with the agency, ongoing monitoring will take place to ensure the public is being served without any barriers or discrimination.

Forest Service employees will use form FS-1700-6, Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record, to document demographics (race, ethnicity, and gender) and collect information regarding actions taken by recipients of Federal financial assistance to ensure the public receives services without discrimination or barriers to access, and that recipients' employees understand their customer service role. Collection will occur during face-to-face meetings or telephone interviews conducted by Forest Service employees as part of the pre-award and post award process. The pre-award interview will take place prior to the award of a grant, signing of a cooperative agreement, letting of commercial special use permit, or similar activity. The post award interview will take place once every 5 years, or upon report/discovery of discrimination.

The information collected will only be shared with other Federal agencies who share in the financial assistance activities with the Forest Service. Monitoring reviews have been a responsibility of the Federal government since 1964. Without the ability to monitor recipients of Federal financial assistance, the Forest Service would not be able to ensure compliance with laws and statutes. The Agency would not be aware of potential violations, thereby resulting in potential discriminatory practices.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 1 hour.

Type of Respondents: Recipients of Federal financial assistance.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 11,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: One.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,000.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

On December 7, 2017, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on hot-rolled steel from Korea.1 On June 12, 2018, Commerce extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review to no later than November 5, 2018.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included at the Appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The merchandise covered by the order is certain hot-rolled steel flat products. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.4 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

For the companies not selected for individual review, because the rates calculated for Hyundai Steel and POSCO were above de minimis and not based entirely on facts available, we applied a subsidy rate based on a weighted-average of the subsidy rates calculated for Hyundai Steel and POSCO using publicly-ranged sales data submitted by the respondents. This is consistent with the methodology that we would use in an investigation to establish the all-others rate, consistent with section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b)(4)(i), we calculated individual subsidy rates for Hyundai Steel and POSCO. For the POR, we preliminarily determine that the net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:

Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.5 Commerce will establish a deadline for interested parties to submit written comments (case briefs) and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) at a later date.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.7

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system.8 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date of the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined.9 Issues addressed during the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs.10 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) (“the Act”) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. A Certificate protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2018). OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(a), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the application in the Federal Register, identifying the applicant and each member, and summarizing proposed export conduct.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.

An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230.

Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 18-00002.”

Applicant: Alaska Groundfish Commission, address c/o Mundt MacGregor L.L.P. (below).

Contact: Duncan R. McIntosh, Attorney at Law, Mundt MacGregor L.L.P., 271 Wyatt Way NE, Suite 106, Bainbridge Island, WA, 98110; (206) 319-1105.

Application No.: 18-00002.

Date Deemed Submitted: October 22, 2018.

Summary: AGC and its seven proposed Members (as defined in 15 CFR 352.2(l)) seek a Certificate to engage in the export conduct described below.

• AGC and its Members propose to export the following six products, which are frozen-at-sea (i.e., export product is frozen on the catcher-processor trawl vessel while at-sea), and in headed and gutted (i.e., head and viscera are removed) and round (i.e., whole) forms: Atka mackerel, Pacific Ocean perch, yellowfin sole, Pacific cod, flathead sole, and rock sole (collectively, the “Export Products”).

• AGC and its Members propose to export to all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).

• AGC and its Members seek certification for the following activities and exchanges of information.

1. Each Member will from time to time independently determine in its sole discretion (i) the quantity of Export Product that it makes available for sale in export markets, and (ii) whether any portion of such quantity will be sold independently by it, be sold in cooperation with some or all of the other Members, or be made available to AGC for sale in export markets. AGC may not require any Member to export any minimum quantity of Export Product.

2. AGC and/or its Members may enter into agreements to act in certain countries or markets as the Members' exclusive or non-exclusive export intermediary for the quantity of Export Product dedicated by each Member for sale by AGC or any Member in that country or market. In any such agreement (i) AGC or the Member acting as the exclusive export intermediary may agree not to represent any other supplier of Export Product with respect to one or more export market, and (ii) Members may agree that they will export the quantity of Export Product dedicated for sale in such export markets only through AGC or the Member acting as exclusive export intermediary, and that they will not export Export Product otherwise, either directly or through any other export intermediary.

3. AGC and/or one or more of its Members may engage in joint bidding or selling arrangements for export markets and allocate sales resulting from such arrangements among the Members.

4. The Members may refuse to deal with export intermediaries other than AGC and its Members.

5. AGC may, for itself and on behalf of its Members, by agreement with its or its Members' distributors or agents, or on the basis of its own determination:

(a) Establish the prices at which Export Product will be sold in export markets;

(b) establish standard terms of sale of Export Product;

(c) establish standard quality grades for Export Product;

(d) establish target prices for sales of Export Product by its Members in export markets, with each Member remaining free to deviate from such target prices in its sole discretion;

(e) subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph 1, above, establish the quantity of Export Product to be sold in export markets;

(f) allocate among the Members export markets or customers in the export markets;

(g) refuse to quote prices for, or to market or sell, Export Product in export markets; and

(h) engage in joint promotional activities aimed at developing existing or new export markets, such as advertising and trade shows.

6. AGC may, for itself and on behalf of its Members, contact non-member suppliers of Export Product to elicit information relating to price, volume delivery schedules, terms of sale, and other matters relating to such suppliers' sales or prospective sales in export markets.

7. Subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph 1, above, AGC and its Members may agree on the quantities of Export Product and the prices at which AGC and its Members may sell Export Product in and for export markets, and may also agree on territorial and customer allocations in export markets among the Members.

8. AGC and its Members may enter into exclusive and non-exclusive agreements appointing third parties as export intermediaries for the sale of Export Product in export markets. Such agreements may contain the price, quantity, territorial and customer restrictions for export markets contained in paragraph 5, above.

9. AGC and its Members may solicit individual non-Member suppliers of Export Product to sell such Export Product to AGC or Members for sale in export markets.

10. AGC and its Members may prescribe conditions for withdrawal of Members from and admission of Members to AGC.

11. AGC may, for itself or on behalf of its Members, establish and implement a quality assurance program for Export Product, including without limitation establishing, staffing, and operating a laboratory to conduct quality testing, promulgating quality standards or grades, inspecting Export Product samples and publishing guidelines for and reports of the results of laboratory testing.

12. AGC may conduct meetings of its Members to engage in the activities described in paragraphs 1 through 11, above.

13. AGC may compile for, collect from, and disseminate to its Members, and the Members may discuss among themselves, either in meetings conducted by AGC or independently via telephone and other available and appropriate modes of communication, the following types of information with respect to the export of

Export Product to export markets only:

(a) Sales and marketing efforts, and activities and opportunities for sales of Export Product, including but not limited to selling strategies and pricing, projected demand for Export Product, standard or customary terms of sale in export markets, prices and availability of Export Product from competitors, and specifications for Export Product by customers in export markets;

(b) Price, quality, quantity, source, and delivery dates of Export Product available from the Members for export including but not limited to export inventory levels and geographic availability;

(c) Terms and conditions of contracts for sales to be considered and/or bid on by AGC and its Members;

(d) Joint bidding or selling arrangements and allocation of sales resulting from such arrangements among the Members, including each Member's share of the previous calendar year's total foreign sales;

(e) Expenses specific to exporting to and within export markets, including without limitation transportation, trans- or intermodal shipments, cold storage, insurance, inland freight to port, port storage, commissions, export sales, documentation, financing, customs duties, and taxes;

(f) U.S. and foreign legislation regulations and policies affecting export sales; and

(g) AGC's and/or its Members' export operations, including without limitation, sales and distribution networks established by AGC or its Members in export markets, and prior export sales by Members (including export price information).

On June 8, 2015, Commerce published the Final Results, in which we valued cores produced by Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd., using a build-up methodology and calculated surrogate financial ratios using Philippine financial statements.1 On March 31, 2017, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce to reconsider the valuation of cores and the use of certain financial statements.2 In the first final remand redetermination, we revised the valuation of cores and used other available financial statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios.3 On March 22, 2018, the CIT remanded the Final Results to further examine the revisions to the valuation of cores and our decision not to use certain financial statements in the first final remand redetermination.4 In the second final remand redetermination, we further revised the valuation of cores and we used additional financial statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios.5 On October 23, 2018, the CIT sustained our second final remand redetermination in its entirety.6

In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's October 23, 2018, final judgment sustaining the second final remand redetermination constitutes the CIT's final decision which is not “in harmony” with the Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the Final Results with respect to the separate rate respondents as follows:

In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised rates Commerce determined and listed above.

Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC's CBP Task Force. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/partners#marine-fisheries-advisory-committee-. The CBP Task Force reports to MAFAC and is being convened to develop recommendations for long-term goals to meet Columbia Basin salmon recovery, conservation needs, and harvest opportunities, in the context of habitat capacity and other factors that affect salmon mortality. More information is available at the CBP Task Force web page: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/columbia_river/index.html.

The Committee is convening to discuss updates to the shared provisional salmon and steelhead quantitative goals, the draft recommendations report, and planning for the next phase of work for the CBP Task Force.

The meeting is scheduled for November 15, 2018, 1-4 p.m. and November 16, 2018, 10 a.m.-12 p.m., Pacific Time by conference call and webinar. Access information for the public will be posted at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/columbia_river/index.html by November 9, 2018.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Katherine Cheney, 503-231-6730 by November 8, 2018.

Species Covered in This Notice

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Snake River Spring/Summer and Snake River Fall.

Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Snake River Basin.

Sockeye salmon (O. nerka): Endangered, naturally produced and artificially propagated Snake River

IDFG submitted the FMEP to NMFS describing fisheries targeting adult adipose-fin-clipped, hatchery-origin steelhead within the State of Idaho and in boundary waters with Oregon and Washington. The plan was submitted under ESA limit 4 of the 4(d) Rule. These fisheries were designed to support fishing opportunities while minimizing potential risks to ESA-listed species. The FMEP describes timing, location, harvest impact limits, licensing, and gear requirements, and requires that all fish caught with an intact adipose fin be released unharmed. A variety of monitoring and evaluation is included in the FMEP.

As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422) and updated June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), NMFS may approve an FMEP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)(i)(A) through (I). Prior to final approval of an FMEP, NMFS must publish notification announcing the FMEP's availability for public review and comment.

Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 4 of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(4)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to fisheries provided that an FMEP has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005).

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: EDFacts Data Collection School Years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 (with 2018-19 continuation).

OMB Control Number: 1850-0925.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State Education Agency.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 61.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 126,880.

Abstract: EDFacts is a U.S. Department of Education (ED) initiative, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), to collect, analyze, report on, and promote the use of high-quality, pre-kindergarten through grade 12 (pre-K-12) performance data and state level postsecondary data for Perkins V for use in education planning, policymaking, and management and budget decision making to improve outcomes for students. By centralizing data provided by state education agencies about state level data, local education agencies, and schools, NCES uses the EDFacts data to report on students, schools, staff, services, and education outcomes at the state, district, and school levels. The centralized approach provides ED users with the ability to efficiently analyze and report on submitted data and has reduced the reporting burden for state and local data producers through the use of streamlined data collection, analysis, and reporting tools. EDFacts collects information on behalf of ED grant and program offices for approximately 150 data groups for all 50 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, and seven outlying areas and freely associated states (American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Republic of Palau, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). This request is to collect EDFacts data for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 school years and to expand the EDFacts data collection to include state level postsecondary data for the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V). This collection package will be available for public comment during two open periods, a 60 day and a 30 day, after which revisions will be made accordingly. As part of the public comment period review, ED requests that SEAs and other stakeholders respond to the directed questions found in Attachment D. Due to overlap in the timing of data collection activities between consecutive years of the EDFacts collection, we are carrying over in this submission the approved SY 2018-19 data collection, which is scheduled to end in February 2020.

General Information: The meeting is open to the public. Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda, attending the meeting, or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Tom Tracy, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. Individuals making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes. For security purposes, all attendees must provide their names to the Designated Federal Officer or register online at https://epa-bosc-homelandsecurity-subcommittee.eventbrite.com by December 5, 2018, and must go through a metal detector, sign in with the security desk, and show REAL ID Act-compliant government-issued photo identification to enter the building. Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting to allow sufficient time for security screening. Proposed agenda items for the meeting include but are not limited to the following: Overview of materials provided to the subcommittee, update on ORD's Homeland Security Research Program and the draft Strategic Research Action Plan, Review of charge questions, and Subcommittee discussion.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy at (202) 564-6518 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tom Tracy, preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and recommend any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC shall also: Advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2.

As amended, 5 U.S.C., App. Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA carry out a periodic review and revision, as appropriate, of the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including ozone. On October 10, 2018, Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced (https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/acting-administrator-wheeler-announces-science-advisors-key-clean-air-act-committee) that the seven-member Chartered CASAC will serve as the body to review the key scientific assessments for the Ozone NAAQS review.

Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Chartered CASAC will hold a public teleconference to provide advice on EPA's Integrated Review Plan for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft). The Chartered CASAC will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the Integrated Review Plan for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft) should be directed to Dr. Deirdre Murphy ([email protected]), EPA Office of Air and Radiation.

Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be available on the CASAC web page at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this advisory activity, including the charge to the CASAC and the EPA review documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the instructions below to submit comments.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by November 23, 2018, to be placed on the list of public speakers.

Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by CASAC members, statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by November 23, 2018. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its websites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202) 564-2050 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior to each meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC shall also provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and of adverse effects which may result from various strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including particulate matter. EPA is currently reviewing the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM).

On October 10, 2018, Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced (https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/acting-administrator-wheeler-announces-science-advisors-key-clean-air-act-committee) that the seven-member Chartered CASAC will serve as the body to review the remaining key scientific assessments for the PM NAAQS review.

Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Chartered CASAC will hold a public meeting to peer review EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft—October 2018). The Chartered CASAC will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft—October 2018) should be directed to Mr. Jason Sacks ([email protected]).

Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this advisory activity, including the charge to the CASAC and the EPA review documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the instructions below to submit comments.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by December 5, 2018, to be placed on the list of public speakers.

Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by CASAC members, statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by December 5, 2018. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its websites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202) 564-2050 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior to each meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

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 No.: 3060-0270.

Title: Section 90.443, Content of Station Records.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 52,383 respondents; 52,383 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. Section 303(j), as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 13,096 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained under Section 90.443(b) require that each licensee of a station shall maintain records for all stations by providing the dates and pertinent details of any maintenance performed on station equipment, along with the name and address of the service technician who did the work. If all maintenance is performed by the same technician or service company, the name and address need be entered only once in the station records.

The information collection requirements under Section 90.443(c) require that at least one licensee participating in the cost arrangement must maintain cost sharing records.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0463.

Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Individuals or household; State, Local and Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,072 respondents; 7,314 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours (30 minutes) to 80 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annually, monthly, on occasion, and one-time reporting requirements; Recordkeeping and Third-Party Disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefit. The statutory authority for the information collection requirements is found at section 225 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 225. The law was enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of the ADA, Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69.

Total Annual Burden: 12,342 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $10,800.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance.” As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/CGB-1 “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance,” in the Federal Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48152) which became effective on September 24, 2014.

Privacy Impact Assessment: The FCC completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at https://www.fcc.gov/general/privacy-act-information#pia. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

Needs and Uses: On December 21, 2001, the Commission released the 2001 TRS Cost Recovery Order, document FCC 01-371, published at 67 FR 4203, January 29, 2002, in which the Commission:

(1) Directed the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund (TRS Fund) administrator to continue to use the average cost per minute compensation methodology for the traditional TRS compensation rate;

(2) required TRS providers to submit certain projected TRS-related cost and demand data to the TRS Fund administrator to be used to calculate the rate; and

(3) directed the TRS Fund administrator to expand its form for providers to itemize their actual and projected costs and demand data, and to include specific sections to capture speech-to-speech (STS) and video relay service (VRS) costs and minutes of use.

In 2003, the Commission released the 2003 Second Improved TRS Order, published at 68 FR 50973, August 25, 2003, which among other things required that TRS providers offer certain local exchange carrier (LEC)-based improved services and features where technologically feasible, including a speed dialing requirement which may entail voluntary recordkeeping for TRS providers to maintain a list of telephone numbers. See also 47 CFR 64.604(a)(3)(vi)(B).

In 2007, the Commission released the Section 225/255 VoIP Report and Order, published at 72 FR 43546, August 6, 2007, extending the disability access requirements that apply to telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers under 47 U.S.C. 225, 255 to interconnected voice over internet protocol (VoIP) service providers and equipment manufacturers. As a result, under rules implementing section 225 of the Act, interconnected VoIP service providers are required to publicize information about telecommunications relay services (TRS) and 711 abbreviated dialing access to TRS. See also 47 CFR 64.604(c)(3).

In 2007, the Commission also released the 2007 Cost Recovery Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, published at 73 FR 3197, January 17, 2008, in which the Commission:

(1) Adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate traditional TRS and interstate STS based on the Multi-state Average Rate Structure (MARS) plan, under which interstate TRS compensation rates are determined by weighted average of the states' intrastate compensation rates, and which includes for STS additional compensation approved by the Commission for STS outreach;

(2) requires STS providers to file a report annually with the TRS Fund administrator and the Commission on their specific outreach efforts directly attributable to the additional compensation approved by the Commission for STS outreach.

(3) adopted a new cost recovery methodology for interstate captioned telephone service (CTS), as well as internet Protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS), based on the MARS plan;

(4) adopted a cost recovery methodology for internet Protocol (IP) Relay based on price caps;

(5) adopted a cost recovery methodology for VRS that adopted tiered rates based on call volume;

(6) clarified the nature and extent that certain categories of costs are compensable from the Fund; and

(7) addressed certain issues concerning the management and oversight of the Fund, including prohibiting financial incentives offered to consumers to make relay calls.

In 2018, the Commission released the IP CTS Modernization Order, published at 83 FR 30082, June 27, 2018, in which the Commission:

(1) Determined that it would transition the methodology for IP CTS cost recovery from the MARS plan to cost-based rates and adopted interim rates; and

(2) added two cost reporting requirements for IP CTS providers: (i) In annual cost data filings and supplementary information provided to the TRS Fund administrator, IP CTS providers that contract for the supply of services used in the provision of TRS, shall include information about payments under such contracts, classified according to the substantive cost categories specified by the TRS Fund administrator; and (ii) in the course of an audit or otherwise upon demand, IP CTS providers must make available any relevant documentation. 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(1), (6).

OMB Control Number: 3060-1215.

Title: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of an existing collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local and tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 280 respondents; 280 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .5-10 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement; upon commencement of service, or within 3 years of effective date of rules; and at end of license term, or 2024 for incumbent licensees.

Obligation to Respond: Statutory authority for this collection are contained in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 336, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.

Total Annual Burden: 615 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $450,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: In this collection, the Commission adopted new licensing, service, and technical rules under Part 30 of the Commission's Rules for the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz bands (collectively, 24 GHz band), the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band), the 38.6-40 GHz band (39 GHz band), the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band), the 47.2-48.2 GHz band (47 GHz band). Therefore, the Commission expanded the scope of the rules to include additional bands. In turn, since the rules now apply in additional bands, the number of respondents, the annual number of responses, annual burden hours and annual costs will increase for this collection. The Commission also authorizes unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band under Part 15. In so doing, the Commission created a consistent framework across all of the bands that can serve as a template for additional bands in the future.

The rules adopted by the Commission, in FCC 17-152 and FCC 18-73 revise the previously approved information collection relating to Section 25.136 of the Commission's Rules. The Commission added the 24 GHz band and the 47 GHz band (47.2-48.2 GHz) to the bands that are subject to the framework for sharing between the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) and the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) established in that rule. In addition, the Commission modified the sharing criteria between UMFUS and FSS to facilitate deployment of FSS earth stations in smaller markets and decrease the possibility of conflicts between UMFUS and FSS.

Section 25.136—This rule contains both a third-party coordination requirement and a filing requirement. Both requirements are necessary to ensure that Fixed Satellite Service earth stations can receive interference protection without having an undue impact on terrestrial deployment.

The FDIC is considering possible revisions to the following collection of information:

Title: National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households.

OMB Number: 3064-0167.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Affected Public: U.S. Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 40,000.

Average time per response: 9 minutes (0.15 hours) per respondent.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 0.15 hours × 40,000 respondents = 6,000 hours.

General Description of Collection: The FDIC recognizes that public confidence in the banking system is strengthened when banks effectively serve the broadest possible set of consumers. As a result, the agency is committed to increasing economic inclusion in the financial mainstream by ensuring that all Americans have access to safe, secure, and affordable banking services. The National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households is one contribution to this end.

The National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households is also a key component of the FDIC's efforts to comply with a Congressional mandate contained in section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (“Reform Act”) (Pub. L. 109-173), which calls for the FDIC to conduct ongoing surveys “on efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings account or other type of transaction or check cashing account at an insured depository institution (hereafter in this section referred to as the `unbanked') into the conventional finance system.” Section 7 further instructs the FDIC to consider several factors in its conduct of the surveys, including: (1) “What cultural, language and identification issues as well as transaction costs appear to most prevent `unbanked' individuals from establishing conventional accounts”; and (2) “what is a fair estimate of the size and worth of the “unbanked” market in the United States.” The National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households is designed to address these factors and provide a factual basis on the proportions of unbanked households. Such a factual basis is necessary to adequately assess banks' efforts to serve these households as required by the statutory mandate. The National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households is the only population-representative survey conducted at the national level that provides state-level estimates of the size and characteristics of unbanked and underbanked households for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The FDIC supplement collects nationally-representative data, not otherwise available, to measure and track economic inclusion, and assess the accessibility and sustainability of banking relationships. The survey identifies different banking status groups, including unbanked and underbanked consumers. In identifying underbanked consumers, the FDIC considers households that have bank accounts but also substantially rely on nonbank financial services to meet basic financial needs such as receiving income, paying bills, saving and storing money, and accessing basic consumer credit. There is an emphasis on services that are disproportionately relied on by the unbanked, and are provided by a company or firm, as opposed to those accessed informally through individuals. The survey captures the use of a range of bank and nonbank products, and other data to help assess the reasons why some households do not make greater use of mainstream banking services.

To obtain this information, the FDIC partners with the U.S. Census Bureau, which administers the Household Survey supplement (“FDIC Supplement') to households that participate in the CPS. The supplement has been administered every other year since January 2009. The previous survey questionnaires and survey results can be accessed through the following link: http://www.economicinclusion.gov/surveys/.

Consistent with the statutory mandate to conduct the surveys on an ongoing basis, the FDIC already has in place arrangements for conducting the sixth Household Survey as a supplement to the June 2019 CPS.

However, prior to finalizing the next survey questionnaire, the FDIC seeks to solicit public comment on whether changes to the existing instrument are desirable and, if so, to what extent. It should be noted that, as a supplement of the CPS survey, the Household Survey needs to adhere to specific parameters that include limits in the length and sensitivity of the questions that can be asked of CPS respondents. Interested members of the public may obtain a copy of the proposed survey questionnaire on the following web page: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2018/2019-draft-household-survey-questionnaire.pdf

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for October 22, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 21, 2018. Write “Linde AG and Praxair, Inc.; File No. 1710068” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/praxairlindedivest/ by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that website.

If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Linde AG and Praxair, Inc.; File No. 1710068” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

Visit the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before November 21, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from the proposed merger of Praxair, Inc. (“Praxair”) and Linde AG (“Linde”).

Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, Linde will divest the following assets to Messer Group GmbH (“Messer”): Thirty-two air separation units (“ASUs”); sixteen carbon dioxide facilities; source contracts for nearly one billion cubic feet of helium, twelve helium transfill stations, and a helium purification facility; one liquid hydrogen production facility, as well as equipment, contracts, and related assets. Linde also will divest assets related to its excimer laser gas business to Messer.

Separately, Linde will divest five facilities that produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide (“HyCO”) for on-site customers, along with Linde's hydrogen pipeline in the Gulf Coast and related customer contracts, to Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. (“Matheson”). Lastly, Linde will divest two additional HyCO plants to their respective owners. Linde will divest its HyCO plant in Clear Lake, Texas to Celanese Corporation (“Celanese”) and its HyCO plant in La Porte, Texas to LyondellBasell Industries N.V. (“LyondellBasell”).

Praxair and Linde have agreed to divest the required facilities and assets to the aforementioned buyers, or to alternative Commission-approved buyers, within 120 days after signing the Consent Agreement. Praxair and Linde will hold their businesses separate until they have accomplished the divestitures to Messer and Matheson. The divestiture of these facilities and related assets will preserve the competition between Praxair and Linde that the proposed merger would otherwise eliminate.

The proposed Consent Agreement will be on the public record for thirty days, so that interested persons may submit comments. Comments that the Commission receives during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the accompanying Decision and Order.

On June 1, 2017, Linde and Praxair entered into an agreement and plan of merger, in a transaction valued at approximately $80 billion. Pursuant to the terms of their agreement, the parties will initiate a stock-for-stock exchange to form a new company under the Linde name with headquarters split between Danbury, Connecticut and Munich, Germany. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed merger, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in the United States in markets for bulk liquid oxygen; bulk liquid nitrogen; bulk liquid argon; bulk liquid carbon dioxide; bulk liquid hydrogen; bulk refined helium; on-site hydrogen; on-site carbon monoxide; and excimer laser gases.

Praxair is an international industrial gas and surface technology company headquartered in Danbury, Connecticut. The company primarily serves industrial and specialty gas customers in manufacturing, metals, and chemicals industries. Praxair is the third-largest industrial gas supplier globally by revenue. In the United States, Praxair owns forty-one ASUs and twenty-eight carbon dioxide facilities. In 2017, Praxair's revenue totaled approximately $11.4 billion, about $5 billion of which derived from business in the United States.

Linde, headquartered in Munich, Germany, is a global supplier of industrial gases, homecare respiratory services, and engineering services to customers in the healthcare, chemicals, and energy industries. Linde is the second-largest global industrial gas supplier worldwide. In the United States, Linde owns thirty-two ASUs and thirty-five carbon dioxide facilities. In 2017, Linde generated approximately $20.2 billion in total revenue. Linde's 2017 U.S. revenue totaled approximately $4.4 billion, of which about $2.5 billion derived from its LinCare home healthcare business.

Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are “atmospheric gases,” present in the Earth's atmosphere in varying amounts. Industrial gas suppliers like Linde and Praxair produce atmospheric gases for a range of customer applications and industries, such as oil and gas, steelmaking, health care, and food manufacturing. Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon are three of the most widely used atmospheric industrial gases. Each atmospheric gas has specific properties that make it uniquely suited for its respective applications. For most of these applications, there is no substitute for oxygen, nitrogen, or argon.

Suppliers distribute atmospheric gases to customers in different forms and methods, depending on the volume of gas that the customer requires. Customers that require extremely large volumes receive atmospheric gases from on-site ASUs located at their facilities, or via pipelines connecting ASUs to customer sites. Bulk customers require gas volumes that are substantial, but not large enough to justify on-site or pipeline gas delivery. For bulk customers, suppliers typically transport bulk liquid oxygen, bulk liquid nitrogen, or bulk liquid argon in cryogenic trailers that hold the gas in liquid form. The liquid form is more condensed than the gaseous form, and therefore easier to transport and store in large quantities. Bulk liquid gases are then stored in tanks located at customer sites. From there, customers can use the product in its liquid form, or convert it back to its gaseous form before use. Small-volume customers purchase nitrogen, oxygen, or argon in cylinders containing the product in gaseous form. Typically, smaller customers receive gas cylinders from distributors that purchase products from industrial gas suppliers in bulk liquid form. It is impractical for bulk liquid oxygen, bulk liquid nitrogen, or bulk liquid argon customers to switch distribution methods, as their demand is too great to satisfy efficiently with cylinders, but too small to justify the expense of on-site or pipeline delivery.

For atmospheric gases, the ratio of the product's value to its transportation costs largely determines the relevant geographic market. Due to the relatively low sales prices of bulk liquid oxygen and bulk liquid nitrogen and the significant freight costs associated with transporting them, these gases can ship, economically, a maximum distance of approximately 100 to 250 miles from the ASU that produces the gas. Therefore, it is appropriate to analyze the competitive effects of the proposed merger in regional geographic markets for bulk liquid oxygen and bulk liquid nitrogen. The relevant geographic markets in which to analyze the effects of the proposed merger upon bulk liquid oxygen and bulk liquid nitrogen are the following regions: (1) The Northeast; (2) the Mid-Atlantic; (3) Upstate and Western New York; (4) the Carolinas; (5) Northern Florida and Surrounding Areas; (6) Atlanta and Surrounding Areas; (7) the Pacific Northwest; (8) Northern California; (9) Southern California; (10) Arkansas and Surrounding Areas; (11) Northern Texas and Surrounding Areas; (12) Southern Texas; (13) the Central Gulf Coast; (14) the Eastern Midwest; (15) Greater Chicago; (16) Missouri and Surrounding Areas; and (17) Puerto Rico. Because bulk liquid argon is rarer and more expensive than bulk liquid oxygen and bulk liquid nitrogen, suppliers can transport it economically much greater distances. Therefore, the relevant geographic area in which to analyze the effects of the proposed merger on the bulk liquid argon market is the United States.

Each of the relevant markets for bulk liquid oxygen and bulk liquid nitrogen would become significantly more concentrated following the proposed merger. The proposed merger would consolidate two of the leading suppliers of bulk liquid oxygen and bulk liquid nitrogen in each of these areas. For bulk liquid argon, there are five significant suppliers in the United States. Praxair is the second-largest domestic producer of bulk liquid argon. The proposed merger would eliminate one of the largest suppliers and substantially increase concentration in the U.S. bulk liquid argon market, creating a highly concentrated market.

Carbon dioxide is a “process gas,” which means that it is captured as a by-product of other manufacturing processes, such as ethanol, ammonia, and hydrogen. Crude carbon dioxide also derives from natural sources, such as natural gas wells. Suppliers convert and distill crude carbon dioxide into final liquid form using a cryogenic process at plants often located near carbon dioxide gas sources. The most common applications for liquid carbon dioxide are in food and beverage production. For example, customers commonly use carbon dioxide in processes to carbonate beverages and chill or freeze food. For the majority of its applications, liquid carbon dioxide has no viable substitutes.

Suppliers deliver liquid carbon dioxide to customers in bulk trailers or rail cars. Most customers store liquid carbon dioxide in tanks located at their manufacturing facilities. Customers would not switch to cylinder delivery because bulk delivery is far cheaper, and they would have to manage significantly more deliveries to meet their needs. In addition, customers would not consider self-sourcing liquid carbon dioxide unless the cost increased significantly more than ten percent, because of the costs to build necessary infrastructure and the limited sources of carbon dioxide available.

Due to the significant freight costs associated with transporting liquid carbon dioxide relative to its sales price, suppliers can only ship liquid carbon dioxide economically up to 250 miles by truck. In areas with few or no carbon dioxide sources, liquid carbon dioxide is shipped as much as 750 miles by rail. Therefore, it is appropriate to analyze the competitive effects of the proposed merger in regional geographic markets for bulk liquid carbon dioxide. For bulk liquid carbon dioxide, the relevant geographic markets in which to analyze the effects of the proposed merger include the following regions: (1) Northern California; (2) Southern California; (3) the Southeast; (4) the Mid-Atlantic; (5) the Rocky Mountains; (6) the Plains; (7) Southern Texas; (8) the Eastern Midwest; and (9) Greater Chicago.

The proposed merger would combine the largest and third-largest suppliers of bulk liquid carbon dioxide in the United States. In each relevant geographic market for bulk liquid carbon dioxide, the merged firm would control a high share of capacity. Further, Linde and Praxair are the two closest suppliers for numerous customers across multiple relevant geographic markets, and the merger would eliminate a close constraint on pricing of bulk liquid carbon dioxide.

Both Linde and Praxair are suppliers of bulk refined helium. Bulk refined helium has specific properties that make it uniquely suited for its applications. For example, because helium has the lowest boiling point of any element, liquid helium is valuable as a cooling agent in superconductivity for medical applications, such as magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”), and certain manufacturing applications. For most applications, there is no substitute for bulk refined helium, and customers are unlikely to switch to another gas or product, even if the price of bulk refined helium increased by five to ten percent.

Suppliers distribute refined helium to customers in cylinder form or bulk form, depending on the customers' volume requirements. Customers that require large volumes of refined helium generally purchase the gas in bulk form. Suppliers often package bulk refined helium in containers called “dewars,” and then distribute the product in liquid form to customers. For customers that require helium in its gaseous state, suppliers can convert bulk refined helium from liquid to gaseous form. Suppliers distribute bulk quantities of gaseous helium in high-pressure “tube trailers.” Customers obtain helium in bulk form because it is the most cost-effective way to purchase the high volume of refined helium that they require. Accordingly, customers would not switch distribution methods for their purchases of refined helium, even if the prices of bulk refined helium distributed by one method increased by five to ten percent.

Helium is a rare and expensive gas that can be, and is, transported economically on a worldwide basis. Capacity and demand for helium produced abroad influences the capacity and demand for helium produced domestically. Suppliers source helium primarily from a few large sources, and ship helium from those sources to customers around the world. Therefore, it is appropriate to analyze the competitive effects of the proposed merger using a worldwide market for bulk refined helium.

The market for bulk refined helium is highly concentrated. Linde and Praxair are two of only five companies in the world with access to significant quantities of bulk refined helium. The proposed transaction combines the largest and third-largest bulk refined helium suppliers in the world. Post-merger, the combined entity would control two-fifths of the global helium supply.

Hydrogen is a non-atmospheric gas produced as a by-product of other processes, including natural gas extraction and petrochemical production. Most crude hydrogen comes from third-party feedstocks. Industrial gas suppliers purify and liquefy crude hydrogen before distributing it to customers. Customers use liquid hydrogen for a range of applications across several industries. For example, liquid hydrogen has applications in space programs as a primary rocket fuel and as a propellant for nuclear powered rockets and space vehicles, in hydrogenation and clean energy storage, and as an active ingredient in chemical manufacturing processes.

Customers that require very large quantities of hydrogen on a regular basis typically receive the gas via an on-site plant or pipeline. For customers that require a small amount of hydrogen, cylinders are most economical. Customers that require more hydrogen than can be practicably supplied with cylinders, but not enough volume to justify the costs of on-site or pipeline delivery, typically receive bulk liquid delivery. For most applications, there are no viable economic alternatives to bulk liquid hydrogen. Further, because distribution methods depend on volume requirements, customers cannot switch to cylinders or on-site distribution if bulk prices were to increase.

The relevant geographic market for bulk liquid hydrogen is national. The value of bulk liquid hydrogen relative to the cost of transportation is the primary factor in defining the relevant geographic market. Liquid hydrogen's high value and limited production allows suppliers to transport it over long distances economically and more efficiently than hydrogen in bulk gaseous form.

Linde and Praxair are two of just four main suppliers of bulk liquid hydrogen in the United States. The U.S. bulk liquid hydrogen market is highly concentrated, and Praxair is the largest producer of bulk liquid hydrogen in the United States. The proposed merger would remove one of the few bulk liquid hydrogen suppliers from the market.

HyCO is the industry term for the on-site provision of hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas. The same chemical process produces both gases, so one gas is always the by-product of the other. Plants that produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide create a mixture called synthesis gas (or “syngas”), which producers separate into its constituent parts using a cryogenic process.

HyCO includes separate product markets for on-site hydrogen and carbon monoxide, because the two gases are not substitutes for each other. For most applications, there are no viable substitutes for hydrogen or carbon monoxide. Likewise, customers cannot substitute bulk delivery for on-site supply of hydrogen or carbon monoxide, and so on-site supply of these gases is a distinct product market, as well.

There are three main types of HyCO plants: (1) The steam methane reformer (“SMR”); (2) the partial oxidation plant (“POX”); and (3) the autothermal reformation plant (“ATR”). Each plant type produces different proportions of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. SMRs produce the highest proportion of hydrogen relative to carbon monoxide. POX and ATR plants produce these gases in more equal proportions. For most on-site hydrogen customers, suppliers build on-site SMRs; however, for customers that need on-site carbon monoxide, suppliers will typically construct POX or ATR plants. On-site HyCO customers usually conduct a competitive bidding process several years in advance of a plant's opening. This bidding process is the source of most competition in the HyCO market. The customer and winning bidder typically enter into long-term contracts that lock-in prices and other terms.

The majority of HyCO plants in the United States are SMRs built for oil and petrochemical companies that only require hydrogen. Carbon monoxide customers are few in number, but large in size and gas needs—most are chemical companies that produce acetic acid, polyurethane, and other compounds. HyCO plants are expensive, costing from $30 million to over $400 million, depending on size and type. The industrial gas supplier usually absorbs the cost of building the plant, and then yields the return from a long-term (fifteen to twenty year) supply contract with the customer. HyCO is a critical input for its customers' products, and HyCO plants often integrate into customers' production sites. Accordingly, HyCO customers require suppliers to have engineering and operational expertise, as well as a demonstrated history and reputation of successfully operating HyCO plants.

Relevant geographic markets for on-site hydrogen and carbon monoxide are national. HyCO suppliers are generally able to serve customers in all areas of the country. The Gulf Coast region is a distinct submarket within the broader national markets for on-site hydrogen and carbon monoxide, as it has the highest concentration of HyCO customers anywhere in the United States. There, hydrogen pipelines serve multiple customers from a single HyCO plant or serve as backup. Hydrogen pipelines allow HyCO suppliers to offer customers lower prices than they could with a dedicated on-site plant at the customer's location. Consequently, HyCO suppliers are only competitive in areas of the Gulf Coast where they have hydrogen pipeline networks.

U.S. markets for on-site hydrogen and carbon monoxide are highly concentrated. Praxair is a market leader, and Linde represents one of a limited number of viable alternative HyCO suppliers. The proposed merger would remove one of the few HyCO suppliers from the market.

Excimer laser gases are a subset of specialty gases commonly used to serve customers in the electronics industry, such as semiconductor or liquid crystal display manufacturers. Excimer lasers use gas mixtures, typically containing multiple noble gases (e.g., neon, krypton, or xenon) and, occasionally, a halogen gas (e.g., fluorine or chlorine). Suppliers of excimer laser gases produce or source noble and halogen gases worldwide, then purify and blend these gases into products that they distribute to customers in cylinders. Neon comprises 95 to 99 percent of most excimer laser gases, with other rare and halogen gases making up the remainder. Neon, krypton, and xenon are present in the air in extremely small amounts, and industrial gas companies produce them only at very large ASUs with specialized equipment to capture these trace gases.

The semiconductor industry is the main customer base for excimer laser gases in the United States. Excimer laser gases generate ultraviolet light in excimer lasers, a component of photolithography machines. In addition, excimer laser gases have applications in annealing processes to produce display screens and for medical ablation, a minimally invasive process that cuts human tissue with minimal scarring (e.g., LASIK vision surgery).

The relevant geographic market for excimer laser gases is at least as broad as the United States. U.S. suppliers ship excimer laser gases to customer sites around the country and the world. Suppliers source excimer laser gas inputs, such as neon, domestically and internationally. Although international customers may not distinguish between excimer laser gases produced domestically or abroad, U.S. excimer laser gas customers prefer suppliers that have domestic production facilities and sources of neon.

Before supplying excimer laser gases to customers, suppliers must complete qualification processes with both laser manufacturers and individual customers to ensure that their excimer laser gases meet purity, quality, and other specifications. Each qualification takes three to eighteen months, and costs at least $125,000. Customers cannot switch from excimer laser gases to another product because there is no substitute that produces the same wavelength of light, and switching to another supplier often requires additional qualifications, resources, and time.

The market for excimer laser gases in the United States is highly concentrated. Linde and Praxair have a combined share of approximately 70 percent in this market, and the proposed merger would reduce the number of domestic suppliers from four to three.

The proposed merger would eliminate direct and substantial competition between Praxair and Linde in each of the relevant markets, provide the merged firm with an enhanced ability to increase prices unilaterally, and eliminate a competitor for gas customers in markets where alternative sources of supply are limited. The proposed merger, therefore, likely would allow the merged firm to exercise market power unilaterally, increasing the likelihood that purchasers of bulk liquid oxygen, bulk liquid nitrogen, bulk liquid argon, bulk liquid carbon dioxide, bulk liquid hydrogen, bulk refined helium, on-site hydrogen, on-site carbon monoxide, and excimer laser gases would pay higher prices in the relevant areas.

The proposed merger would also enhance the likelihood of collusion or coordinated action among remaining firms in these relevant markets, because the merger would eliminate a significant competitor from each market, leaving a small number of viable competitors. In addition, certain market conditions, such as the relative homogeneity of suppliers and products, and the transparency of detailed market information, are conducive to coordination among competing suppliers. These conditions also enhance the ability of competitors engaged in a coordinated scheme to detect and punish deviations from the scheme.

New entry into the relevant markets would not occur in a timely manner sufficient to deter or counteract the likely adverse competitive effects of the proposed merger. Entry into the bulk liquid oxygen, nitrogen, and argon markets is costly, difficult, and unlikely because of, among other things, the time and cost required to construct the ASUs that produce these products. Constructing an ASU at a scale sufficient to be viable in the market would cost at least $30 to $100 million, most of which are sunk costs. Moreover, it is not economically justifiable to build an ASU unless a significant amount of the plant's capacity has been pre-sold prior to construction, either to an on-site customer or to customers with commitments under contract. Such pre-sale opportunities occur infrequently and unpredictably and can take several years to secure.

Entry into the bulk liquid carbon dioxide market would also not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the adverse competitive effects of the proposed merger. Constructing a plant capable of producing bulk liquid carbon dioxide would cost at least $5 to $30 million. In addition, successful entry into the bulk liquid carbon dioxide market requires access to raw carbon dioxide supply sources, which are typically unavailable due to long-term contracts with incumbent liquid carbon dioxide suppliers.

New entry into the bulk liquid hydrogen market is unlikely to be timely or sufficient to counteract the proposed transaction's likely anticompetitive effects. Liquid hydrogen production facilities require years to construct and considerable capital to finance. Further, customers require liquid hydrogen suppliers to have backup supply and be able to deliver product to their sites. A firm is more likely to succeed if it has a portfolio of diversified liquid hydrogen sources, as well as a reliable distribution network, which would require substantial time, resources, and investments to obtain.

Timely, sufficient entry into the bulk refined helium market is extremely unlikely, if not impossible. The most significant impediment to entry is securing a source of refined helium. A new entrant would need to secure multiple sources of refined helium, acquire necessary transportation and storage equipment, and establish a distribution infrastructure. Market incumbents secure all available sources of refined helium in long-term contracts. A new entrant would need to locate a new source of crude helium and build a refinery. In addition, an entrant would need to invest tens of millions of dollars to acquire necessary infrastructure and distribution assets, including transfills, cryogenic storage trailers, high-pressure tube trailers, and liquid dewars capable of transporting helium from the refinery to customers. Given the substantial costs and challenges of entering the bulk refined helium market, new entry sufficient to counteract the competitive effects of the proposed merger would not occur in a timely manner.

Entry into the HyCO market requires engineering expertise, experience in designing and operating the various types of HyCO plants, significant capital resources, and a proven record of success with HyCO customers. It would take several years and substantial investments for a new entrant to develop the expertise, experience, reputation, and credibility necessary to compete in the HyCO market. A new HyCO facility costs $30 to $300 million, depending on the plant size and product mix. Further, in the Gulf Coast, a hydrogen pipeline is an added barrier to enter the HyCO market. Existing pipelines are scarce in this region, and building a new pipeline requires substantial time and resources that few firms have. Finally, opportunities to compete for new or existing HyCO customers are limited, as HyCO supply contracts are long-term, and customers invariably award contracts to proven suppliers.

New entry sufficient to deter or avert the proposed merger's anticompetitive effects in the market for excimer laser gases is unlikely to occur. The principal barrier to new entry is sourcing neon, which accounts for just 0.0018 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Suppliers can produce neon efficiently only at the largest ASUs, which must have a neon gas column. Such an ASU would take several years and cost hundreds of million dollars to construct. In addition, an entrant would have to produce or otherwise secure other input gases, as well as supply, logistics, and distribution infrastructure and employees. An entrant would also have to construct a facility to blend excimer laser gases. Finally, an entrant would have to qualify its products with laser manufacturers and customers, which involves testing gas blends at a customer plants. The costs of entry would be difficult to justify, as the total U.S. excimer laser gas market is only around $40 million.

The proposed Consent Agreement aims to eliminate the competitive concerns that the proposed merger raises in each relevant market. It requires Linde to divest to Messer all thirty-two of its U.S. ASUs, along with related equipment, supply contracts, technology, and goodwill, in the seventeen bulk liquid oxygen and nitrogen markets at issue in this matter. With the divestitures, the merger will not increase concentration in any market for bulk liquid nitrogen, oxygen, or argon. As part of the divestiture, Messer will acquire all of Linde's customer contracts and bulk tanks located at the customer locations.

The proposed Consent Agreement also requires Linde to divest to Messer sixteen carbon dioxide facilities, including production plants and all associated rail depots. Linde will divest all existing contracts with customers supplied by the respective carbon dioxide facilities. Additionally, all assets used to support the distribution of bulk liquid carbon dioxide will be part of the divestiture, including trailers, tractors, and rail cars.

Linde must also divest to Messer its entire bulk liquid hydrogen business, which includes Linde's liquid hydrogen production facility in Magog, Quebec, source agreements, and four hydrogen transfills. Linde will divest all assets related to the bulk liquid hydrogen business including, among other things, employee contracts and information, customer and supply contracts, leases, distribution trailers, and equipment necessary to distribute bulk liquid hydrogen.

The proposed Consent Agreement requires Linde to divest to Messer all of Linde's U.S. bulk refined helium business, as well as global helium sourcing contracts, which, when combined with divestitures in other jurisdictions, are equal to Praxair's current worldwide helium capacity. In addition, Linde will divest its entire network of helium transfills across the United States. All of Linde's helium customer contracts in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile are included in the divestiture. The proposed Consent Agreement also provides Messer with the requisite number of dewars, tube trailers, and helium ISO containers to serve its helium customers worldwide.

The proposed Consent Agreement also requires Linde to divest to Matheson five on-site hydrogen SMRs to Matheson, along with Linde's hydrogen pipeline in the Gulf Coast and all relevant customer contracts. The proposed divestiture includes Linde's SMR facilities in Anacortes, Washington; Lemont, Illinois; Lima, Ohio; McIntosh, Alabama; and Saraland, Alabama. The SMR assets also include Linde's Remote Operating Center in La Porte, Texas, the “control center” for Linde's on-site hydrogen business. In addition, Linde will divest its POX plants in Clear Lake, Texas, and La Porte, Texas, back to their customers, Celanese and LyondellBasell, respectively. This divestiture will resolve the competitive issues that these customers would otherwise face post-merger, as they will be able operate the facilities themselves or contract with one of the firms with a nearby hydrogen pipeline.

To address competitive concerns in the market for excimer laser gases, the proposed Consent Agreement also requires Linde to divest to Messer all of Linde's customer contracts, intellectual property, and key Linde staff to sustain business operations and customer relationships. Neon-producing ASUs will also be included in the asset package. To ensure a seamless transfer, Linde has agreed to supply its finished excimer laser gas products to Messer for a period of three years (with possible extensions of time). This supply agreement will give Messer sufficient time to construct or renovate a facility and obtain OEM and customer certification. The proposed Decision and Order also requires Linde to underwrite the cost of building Messer's new facility. If Messer does not commence construction of the plant within one year, then Linde must rescind its sale of the excimer laser gas business to Messer and divest it to a Commission-approved acquirer.

Linde and Praxair have agreed to divest the required facilities, together with all related equipment, customer and supply contracts, technology, and goodwill, to one or more Commission-approved buyers within four months of consummating the proposed merger. All acquirers of divested assets must receive the prior approval of the Commission. The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the acquisition.

The proposed Consent Agreement incorporates an Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets (“Order to Hold Separate”) to ensure that Linde and Praxair (1) continue to operate separately until the divestitures to Messer and Matheson have been completed and (2) continue to maintain all assets until the required divestitures have been completed. The Order to Hold Separate appoints Grant Thornton LLP as monitor to oversee compliance with all the obligations and responsibilities under the proposed Decision and Order and requires Linde to execute an agreement conferring upon the monitor all of the rights, powers, and authorities necessary to permit the monitor to ensure the continued health and competitiveness of the divested businesses. Further, if the parties fail to divest the assets as required within the time specified, the Commission may appoint a divestiture trustee to divest the assets in a manner consistent with the proposed Decision and Order and subject to Commission approval.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.

Today, the FTC is proposing to impose conditions on a merger between Praxair, Inc. (NYSE: PX) and Linde AG (FWB: LIN), the world's second- and third-largest industrial gas suppliers. While these firms may not be household names, they provide inputs to an enormous number of industrial and consumer products throughout our economy. The merger would be clearly anticompetitive in violation of the Clayton Act, with a high likelihood of harming manufacturers of a wide range of industrial and consumer products.

The Commission is proposing to order substantial divestitures across multiple lines of businesses. Notably, Linde is divesting the vast majority of its U.S. industrial gas business to a joint venture between Messer Group GmbH and CVC Capital Partners, a private equity firm. Separately, Linde will also divest other assets to Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. While the divestitures go a long way to address the anticompetitive concerns, the decision to approve this remedy was still a close call.

The transaction, as originally structured, does not appear to have any significant merger-specific efficiencies that would guarantee benefits to customers. However, the proposed order requires substantial divestitures that might preserve or even increase competition in some product markets. But even with the proposed remedies, this transaction is not without risks to competition. In particular, I would have preferred to include additional protections for the public to safeguard against risks often posed by the private equity buyer interest in the divested assets, as well as the level of debt financing and investment horizons involved.

Competition enforcers, including the FTC, should always examine whether its merger remedies have been successful over the long term. The FTC's 2017 Merger Remedies study highlighted some of the lessons learned from past merger remedies.1

When evaluating the suitability of a divestiture buyer, agencies must determine whether the buyer can meaningfully replace competitive market forces eliminated by a merger. For example, agencies need to be confident that the buyer possesses the know-how and technical capabilities to successfully operate the divested businesses. Among other things, the 2017 study found that the success of a divestiture over time depends, in part, on whether the buyer has adequate financing to ensure success. Given recent trends in our capital markets, we need to carefully scrutinize buyer financing.

In situations like the matter before us, I approached this line of inquiry with several questions in mind:

(1) Does the deal's financing structure allow the buyer to make significant investments to maintain and grow their business in order to vigorously compete? Does the buyer have adequate liquidity to be a nimble and opportunistic competitor?

(2) What is the buyer's level of debt financing, compared to others in the industry? Have creditors protected themselves in ways that are aligned—or misaligned—with the goal of preserving competition?

(3) Does the buyer's financing and governance structure create temptations to make asset sales that would reduce competition?

As noted above, in this matter one of the divestiture buyers, MG Industries, is a new joint venture between Messer Group GmbH, a major industrial gas company, and CVC Capital Partners, a private equity firm.

In this situation, I would have preferred terms in the proposed order that would have required prior notice to or approval by the Commission of any asset sales by MG Industries. There is past Commission precedent for doing so. In situations where there was a risk that the divestiture buyer may subsequently sell assets it acquired pursuant to a divestiture order, the Commission has sometimes ordered the divestiture buyer to agree to a prior approval provision covering any sale of the assets acquired for a defined period of time.

For example, in the Koninklijke Ahold and Delhaize Group matter, due to concern that one of the divestiture buyers (Supervalu) might later transact acquired stores, the Commission required Supervalu to seek prior approval for any such transfer of the divested stores for a period of three years.2

In the Nestle Holdings, Inc. and Ralston Purina Co. matter, the Commission required the divestiture buyer (a private equity fund) to seek approval by the Commission prior to the sale of certain assets held less than five years.3 The buyer would later seek permission from the Commission to sell assets, reducing the likelihood of needing to litigate an anticompetitive transaction.

Private equity funds continue to play a greater role in deal activity across the globe. Notably, private equity participation is associated with higher levels of debt financing, which can amplify both risk and returns on equity. At the most basic level, heavy debt burdens can increase the likelihood of insolvency. Private equity participation is also associated with other firm behavior that can reduce long-term competition, including opportunistic asset sales. This risk may be more acute when funds purchase assets in unusual and distressed situations.

Enforcers must carefully examine investors' unique incentives that can drive firm behavior in ways that affect competition. To assess these incentives, we must always actively probe the entire circumstances of investor involvement in a merger transaction under review. For example, what is the buyer's investment thesis and strategy? How has the investor typically realized gains out of past investments? Does the buyer plan to invest more of its own equity capital into the business or simply further rely on debt financing? When and how does the investor intend to exit its investment? Given all of this, what really is the long-term impact on competition?

While Commission staff certainly ask many of these questions in their review of divestiture buyers, it will be important to ensure that we are conducting careful and adequate due diligence with respect to buyers that are heavily reliant on debt financing and where investment firms exert significant control.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for October 29, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 28, 2018. Write “Social Finance, Inc.; File No. 1623197” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Website, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/socialfinanceconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that website.

If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Social Finance, Inc.; File No. 1623197” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Website at http://www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC Website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC Website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

Visit the FTC Website at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before November 28, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Social Finance, Inc. and SoFi Lending Corp. (collectively “SoFi”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

SoFi is an online lender that offers, among other credit products, student loan refinancing. The Commission's proposed complaint alleges that SoFi makes savings claims that, as detailed below, misrepresent how much money students have saved, will save, or will likely save by refinancing their student loans with SoFi.

SoFi has prominently advertised that consumers who refinance their loans with SoFi have saved large average amounts of money over the lifetime of those loans or each month. These claims overstate consumers' average savings. SoFi's calculations of its members' average savings selectively excludes large categories of consumers who would likely pay more money, instead of saving. Specifically, when SoFi calculates its members' average lifetime savings it excludes all consumers who refinance into longer term loans, most of whom actually pay more over the lifetime of the loan. Further, when SoFi calculates its members' average monthly savings it excludes all consumers who refinance into shorter term loans, most of whom actually pay more on a monthly basis. As a result, SoFi's representations significantly inflate the average savings consumers have actually achieved—sometimes even doubling the actual savings.

Additionally, when a consumer submits an application to refinance his or her student loan(s) and is presented with loan options, SoFi misrepresents that the consumer will save zero dollars when the consumer is actually expected to lose money. Specifically, if, for a fixed rate loan option, the consumer is expected to lose money over the lifetime of the loan, then SoFi falsely states that the consumer's lifetime savings will be “$0.00.” Likewise, if a consumer is expected to pay more on a monthly basis for a given loan option, then SoFi falsely states that the consumer's monthly savings will be “$0.00.”

The proposed order will prevent SoFi from engaging in similar acts or practices. Part I.A. would prohibit SoFi from misrepresenting that consumers who obtain a credit product have saved, will save, or will likely save money, or a specific amount of money, over the lifetime of a credit product or over any other time period (e.g., monthly), including by representing that the amount of money saved over a specific time period will be zero when consumers will instead pay more money over that specific time period. Part I.B. would also prohibit SoFi from making any of the savings claims covered by Part I.A., unless those claims are substantiated with competent and reliable evidence. Part I.C. would prohibit SoFi from misrepresenting any other material fact about the performance, benefits, or characteristics of any credit product when making a savings claim covered by Part I.A.

Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II is an order distribution provision that requires SoFi to provide the order to current and future principals, officers, and corporate directors, as well as current and future managers, employees, agents and representatives who participate in certain duties related to the subject matter of the proposed complaint and order, and to secure statements acknowledging receipt of the order. Part III requires SoFi to submit a compliance report one year after the order is entered. It also requires SoFi to notify the Commission of corporate changes that may affect compliance obligations within 14 days of such a change.

Part IV requires SoFi to maintain and upon request make available certain compliance-related records, including certain consumer complaints and unique advertisements. Part V requires SoFi to submit additional compliance reports within 10 business days of a written request by the Commission. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.

Today, the Federal Trade Commission has issued for public comment a settlement with SoFi, an online student lender. According to the FTC's complaint, SoFi's widely disseminated advertisements have significantly exaggerated the average savings that student loan borrowers achieve when they refinance through the company. These advertisements were deceptive and I agree that SoFi's actions were unlawful, so I have voted in favor.

Our proposed resolution does not require SoFi to pay any money whatsoever for this misconduct. Ideally, SoFi would pay civil penalties for violating the law. Due to limitations in the FTC's authority, the agency cannot seek civil penalties in matters like these. However, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the State Attorneys General would be able to seek penalties from SoFi under existing federal law.1

In future matters where we are unable to obtain monetary remedies, we should carefully consider whether partnering with other law enforcement agencies can lead to better results for consumers and deter bad actors from violating the law.

To inform the public, the FTC publishes in the Federal Register and posts on its website a “system of records notice” (SORN) for each system of records that the FTC currently maintains within the meaning of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a (“Privacy Act” or “Act”). See https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/foia/foia-reading-rooms/privacy-act-systems. The Privacy Act protects records about individuals in systems of records collected and maintained by Federal agencies. (A system is not a “system of records” under the Act unless the agency maintains and retrieves records in the system by the relevant individual's name or other personally assigned identifier.) Each Federal agency, including the FTC, must publish a SORN that describes the records maintained in each of its Privacy Act systems, including the categories of individuals that the records in the system are about, where and how the agency maintains these records, and how individuals can find out whether an agency system contains any records about them or request access to such records, if any. The FTC, for example, maintains 40 systems of records under the Act. Some of these systems contain records about the FTC's own employees, such as personnel and payroll files, while other FTC systems contain records about members of the public, such as public comments, consumer complaints, or phone numbers submitted to the FTC's Do Not Call Registry.

The FTC's SORNs discussed in this notice apply only to the FTC's own Privacy Act record systems. They do not cover Privacy Act records that other Federal agencies may collect and maintain in their own systems. Likewise, the FTC's SORNs and the Privacy Act of 1974 do not cover records that private businesses or other non-FTC entities may collect about individuals, which may be covered by other privacy laws.

On June 12, 2008, the FTC republished and updated all of its SORNs, describing all of the agency's systems of records covered by the Privacy Act in a single document for ease of use and reference. 73 FR 33592. To ensure the SORNs remain accurate, FTC staff reviews each SORN on a periodic basis. As a result of this systematic review, the FTC made revisions to several of its SORNs on April 17, 2009 (74 FR 17863), August 27, 2010 (75 FR 52749), February 23, 2015 (80 FR 9460), and November 2, 2017 (82 FR 50871).

Based on a periodic review of its SORNs, the FTC is publishing two technical non-substantive revisions to Appendix I, which lists the routine uses that apply to all FTC SORNs. First, the FTC is updating the number of routine uses stated in the Appendix from “(23)” to “(24).” This conforming amendment was inadvertently omitted when the FTC, following Office of Management and Budget guidance, added a new routine use to this Appendix, relating to data breach notification, earlier this year. See 83 FR 39095 (Aug. 8, 2018). Second, the FTC is removing the current reference in the Appendix to the “General Accounting Office” and, in its place, adding that agency's current name, the “Government Accountability Office” (GAO). This correction reflects the change in GAO's legal name made by Congress several years ago, Public Law 108-271, 118 Stat. 811 (2004). In the same legislation, Congress made a conforming amendment to the Privacy Act of 1974 to authorize disclosures of Privacy Act records to the “Government Accountability Office.” See 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(10).

The FTC is not substantively adding or amending any routine uses of its Privacy Act system records. The corrections to Appendix I described above are purely technical, and do not in any way modify the legal intent, operation, or effect of the routine uses set forth in that Appendix. Accordingly, the FTC is not required to provide prior public comment or notice to OMB or Congress for these technical amendments, which are final upon publication. See U.S.C. 552a(e)(11) and 552a(r); OMB Circular A-108, supra.

The FTC is reprinting the entire text of Appendix I for the public's benefit and convenience, to read as follows:

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

ATSDR Exposure Investigations (EIs) (OMB Control No. 0923-0048, Expiration Date 3/31/2019)—Extension—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is requesting a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act approval for the extension of the generic clearance titled ATSDR Exposure Investigations (OMB No. 0923-0048; OMB Exp. Date: 3/31/2019) to allow the agency to conduct exposure investigations (EIs), through methods developed by ATSDR.

After a chemical release or suspected release into the environment, EIs are usually requested by officials of a state health agency, county health departments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the public, and ATSDR staff.

EI results are used by public health professionals, environmental risk managers, and other decision makers to determine if current conditions warrant intervention strategies to minimize or eliminate human exposure. For example, four of the EIs that ATSDR conducted in the past three years include the Anaconda Smelter (MT—blood lead and urine arsenic), Former United Zinc and Associated Smelters (KS—blood lead), Dimock Private Well Water Sampling (PA) and Follow-up arsenic urine testing in Hayden, Arizona.

The site is a former smelter located in Anaconda, Montana. Past smelting activities resulted in high levels of heavy metals, primarily arsenic and lead, in community soil and in the slag piles. ATSDR sampled blood and urine in community members to evaluate lead (blood) and arsenic (urine). Given community concern about contamination, all members of the community were invited to participate in the testing.

Urine samples were evaluated for total arsenic, speciated arsenic (organic and inorganic), creatinine and specific gravity. If arsenic is detected, speciation of the sample will determined whether the arsenic is organic (probably resulting from eating seafood) or inorganic (likely resulting from exposure to environmental arsenic). The results of the testing are currently being analyzed by the National Center for Environmental Health/Division of Laboratory Sciences (NCEH/DLS). Results will be sent individually to participants when the analysis is completed and a report will be prepared and presented to the community in a community meeting.

The community is located in the vicinity of the Former United Zinc and Associated Smelters in Iola, Kansas. The smelters operated from 1902 to 1925 and operations resulted in heavy metal contamination in community soils. Limited sampling of the community in the past found elevated blood lead levels in young children. The blood testing was completed in two phases: One in December of 2016 and one in August 2017 and a total of 61 participants were tested: 24 Children younger than 6 years, 17 children aged 6-19 years and 20 adult women. One child younger than 6 years had a BLL greater than 5 µg/dL. The child's parents were notified by phone of the results by the ATSDR Medical Officer and follow up was conducted by the local PEHSU (Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit.

All participants received their results by mail and the EI report was released and presented to the community in a public meeting in August 2018.

Unconventional natural gas drilling activities have been conducted in the Dimock, PA area for approximately 10 years and local residents complain of poor water quality. In 2012, EPA sampled 64 private wells in the area for contaminants that may be present due to natural gas drilling activities. ATSDR assisted in the analysis of the 2012 data set and the following recommendations were made:

○ People with elevated levels of inorganic analytes in their well water should install a home treatment system, and

○ people with high levels of methane in their well water should vent their well and home and treat their water to eliminate potential buildup of explosive gases.

ATSDR completed an EI in 2015 at the ASARCO Hayden Smelter Site in Hayden, AZ. The EI included blood lead and urine arsenic testing. Air monitoring determined that the smelter was not operating during the sample collection period and that, given the short half-life of arsenic in the body, the arsenic results may not be valid.

In 2017, ATSDR retested the participants from the 2015 EI to evaluate their urinary arsenic levels. It was determined that all urinary arsenic levels were below the follow-up level and air data indicate that air arsenic levels in the 2 weeks prior to testing were consistent with usual levels seen in the community. The EI report is being prepared and a community meeting will be held when the document is released.

Additional water sampling was recommended and an EI was conducted in August in 2017. For the EI, the 64 residents previously sampled were invited to have their private wells retested: 25 residences agreed participate in the EI sampling. Residents were provided the results of their sampling and an EI report is currently being prepared. It will be presented to the community in a public meeting when completed.

All of ATSDR's targeted biological assessments (e.g., urine, blood) and some of the environmental investigations (e.g., air, water, soil, or food sampling) involve participants to determine whether they are or have been exposed to unusual levels of pollutants at specific locations (e.g., where people live, spend leisure time, or anywhere they might come into contact with contaminants under investigation).

Questionnaires, appropriate to the specific contaminant, are generally needed in about half of the EIs (at most approximately 12 per year) to assist in interpreting the biological or environmental sampling results. ATSDR collects contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number) to provide the participant with their individual results. ATSDR also collects information on other possible confounding sources of chemical(s) exposure such as medicines taken, foods eaten, hobbies, jobs, etc. In addition, ATSDR asks questions on recreational or occupational activities that could increase a participant's exposure potential. That information represents an individual's exposure history.

The number of questions can vary depending on the number of chemicals being investigated, the route of exposure (e.g., breathing, eating, touching), and number of other sources of the chemical(s) (e.g., products used, jobs). We use approximately 12-20 questions about the pertinent environmental exposures per investigation.

Typically, the number of participants in an individual EI ranges from 10 to 100. Participation is completely voluntary, and there are no costs to participants other than their time. Based on a maximum of 12 EIs per year and 100 participants each, the estimated annualized burden hours are 600.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

Sudden Death in the Young Registry—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Sudden Death in the Young (SDY) is defined as a sudden and unexpected death among an infant, child, or young adults (up to age 20), which is not explained by homicide, suicide, overdose, or the result of an external cause that was the only and obvious reason for the fatal injury, or terminal illnesses. Injury deaths where there may have been an initiating natural cause (e.g., drowning or death of the driver in a motor vehicle accident, which may have been triggered by an underlying cardiac or neurological condition) are also included in the definition.

SDY deaths are not systematically monitored and estimates of the annual incidence of SDY vary due to differences in definitions, inconsistencies in classifying cause, variable age and study populations, and differing case ascertainment methodologies. Because standardized information has not been collected on the incidence, causes, and risk factors, developing evidence-based prevention measures has been challenging.

To address these gaps, CDC, in collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the National Institutes of Health implemented the SDY Case Registry in 2015. Standardized data collected through the SDY Case Registry has been used by the NIH and CDC awardees to generate estimates of the incidence of SDY; to elucidate risk factors; and to develop evidence-based prevention strategies for SDY. The SDY Registry also creates infrastructure for future research about previously unknown or unrecognized risk factors for, and causes of, these deaths.

This information collection request is to continue the SDY Registry. By continuing the prior work of the SDY Registry, the information collected under this request will allow CDC to provide technical assistance to awardees so they can improve their jurisdiction's information on SDY. This includes two additions to their routine Child Death Review (CDR) program: (1) Entering SDY information from existing data sources (e.g., medical records, autopsy reports) used during CDR review into the established web-based NCFRP Case Reporting System; and (2) convening clinicians with three different types of expertise (pediatric cardiology; pediatric neurology or epileptology; and forensic pathology) to conduct advanced clinical reviews of a subset of SDY cases to allow for a more thorough review of information compiled and to generate additional data about the classification of the death. The intended result will be data that can establish incidence and guide program and policy decisions at the state/jurisdiction and local levels.

CDC estimates that the participating states/jurisdictions will collect data on approximately 739 SDY cases per year. For participating states/jurisdictions, burden is estimated for reporting required case information. Based on historical program information, it is estimated that approximately half (370) of the 739 estimated SDY cases each year will undergo an advanced clinical review and classification of cause by a team of three medical experts.

OMB approval is requested for three years. The total estimated annual burden is 521 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed extension to data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

1. Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the data collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

National Quitline Data Warehouse (OMB Control No. 0920-0856, Exp. Date 03/31/2019)—Extension—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Since 2010, the National Quitline Data Warehouse (NQDW) has collected a core set of information from the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico regarding what services telephone quitlines offer to tobacco users as well as the number and type of tobacco users who receive services from telephone quitlines. The data collection was modified in 2015 to collect data from the The Asian Smokers' Quitline (ASQ) in addition to the other 53 states/territories that provide data, and included five new questions to the NQDW Intake Questionnaire to help CDC and states tailor quitline services to the needs of its callers.

The NQDW provides data on the general smoking population who contact their state quitlines, but also allows for collections of information about key subgroups of tobacco users who contact state quitlines to better support cessation services. Data is collected on tobacco users who received service from state telephone quitlines from all funded U.S. states, territories and the Asian Smokers' Quitline (ASQ) through the NQDW Intake Questionnaire. The NQDW Seven-Month Follow-up Questionnaire will be administered to tobacco users who received services from the ASQ only, and is no longer collected from other respondents. Seven-month quit rates have been previously estimated for all Quitline callers except those that call the ASQ. Based on previous literature and a review of the follow-up evaluation data previously collected by the NQDW, seven-month quit rates are not expected to change significantly over time. Data on the quitline call volume, number of tobacco users served, and the services offered by state quitlines will be provided by state health department personnel who manage the quitline, or their designee, such as contracted quitline service providers, using the NQDW Quitline Services Survey.

Data collected from the NQDW is analyzed with simple descriptive data tabulations, and trends are currently reported online through the CDC State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System website. More complex statistical analyses, including multivariate regression techniques will be utilized to assess quitline outcomes such as quitline reach, service utilization, how callers reported hearing about the quitline, and the effectiveness of quitline promotions and the CDC Tips From Former Smokers national tobacco education media campaigns on state quitline call volume and tobacco users receiving services from state quitlines.

CDC uses the information collected by the NQDW for ongoing monitoring, reporting, and evaluation related to state quitlines. Select data from the NQDW are reported online through the CDC's STATE System website (http://www.cdc.gov/statesystem). The total estimated annual Burden Hours for NQDW are 82,477.

I. Background

We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff.” We are issuing the guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

FDA's mandatory food recall authority went into effect when FSMA was enacted on January 4, 2011. Section 423 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350l), as added by section 206 of FSMA, gives FDA the authority to order a responsible party to recall an article of food where FDA determines that there is a reasonable probability that the article of food (other than infant formula) is adulterated under section 402 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) or misbranded under section 403(w) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)) and that the use of or exposure to such article will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals (SAHCODHA). The guidance provides answers to common questions that might arise about the mandatory recall provisions and FDA's plans for their implementation.

In the Federal Register of May 7, 2015 (80 FR 26269), we made available a draft guidance for industry entitled “Questions and Answers Regarding Mandatory Food Recalls; Draft Guidance for Industry” and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by July 6, 2015, for us to consider before beginning work on the final version of the guidance. We received several comments on the draft guidance and have modified the final guidance where appropriate. Changes to the guidance include: Adding clarity regarding the process FDA will follow for a mandatory food recall; providing detail regarding the evidence or circumstances FDA may consider when deciding to move forward with a mandatory food recall; adding a question that lists examples of situations when FDA would deem a food product to represent a SAHCODHA risk; and making editorial changes to improve clarity.

We are removing two questions from the guidance. We are removing the question about when the mandatory recall provisions go into effect, as this provision has been in effect since 2011. We are also removing the question about user fees, as we have not yet issued guidance associated with these fees and we have previously stated that we do not intend to issue invoices for mandatory recall order fees until that guidance has been finalized.

The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated May 2015.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

The Working Group invites public comment on issues related to the Working Group's charge. It may be provided via webcast at the meeting or in writing. Persons who wish to provide public comment via webcast should review directions at https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/tickbornedisease/meetings/index.html before submitting a request to do so via email at [email protected]. Requests to provide webcast comments are due on or before November 26, 2018, and will be limited to three minutes each to accommodate as many speakers as possible. If more requests are received than can be accommodated, speakers will be randomly selected. The nature of the comments will not be considered in making this selection. Public comments may also be provided in writing. Individuals who would like to provide written comments should review directions at https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/tickbornedisease/meetings/index.html before sending their comments to [email protected] on or before November 26, 2018. During the meeting, the Working Group will review the work of the public comments subcommittee, discuss the release of the 2018 Report to Congress, recognize the subcommittee members for their contributions to the 2018 Report, and address the next steps and transition to a new Working Group for the 2020 Report to Congress.

Background and Authority: The Tick-Borne Disease Working Group was established on August 10, 2017, in accordance with section 2062 of the 21st Century Cures Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, to provide expertise and review all HHS efforts related to tick-borne diseases to help ensure interagency coordination and minimize overlap, examine research priorities, and identify and address unmet needs. In addition, the Working Group will report to the Secretary and Congress on their findings and any recommendations for the federal response to tick-borne disease prevention, treatment and research, and addressing gaps in those areas.

The following and all continuing U.S. and foreign patents/patent applications thereof are the intellectual properties to be licensed under the prospective agreement to Ovensa: HHS Ref. No. E-103-2013-0, U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/839,239, “Glucan-Encapsulated siRNA For Treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus,” filed June 25, 2013, International Patent Application PCT/2014/043924 filed June 24, 2014, European Patent Application 14818342.9 filed June 24, 2018, and US Patent 10,077,446 filed June 24, 2014 and issued September 18, 2018. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America. The prospective license would be granted worldwide and in a field of use not broader than therapeutics for preventing or treating insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. The scope of any proposed licensed may also be limited to products sold that include therapeutic siRNAs encapsulated in nanoparticles made from either glucan based biopolymers and/or Ovensa's TRIOZANTM (N,N,N-Trimethyl Chitosan) proprietary biopolymer.

The invention pertains to the use of glucan encapsulated non-immunostimulatory small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) to treat type-2 diabetes. Endocannabinoids (EC) are lipid signaling molecules that act on the same cannabinoid receptors that recognize and mediate the effects of endo- and phytocannabanoids. EC receptor CB1R activation is implicated in the development of obesity and its metabolic consequences, including insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Beta-cell loss has been demonstrated in a Zucker diabetic fatty (ZDF) rat model of type-2 diabetes through CB1R-mediated activation of a macrophage-mediated inflammatory response. Conversely, rats treated with a peripheral CB1R antagonist restores normoglycemia and preserves beta-cell function. Similar results are seen following selective in vivo knockdown of macrophage CB1R by daily treatment of ZDF rats with the instant D-glucan-encapsulated CB1R small interfering RNA (siRNA). Knock-down of CB1R using glucan encapsulated siRNA represent new methods of treating type-2 diabetes or preventing the progression of insulin resistance to overt diabetes.

This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive patent license will be royalty bearing and may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NHLBI receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are timely filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive patent license.

Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

TSA created the Third-Party Canine-Cargo (3PK9-C) Program, under TSA's regulations for Certified Cargo Screening Programs (CCSP), see 49 CFR part 1549, to provide an efficient and effective method for screening air cargo to TSA's standards. Under this program, third-party canine teams trained in explosives detection can be certified by a non-governmental entity, acting under the approval of TSA, as meeting TSA's certification standards. Certified 3PK9-C teams can be deployed to screen air cargo for aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, and other TSA-regulated parties operating under a TSA-approved or accepted security program.

On May 18, 2018, TSA published a notice in the Federal Register seeking applications from qualified persons interested in becoming an approved 3PK9-C Certifier under the 3PK9-C Program. See 83 FR 23287.

The CCSP-K9 security program will define the requirements that TSA-regulated canine explosives detection teams must meet when screening cargo for air carriers and screening facilities and will include eligibility requirements for canine explosives detection teams. These eligibility requirements for canine explosives detection teams include, but are not limited to, experience, education, vetting, and citizenship requirements for canine team handlers. These eligibility requirements for canine explosives detection teams are not contained in the 3PK9 Certifier Order. The 3PK9 Security Program and Order are not available to the public as they contain information that cannot be publicly disclosed under 49 CFR part 1520. Individuals that complete the required vetting processes and other agreements necessary for release of Sensitive Security Information (SSI), including documenting a “need to know,” will be provided a copy of the Order and Security Program.

Canine explosives detection teams may seek certification as early as November 1, 2018, but all teams should understand that successful completion of a 3PK9-C certification event is only one of the requirements for explosives detection canine teams under the CCSP-K9 security program. Among other requirements, the CCSP-K9 security program requires canine explosives detection teams to pass a background check before an air carrier may hire them to screen cargo.

The following individuals and organizations have been approved by TSA to serve as 3PK9 Certifiers:

TSA will continue to provide updates pending formal release of the CCSP-K9 security program. If you have questions, please feel free to email the TSA 3PK9-C Team at [email protected].

On April 6, 2017, the BLM received an LBA filed by Twentymile to lease 640-acres of Federal coal resources to expand its Twentymile Coal Foidel Creek Mine. The LBA underlies private surface and contains approximately 4.68 million tons of recoverable Federal coal resources. The coal resources to be offered are limited to coal recoverable by underground mining methods.

These lands contain 640 acres, more or less.

The EA addresses natural resource, cultural, socioeconomic, environmental and cumulative impacts that would result from leasing these lands. Two alternatives are addressed in the EA:

Alternative 1: (Proposed Action) The tract would be leased as requested in the application; and

Alternative 2: (No Action) The application would be rejected or denied and the subsurface Federal coal reserves would be bypassed.

Proprietary information or data marked as confidential may be submitted to the BLM in response to this solicitation of comments. Information and data marked confidential will be treated in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of such information or data. A copy of the comments submitted by the public on the EA, FMV, and MER for the tract, except those portions identified as proprietary by the author and meeting exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, will be available for public inspection at the BLM LSFO, at the address listed above, during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday.

Comments on the EA, FMV and MER should address, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

1. The quality and quantity of the Federal coal resources;

2. The mining methods or methods to be employed to obtain the MER of the coal, including the name of the coal bed(s) to be mined, timing and rate of production, restriction of mining, and the inclusion of the tracts in an existing mining operation;

3. The price the mined coal would bring when sold;

4. Costs, including mining and reclamation costs, of producing the coal and the anticipated timing of production;

5. The percentage rate at which anticipated income streams should be discounted, either with inflation, or in absence of inflation, in which case the anticipated rate of inflation should be given;

6. Depreciation, depletion, amortization and other tax accounting factors; and

7. The value of any privately held mineral or surface estate in the Foidel Creek Mine area.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established the National Indian Gaming Commission, which is charged with regulating gaming on Indian lands.

Commission regulations (25 CFR 514) provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates and the gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to the Commission. All gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission are required to self-administer the provisions of these regulations, and report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission.

Pursuant to 25 CFR 514, the Commission must also review regularly the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and set a fee based on fees charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and costs incurred by the Commission. Commission costs include Commission personnel, supplies, equipment costs, and postage to submit the results to the requesting tribe.

This List of Restricted Joint Bidders will cover the period November 1, 2018, through April 30, 2019, and replace the prior list published on May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22513), which covered the period of May 1, 2018, through October 31, 2018.

Equinor USA E&P Inc.

Correction

In the Federal Register of November 1, 2018, in FR Doc. 83 FR 54943, on page 54943, in the third column, correct the Title caption to read: “Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, America's Promise Job Driven Grant Program Evaluation, New Collection.”

The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning on or after January 1, 2019. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified, and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential, I have determined that that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated April 15, 2016.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0227, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0227.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0227, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the Federal Register. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

Date of amendment request: May 30, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18150A387.

Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow continued operation with two safety relief valves/safety valves (SRVs/SVs) out-of-service (OOS) and to increase the reactor coolant system pressure safety limit. The proposed changes are based on taking credit for the additional SV that was installed on each unit per the Extended Power Uprate amendments for PBAPS Unit 2 and Unit 3, dated March 21, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16034A372), and a re-evaluation of the transient pressure analysis at the current licensed thermal power authorized by the Measurement Uncertainty Recapture uprate amendments dated November 15, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17286A013).

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

From the above analysis, the licensee concluded that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c)(1)-(3), and accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis of 10 CFR 50.92(c)(1)-(3). Concerning the standard in 50.92(c)(3) (concerning whether a proposed amendment would involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety), the NRC staff elected to use its own analysis in place of the licensee's. The staff's analysis of 50.92(c)(3) is below. The margin of safety is established through (1) the establishment of setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event, (2) the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and (3) the parameters within which the plant is operated. The proposed change does not change the setpoints at which the protective actions are initiated. The proposed design change to lower the required number of operable SRVs and SVs does not significantly reduce the margin of safety because the RPV overpressure protection capability of the 12 operable SRVs and SVs is adequate to ensure the ASME code allowable peak pressure limits are not exceeded.

The plant response to the design basis accidents, AAOs, and Special Events remains bounded by existing analyses.

These events were analyzed under the proposed conditions and it was confirmed that for the peak vessel pressure in the overpressure event, there is still over 20 psi margin before reaching the ASME code overpressure limit. The proposed increase of the dome pressure safety limit from 1,325 to 1,340 psig still provides sufficient margin for the allowed peak vessel pressure and, therefore, continues to support the ASME code overpressure limit requirements.

Compliance with the ASME code requirements for upset conditions of vessel overpressure protection is still ensured with this change to the dome pressure safety limit to support operation with two SRVs out of service.

Therefore, because the proposed change does not affect the setpoints at which equipment relied upon to respond to an event, and the design changes and plant parameters do not exceed the ASME code allowable pressure limits, the change does not “[i]nvolve a significant reduction in a margin of safety” under 10 CFR 50.92(c)(3).

Based on its review of the licensee's analysis, and on the NRC staff's additional analysis of 50.92(c)(3), it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348.

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Date of amendment request: August 27, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18239A355.

Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications to support the proposed compensatory measures for operation of the Leading Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) system at three separate intermediate power levels for an indefinite period when the mass flow input to the core thermal power calculation is from one, two, or three feedwater lines in check mode with none in fail mode, and a fourth intermediate power level when not more than one LEFM is in fail mode, and flow measurement is being provided by the associated feedwater flow nozzle. The proposed changes would allow operation at power levels commensurate with the uncertainties in the measurement of core thermal power (CTP) and reduce the magnitude of the required reactivity maneuver and plant power level change for degradation of the LEFM system.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, with NRC edits in square brackets:

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).

B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.

C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for Hearings and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.1 The request must include the following information:

(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice;

(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and

(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.

D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:

(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and

(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.

E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI.

F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.

G. Review of Denials of Access.

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.

(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.

H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.3

I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.

It is so ordered.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0246 facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0246.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0246 facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

Date of amendment request: August 30, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18242A395.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would add new Required Actions (RAs) and Completion Times (CTs) for three inoperable Control Room air conditioning (AC) subsystems to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.4, “Control Room Air Conditioning (AC) System.”

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: