Federal Register Vol. 83, No.224,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 224 (November 20, 2018)

Page Range58463-58720
FR Document

83_FR_224
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 58506 - Revisions to Testing Regulations for Air Emission SourcesPDF
83 FR 58591 - Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission; Notification of Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 58674 - Call for Expert Reviewers To Contribute to the U.S. Government Review of the Second and Third Special Reports To Be Undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) During the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) CyclePDF
83 FR 58550 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Application for an Exempted Fishing PermitPDF
83 FR 58510 - Elimination of Outdated Tariff-Related RequirementsPDF
83 FR 58564 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 58564 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 58566 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
83 FR 58565 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 58675 - North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority-Continuance in Control ExemptionPDF
83 FR 58675 - North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Mississippi Department of TransportationPDF
83 FR 58506 - Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
83 FR 58572 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 58685 - Safety Advisory Related to Temporary Signal SuspensionsPDF
83 FR 58585 - Notice of Meeting for the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC)PDF
83 FR 58605 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection; Applications for Special DeputationPDF
83 FR 58558 - Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline ProjectPDF
83 FR 58552 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 58553 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 58676 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements-Flightcrew MembersPDF
83 FR 58688 - Senior Executive Service; Combined Performance Review Board (PRB)PDF
83 FR 58568 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 58568 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 58533 - Magnesium From Israel: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationPDF
83 FR 58540 - Certain Quartz Surface Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
83 FR 58532 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 and Notice of Amended Final ResultsPDF
83 FR 58555 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 58538 - Rubber Bands From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
83 FR 58524 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 58547 - Rubber Bands From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 58529 - Magnesium From Israel: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
83 FR 58592 - Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination To Review-In-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions; Extension of Target Date for Completion of the InvestigationPDF
83 FR 58592 - Xanthan Gum From ChinaPDF
83 FR 58563 - Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 58557 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-500); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
83 FR 58556 - PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 58560 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Palmyra to Ogden A-Line Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
83 FR 58560 - El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South Mainline Expansion ProjectPDF
83 FR 58681 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 58678 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 58682 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD)PDF
83 FR 58676 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 58677 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 58683 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
83 FR 58554 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; North Pacific Observer Safety and Security SurveyPDF
83 FR 58549 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Fisheries Participation SurveyPDF
83 FR 58570 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 58571 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 58509 - Elimination of Immediate Notification Requirements for Non-Emergency EventsPDF
83 FR 58674 - U.S. Department of State Cuba Internet Task Force; Notice of Open MeetingPDF
83 FR 58690 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8621-APDF
83 FR 58563 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 58562 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 58466 - Federal Reserve Bank Capital StockPDF
83 FR 58525 - Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Stakeholder Input on Federal Outreach To Control Listeria Monocytogenes at RetailPDF
83 FR 58555 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; High School and Beyond 2020 (HS&B:20) Base-Year Field Test Sampling and RecruitmentPDF
83 FR 58589 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Vessel Entrance or Clearance StatementPDF
83 FR 58626 - Submission for OMB Emergency Review: Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP) Enrollment SystemPDF
83 FR 58528 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 58527 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Colorado Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 58527 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Connecticut Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 58566 - Request for Information on Small-Dollar LendingPDF
83 FR 58690 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation BenefitsPDF
83 FR 58568 - Creaxion Corp. and Inside Publications, LLC; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
83 FR 58594 - Consolidated Modification and Enforcement Proceeding; Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Modification Portion of the Consolidated ProceedingPDF
83 FR 58524 - Information Collection Request; Measurement Service (MS) RecordsPDF
83 FR 58555 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 58504 - Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TXPDF
83 FR 58606 - 659th Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)PDF
83 FR 58642 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC To Amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor; Exchange Rule 519A, Risk Protection Monitor; and Rule 517, Quote Types DefinedPDF
83 FR 58646 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 58630 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 58664 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Long-Term Options ContractsPDF
83 FR 58633 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 100, Definitions; Rule 515, Execution of Orders and Quotes; and Rule 503, Openings on the ExchangePDF
83 FR 58640 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter IV, Securities Traded on NOM, Section 8, Long-Term Options ContractsPDF
83 FR 58586 - Towing Safety Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 58501 - Safety Zone; NASA Activities, Gulf of Mexico, Galveston, TXPDF
83 FR 58595 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Pistoia Alliance, Inc.PDF
83 FR 58649 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rules Related to Market Maker Quoting ObligationsPDF
83 FR 58626 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE Rule 506, Long-Term Options ContractsPDF
83 FR 58628 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Exchange Rules That Reference Pillar Phase I ProtocolsPDF
83 FR 58671 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 406, Long-Term Option ContractsPDF
83 FR 58655 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 406, Long-Term Option ContractsPDF
83 FR 58637 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List as to Certain Credits Applicable to Supplemental Liquidity ProvidersPDF
83 FR 58665 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Maker Quoting ObligationsPDF
83 FR 58657 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rules Related to Market Maker Quoting ObligationsPDF
83 FR 58583 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 58582 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Survey of Current Manufacturing Practices for the Cosmetics IndustryPDF
83 FR 58689 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
83 FR 58601 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Organix, Inc.PDF
83 FR 58596 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Patheon API Manufacturing, Inc.PDF
83 FR 58601 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: LipomedPDF
83 FR 58598 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.PDF
83 FR 58689 - Senior Executive Service; Fiscal Service Performance Review BoardPDF
83 FR 58599 - Edward A. Ridgill, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
83 FR 58596 - Eldor Brish, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
83 FR 58590 - Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Categorical Exclusion for the Seascape Place Single-Family Residence; Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 58673 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the Commonwealth of VirginiaPDF
83 FR 58645 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 58663 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 58587 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0069PDF
83 FR 58574 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 58585 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0103PDF
83 FR 58588 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0003PDF
83 FR 58604 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Oil Pollution ActPDF
83 FR 58605 - NASA Advisory Council; STEM Engagement Committee; MeetingPDF
83 FR 58574 - Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 58522 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Electronic Reporting for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels and Headboats in Gulf of Mexico FisheriesPDF
83 FR 58467 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Hillsdale, MIPDF
83 FR 58468 - Revocation of Class D and E Airspace; Fort Sill; and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Lawton, OKPDF
83 FR 58471 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lapeer, MIPDF
83 FR 58463 - Miscellaneous CorrectionsPDF
83 FR 58472 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Jacksonville, ILPDF
83 FR 58500 - Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia CodesPDF
83 FR 58499 - Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia CodesPDF
83 FR 58513 - Revitalization of the AM Radio ServicePDF
83 FR 58473 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 58475 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 58694 - Pipeline Safety: Plastic Pipe RulePDF
83 FR 58607 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
83 FR 58476 - Allocation of Costs Under the Simplified MethodsPDF

Issue

83 224 Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Farm Service Agency

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58524 2018-25295
Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Pistoia Alliance, Inc., 58595-58596 2018-25241 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58570-58572 2018-25274 2018-25275 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58572-58574 2018-25312 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58574 2018-25214 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Colorado Advisory Committee, 58527-58528 2018-25259 Connecticut Advisory Committee, 58527 2018-25258 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX, 58504-58506 2018-25251 NASA Activities, Gulf of Mexico, Galveston, TX, 58501-58504 2018-25242 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58585-58589 2018-25212 2018-25213 2018-25215 Meetings: Towing Safety Advisory Committee, 58586-58587 2018-25243 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58528 2018-25260
Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees, 58555 2018-25252 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Organix, Inc., 58601 2018-25229 Bulk Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Patheon API Manufacturing, Inc., 58596 2018-25228 Decision and Order: Edward A. Ridgill, M.D., 58599-58601 2018-25224 Decisions and Orders: Eldor Brish, M.D, 58596-58598 2018-25223 Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Lipomed, 58601-58604 2018-25227 Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., 58598-58599 2018-25226 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: High School and Beyond 2020 Base-Year Field Test Sampling and Recruitment, 58555-58556 2018-25264 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources, 58506 C1--2018--24747 Tolerance Exemptions: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503, 58506-58508 2018-25313 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Measurement Service Records, 58524-58525 2018-25253 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class E Airspace: Hillsdale, MI, 58467-58468 2018-25185 Jacksonville, IL, 58472-58473 2018-25170 Lapeer, MI, 58471-58472 2018-25182 Revocation of Class D and E Airspace; and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Fort Sill; and Lawton, OK, 58468-58470 2018-25183 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures: Miscellaneous Amendments, 58473-58476 2018-24960 2018-24962 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements—Flightcrew Members, 58676 2018-25305 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Elimination of Outdated Tariff-Related Requirements, 58510-58513 2018-25324 Revitalization of the AM Radio Service, 58513-58522 2018-25101 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58564-58566 2018-25319 2018-25320 2018-25321 2018-25322 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Requests for Information: Small-Dollar Lending, 58566-58568 2018-25257 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58557-58558 2018-25288 Combined Filings, 58562-58563 2018-25269 2018-25270 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: El Paso Natural Gas Co.; South Mainline Expansion Project, 58560 2018-25285 Northern Natural Gas Co.; Palmyra to Ogden A-Line Project, 58560-58562 2018-25286 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC; Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline Project, 58558-58559 2018-25308 Filings: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., 58563-58564 2018-25289 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 58556-58557 2018-25287 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 58681-58682 2018-25283 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 58676-58678, 58683-58685 2018-25278 2018-25279 2018-25280 Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator, 58682-58683 2018-25281 Vision, 58678-58681 2018-25282 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Safety Advisory Related to Temporary Signal Suspensions, 58685-58688 2018-25311 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock, 58466-58467 2018-25266 NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 58568 2018-25302 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 58568 2018-25301 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: Creaxion Corp. and Inside Publications, LLC, 58568-58570 2018-25255 Financial Crimes Financial Crimes Enforcement Network NOTICES Combined Performance Review Board Membership, 58688-58689 2018-25303 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Appointment of Members: Senior Executive Service; Fiscal Service Performance Review Board, 58689 2018-25225 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Habitat Conservation Plan: Morro Shoulderband Snail; Categorical Exclusion for the Seascape Place Single-Family Residence; Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CA, 58590-58591 2018-25222 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications, 58583-58585 2018-25232 Survey of Current Manufacturing Practices for the Cosmetics Industry, 58582-58583 2018-25231 Requests for Comments: Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software, 58574-58582 2018-25206 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Stakeholder Input on Federal Outreach to Control Listeria Monocytogenes at Retail, 58525-58527 2018-25265 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58528-58529 2018-25261 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

NOTICES Meetings: Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission, 58591-58592 2018-25331
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Allocation of Costs Under the Simplified Methods, 58476-58498 2018-24545 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58690 2018-25271 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Regulation Project, 58689-58690 2018-25230 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 58532-58533 2018-25298 Magnesium from Israel, 58529-58532 2018-25293 Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China, 58538-58540 2018-25296 Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Quartz Surface Products from the People's Republic of China, 58540-58547 2018-25299 Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China, 58547-58549 2018-25294 Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation: Magnesium from Israel, 58533-58538 2018-25300 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, 58592-58594 2018-25291 Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same, 58594-58595 2018-25254 Xanthan Gum from China, 58592 2018-25290 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Parole Commission

See

United States Marshals Service

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: Oil Pollution Act, 58604-58605 2018-25211
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: NASA Advisory Council; STEM Engagement Committee, 58605-58606 2018-25208 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Electronic Reporting for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels and Headboats in Gulf of Mexico Fisheries, 58522-58523 2018-25205 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: North Pacific Observer Safety and Security Survey, 58554-58555 2018-25277 West Coast Fisheries Participation Survey, 58549-58550 2018-25276 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit, 58550-58552 2018-25327 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 58555 2018-25297 New England Fishery Management Council, 58552-58554 2018-25306 2018-25307 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Miscellaneous Corrections, 58463-58466 2018-25181 PROPOSED RULES Elimination of Immediate Notification Requirements for Non-Emergency Events, 58509-58510 2018-25273 NOTICES Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 58607-58626 2018-24894 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 58606-58607 2018-25250 Parole Parole Commission RULES Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes, 58499-58501 2018-25103 2018-25104 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES OMB Emergency Review: Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program Enrollment System, 58626 2018-25262 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Pipeline Safety: Plastic Pipe Rule, 58694-58720 2018-24925 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58645-58646, 58663 2018-25216 2018-25218 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 58633-58637, 58642-58645, 58655-58657 2018-25236 2018-25245 2018-25249 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 58630-58633, 58646-58649, 58671-58673 2018-25237 2018-25247 2018-25248 Nasdaq BX, Inc., 58664-58665 2018-25246 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 58657-58662 2018-25233 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 58626-58628, 58649-58655 2018-25239 2018-25240 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 58665-58671 2018-25234 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 58637-58640 2018-25235 NYSE Arca, Inc., 58628-58630 2018-25238 The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 58640-58642 2018-25244 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Virginia, 58673-58674 2018-25219 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Cuba Internet Task Force, 58674 2018-25272 Requests for Expert Reviewers: U.S. Government Review of the Second and Third Special Reports to be undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change during the Sixth Assessment Report Cycle, 58674-58675 2018-25330 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee, 58585 2018-25310 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition and Operation Exemptions: North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority; Mississippi Department of Transportation, 58675 2018-25317 Continuances in Control Exemptions: North Central Mississippi Regional Railroad Authority, 58675 2018-25318 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

See

Fiscal Service

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement, 58589-58590 2018-25263 U.S. Marshals United States Marshals Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Applications for Special Deputation, 58605 2018-25309 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, 58690-58691 2018-25256 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 58694-58720 2018-24925 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

83 224 Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 26, 30, 40, 50, 70, 73, and 110 [NRC-2018-0200] RIN 3150-AK15 Miscellaneous Corrections AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to make miscellaneous corrections. These changes include removing obsolete language and correcting references, an appendix, operating hours, a telephone number, an inconsistency in a definition, and an office title. This document is necessary to inform the public of these non-substantive amendments to the NRC's regulations.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on December 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0200 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-2018-0200. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected].

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].

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jill Shepherd-Vladimir, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1230, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

The NRC is amending its regulations in parts 26, 30, 40, 50, 70, 73, and 110 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to make miscellaneous corrections. These changes include removing obsolete language and correcting references, an appendix, operating hours, a telephone number, an inconsistency in a definition, and an office title. This document is necessary to inform the public of these non-substantive amendments to the NRC's regulations.

II. Summary of Changes 10 CFR Part 26

Correct an Inconsistency. In § 26.5, this final rule revises the last sentence in the definition of Positive result to correct an inconsistency between the definition and the requirement in § 26.103 by replacing the word “exceeds” with the phrase “is equal to or greater than”.

Remove Obsolete Language. In §§ 26.183(a) and 26.187(a), this final rule revises the language to remove an expired deadline for submission with the original final rule.

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 50

Correct Reference. In §§ 30.7, 40.7, and 50.7, this final rule removes the incorrect reference to “10 CFR 19.11(c)” for NRC Form 3 and replaces it with the correct reference to “10 CFR 19.11(e)(1).”

10 CFR Part 50

Correct Missing Reference. In §  50.8(b), this final rule adds § 50.12, in numerical order, to the list of sections in 10 CFR part 50 that contain information collections.

10 CFR Part 70

Correct Reference. In § 70.38(k)(4), this final rule removes the incorrect reference to “§ 70.51(b)(6)” and replaces it with the correct reference to “§ 70.51(a).”

10 CFR Part 73

Correct Appendix F. In appendix F to 10 CFR part 73, this final rule corrects the title of the appendix, updates footnote 1 to reference the International Atomic Energy Agency's website for current information, and corrects the current list of ratified countries and organizations participating in the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.

10 CFR Part 110

Correct Operating Hours. In § 110.2, this final rule removes the incorrect operating hours of between “8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.” and replaces it with the correct operating hours of between “8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.” for reference service and access to documents requested by telephone as described in the definition for the NRC Public Document Room.

Correct Telephone Number. In § 110.4, this final rule removes the incorrect telephone number “(301) 415-2344” and replaces it with the correct telephone number “301-287-9057” for the Deputy Director of the Office of International Programs.

Correct Office Title. In § 110.6(b), this final rule removes the incorrect Department of Energy (DOE) office title “Office of International Regimes and Agreements” and replaces it with the correct DOE office title “Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control.”

III. Rulemaking Procedure

Under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the requirements for publication in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment if it finds, for good cause, that it is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on these amendments, because notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary. The amendments will have no substantive impact and are of a minor and administrative nature dealing with corrections to certain CFR sections or are related only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. These changes include removing obsolete language and correcting references, an appendix, operating hours, a telephone number, an inconsistency in a definition, and an office title. The Commission is exercising its authority under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) to publish these amendments as a final rule. The amendments are effective December 20, 2018. These amendments do not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC, and do not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC.

IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2), which categorically excludes from environmental review rules that are corrective or of a minor, nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

VI. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the corrections in this final rule do not constitute backfitting and are not inconsistent with any of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. These changes include removing obsolete language and correcting references, an appendix, operating hours, a telephone number, an inconsistency in a definition, and an office title. They impose no new requirements and make no substantive changes to the regulations. The corrections do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR chapter I or that would be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. For these reasons, the issuance of the rule in final form would not constitute backfitting or represent a violation of any of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. Therefore, the NRC has not prepared any additional documentation for this correction rulemaking addressing backfitting or issue finality.

VIII. Congressional Review Act

This final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 26

Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol testing, Appeals, Chemical testing, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Employee assistance programs, Fitness for duty, Management actions, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Privacy, Protection of information, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 30

Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.

10 CFR Part 40

Criminal penalties, Exports, Government contracts, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Uranium, Whistleblowing.

10 CFR Part 50

Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Education, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.

10 CFR Part 70

Classified information, Criminal penalties, Emergency medical services, Hazardous materials transportation, Material control and accounting, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material, Whistleblowing.

10 CFR Part 73

Criminal penalties, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Imports, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

10 CFR Part 110

Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Exports, Incorporation by reference, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 26, 30, 40, 50, 70, 73, and 110:

PART 26—FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 53, 103, 104, 107, 161, 223, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2133, 2134, 2137, 2201, 2273, 2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

§ 26.5 [Amended]
2. In § 26.5, in the last sentence of the definition for Positive result, remove the word “exceeds” and add in its place the phrase, “is equal to or greater than”.
§ 26.183 [Amended]
3. In § 26.183(a), remove the phrase “By March 31, 2010, the” and add in its place the word “The”.
§ 26.187 [Amended]
4. In § 26.187(a), remove the phrase “By March 31, 2010, any” and add in its place the word “Any”. PART 30—RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL 5. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 81, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2111, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

§ 30.7 [Amended]
6. In §  30.7(e)(1), remove the reference “10 CFR 19.11(c)” and add in its place the reference “10 CFR 19.11(e)(1)”. PART 40—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL 7. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 81, 83, 84, 122, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 223, 234, 274, 275 (42 U.S.C. 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2152, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2273, 2282, 2021, 2022); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, sec. 104 (42 U.S.C. 7914); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

§ 40.7 [Amended]
8. In §  40.7(e)(1), remove the reference “10 CFR 19.11(c)” and add in its place the reference “10 CFR 19.11(e)(1)”. PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 9. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; Sec. 109, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 783.

§ 50.7 [Amended]
10. In §  50.7(e)(1), remove the reference “10 CFR 19.11(c)” and add in its place the reference “10 CFR 19.11(e)(1)”.
§ 50.8 [Amended]
11. In §  50.8(b), remove “§§ 50.30,” and add “§§ 50.12, 50.30,” in its place. PART 70—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL 12. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57(d), 108, 122, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 223, 234, 274, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077(d), 2138, 2152, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2273, 2282, 2021, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

§ 70.38 [Amended]
13. In §  70.38(k)(4), remove the reference “§ 70.51(b)(6)” and add in its place the reference “§ 70.51(a)”. PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS 14. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 53, 147, 149, 161, 170D, 170E, 170H, 170I, 223, 229, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2210d, 2210e, 2210h, 2210i, 2273, 2278a, 2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Section 73.37(b)(2) also issued under Sec. 301, Public Law 96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note).

15. Revise appendix F to part 73 to read as follows: Appendix F to Part 73—Countries and Organizations That Are Parties to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 1

1 An updated list of party countries and organizations will appear annually in the International Atomic Energy Agency's publication, Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, at https://www-legacy.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/cppnm_status.pdf. Appendix F will be amended as required to maintain its currency.

Countries/Organizations Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burkina Faso Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Central African Republic Chile China Colombia Comoros Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Rep. of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Estonia Eswatini Fiji Finland France Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao P.D.R. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mexico Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia San Marino Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Tajikistan Thailand The frmr. Yug. Rep. of Macedonia Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen Zambia EURATOM
PART 110—EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL 16. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 51, 53, 54, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 161, 170h, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 20710, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2141, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154, 2155, 2156, 2157, 2158, 2160C, 2160D, 2201, 2210H, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553); 42 U.S.C. 2139a, 2155a; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

Section 110.1(b) also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2403; 22 U.S.C. 2778a; 50 App. U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

§ 110.2 [Amended]
17. In § 110.2 in the definition for NRC Public Document Room, remove the phrase “8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.” and add in its place the phrase “8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.”.
§ 110.4 [Amended]
18. In § 110.4, remove the phone number “(301) 415-2344” and add in its place the phone number “301-287-9057”.
§ 110.6 [Amended]
19. In § 110.6(b), remove the phrase “Office of International Regimes and Agreements” and add in its place the phrase “Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control”. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of November, 2018.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Pamela J. Shepherd-Vladimir, Acting Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Rulemaking Support Branch, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2018-25181 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 209 [Regulation I; Docket No. R-1635] RIN 7100-AF27 Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock AGENCY:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Board of Governors (Board) is publishing a final rule that applies an inflation adjustment to the threshold for total consolidated assets in Regulation I. Federal Reserve Bank (Reserve Bank) stockholders that have total consolidated assets above the threshold receive a different dividend rate on their Reserve Bank stock than stockholders with total consolidated assets at or below the threshold. The Federal Reserve Act requires that the Board annually adjust the total consolidated asset threshold to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Based on the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index as of September 27, 2018, the total consolidated asset threshold will be $10,518,000,000 through December 31, 2019.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 1, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Evan Winerman, Senior Counsel (202) 872-7578), Legal Division; or Jamie Noonan, Lead Financial Institutions Policy Analyst (202) 530-6296), Reserve Bank Operations and Payments Systems Division. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

Regulation I governs the issuance and cancellation of capital stock by the Reserve Banks. Under section 5 of the Federal Reserve Act 1 and Regulation I,2 a member bank must subscribe to capital stock of the Reserve Bank of its district in an amount equal to six percent of the member bank's capital and surplus. The member bank must pay for one-half of this subscription on the date that the Reserve Bank approves its application for capital stock, while the remaining half of the subscription shall be subject to call by the Board.3

1 12 U.S.C. 287.

2 12 CFR 209.4(a).

3 12 U.S.C. 287 and 12 CFR 209.4(c)(2).

Section 7(a)(1) of the Federal Reserve Act 4 provides that Reserve Bank stockholders with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets shall receive a six percent dividend on paid-in capital stock, while stockholders with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets shall receive a dividend on paid-in capital stock equal to the lesser of six percent and “the rate equal to the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend.” Section 7(a)(1) requires that the Board adjust the threshold for total consolidated assets annually to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the BEA.

4 12 U.S.C. 289(a)(1).

Regulation I implements section 7(a)(1) of the Federal Reserve Act by (1) defining the term “total consolidated assets,” 5 (2) incorporating the statutory dividend rates for Reserve Bank stockholders 6 and (3) providing that the Board shall adjust the threshold for total consolidated assets annually to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index.7 The Board has explained that it “expects to make this adjustment [to the threshold for total consolidated assets] using the final second quarter estimate of the Gross Domestic Product Price Index for each year, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.” 8

5 12 CFR 209.1(d)(3) (Total consolidated assets means the total assets on the stockholder's balance sheet as reported by the stockholder on its Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) as of the most recent December 31, except in the case of a new member or the surviving stockholder after a merger `total consolidated assets' means (until the next December 31 Call Report becomes available) the total consolidated assets of the new member or the surviving stockholder at the time of its application for capital stock”.

6 12 CFR 209.4(e), (c)(1)(ii), and (d)(1)(ii); 209.2(a); and 209.3(d)(3).

7 12 CFR 209.4(f).

8 81 FR 84415, 84417 (Nov. 23, 2016).

II. Adjustment

The Board annually adjusts the $10 billion total consolidated asset threshold based on the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index between the second quarter of 2015 (the baseline year) and the second quarter of the current year.9 The second quarter 2018 Gross Domestic Product Price Index estimate published by the BEA in September 2018 (110.172) is 5.18% higher than the second quarter 2015 Gross Domestic Product Price Index estimate published by the BEA in September 2018 (104.745). Based on this change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, the threshold for total consolidated assets in Regulation I will be $10,518,000,000 as of the effective date of January 1, 2019.

9 The BEA makes ongoing revisions to its estimates of the Gross Domestic Product Price Index for historical calendar quarters. The Board calculates annual adjustments from the baseline year (rather than from the prior-year total consolidated asset threshold) to ensure that the adjusted total consolidated asset threshold accurately reflects the cumulative change in the BEA's most recent estimates of the Gross Domestic Product Price Index.

III. Administrative Law Matters Administrative Procedure Act

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice of proposed rulemaking have not been followed in connection with the adoption of these amendments. The amendments involve expected, ministerial adjustments that are required by statute and Regulation I and are consistent with a method previously set forth by the Board.10 Accordingly, the Board finds good cause for determining, and so determines, that notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

10See 12 CFR 209.4(f) and n. 8 and accompanying text, supra.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.11 As noted previously, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

11 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,12 the Board has reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

12 44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 209

Banks and banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation I, 12 CFR part 209, as follows:

PART 209—ISSUE AND CANCELLATION OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CAPITAL STOCK (REGULATION I) 1. The authority citation for part 209 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 12 U.S.C. 222, 248, 282, 286-288, 289, 321, 323, 327-328, and 466.

2. In part 209, remove all references to “$10,283,000,000” and add in their place “$10,518,000,000”, wherever they appear.

By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority, November 14, 2018.

Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-25266 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0500; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-14] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Hillsdale, MI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hillsdale Municipal Airport, Hillsdale, MI, due to the decommissioning of the Jackson and Litchfield VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aids, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of this airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hillsdale Municipal Airport, Hillsdale, MI, to support instrument flight rules operations at this airport.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 31708; July 9, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0500 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hillsdale Municipal Airport, Hillsdale, MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) at Hillsdale Municipal Airport, Hillsdale, MI. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Jackson and Litchfield VORs, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MI E5 Hillsdale, MI [Amended] Hillsdale Municipal Airport, MI (Lat. 41°55′17″ N, long. 84°35′12″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Hillsdale Municipal Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 8, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group,ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-25185 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0246; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-6] RIN 2120-AA66 Revocation of Class D and E Airspace; Fort Sill; and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Lawton, OK AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action removes Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D and Class E airspace at Henry Post Army Air Field (AAF), Fort Sill, OK; amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, Lawton, OK; and amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport and Henry Post AAF. This action is due to the closure of the air traffic control tower (ATCT) at Henry Post AAF. The name of Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport and the geographic coordinates of Henry Post AAF are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” is replaced with the term “Chart Supplement.”

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D and Class E airspace at Henry Post AAF, Fort Sill, OK; amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, Lawton, OK; and amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport and Henry Post AAF to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (83 FR 22889; May 17, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0246 to remove Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D and Class E airspace at Henry Post AAF, Fort Sill, OK; amend Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, Lawton, OK; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport and Henry Post AAF. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication, the FAA found a typographic error in the in the airspace legal description for the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, Lawton, OK. The extension to the south from the Lawton VOR/DME was incorrectly stated from the 6.9-mile radius, instead of the 6.8-mile radius, and is corrected in this rule.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This rule amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

Removing Class D airspace at Henry Post AAF, Fort Sill, OK;

Amending Class D airspace at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport (formerly Lawton Municipal Airport), Lawton, OK, by adding an extension 1.1 miles each side of the 167° radial of the Lawton VOR/DME extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.3 miles south of the airport; amending the exclusionary language from “that airspace north of a line between lat. 34°36′18″ N, long. 98°20′33″ W and lat. 34°37′16″ N, long. 98°28′29″ W to “that airspace within a 2-mile radius of Henry Post AAF”; updating the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and making an editorial change to the legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;

Removing Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Henry Post AAF;

Amending Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport by adding an extension 1.1 miles each side of the 167° radial of the Lawton VOR/DME extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.3 miles south of the airport; removing that area within a 4-mile radius of Henry Post AAF from the airspace legal description; amending the exclusionary language from “within Restricted Areas R5601A and R-5601B when these restricted areas are activated” to “that airspace within a 2-mile radius of Henry Post AAF”; updating the name of the Lawton-Fort Sill Airport (formerly Lawton Municipal Airport), and the geographic coordinates of Henry Post AAF to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the city name associated with Henry Post AAF to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and making an editorial change to the legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”;

Removing Class E airspace designated as an extension of Class D and Class E airspace at Henry Post AAF; and

Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport and Henry Post AAF by amending the extension to the south of Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport from the 167° (previously 178°) radial from the Lawton VOR/DME extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 13.1 (decreased from 20.6) miles south of the Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport; removing the extension from the 358° radial from Lawton VOR/DME; removing the extension to the north of Henry Post AAF referencing the 003° radial from the Lawton VOR/DME; adding an extension 4 miles each side of the 360° bearing from the Henry Post AAF from the 6.5-mile radius of Henry Post AAF to 10.9 miles north of Henry Post AAF; amending the exclusionary language pertaining to restricted areas from “R-5601A and R-5601B when these restricted areas are activated” to “R-5601A, R-5601B and R-5601H when active”; removing the exclusionary language “and excluding that airspace within the Wichita Falls, TX, Class E airspace area” from the airspace legal description; and updating the name of Lawton-Fort Sill Regional (formerly Lawton Municipal Airport) and the geographic coordinates of Henry Post AAF to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

The typographical error in the airspace legal description for the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lawton-Ft. Sill Regional Airport, Lawton, OK, is corrected as follows: The extension to the south from the Lawtwon VOR/DME is corrected to extend from a “6.8-mile radius” instead of a “6.9-mile radius.” Except for this change, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

This action is due to the closure of the ATCT at Henry Post AAF and to remove the associated airspace.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW OK D Fort Sill, OK [Removed] ASW OK D Lawton, OK [Amended] Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 34°34′04″ N, long. 98°25′00″ W) Lawton VOR/DME (Lat. 34°29′46″ N, long. 98°24′47″ W) Henry Post AAF (Lat. 34°38′59″ N, long. 98°24′08″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,700 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, and within 1.1 miles each side of the 167° radial from the Lawton VOR/DME extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.3 miles south of the airport, excluding that airspace within a 2-mile radius of Henry Post AAF. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas. ASW OK E2 Fort Sill, OK [Removed] ASW OK E2 Lawton, OK [Amended] Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 34°34′04″ N, long. 98°25′00″ W) Lawton VOR/DME (Lat. 34°29′46″ N, long. 98°24′47″ W) Henry Post AAF (Lat. 34°38′59″ N, long. 98°24′08″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,700 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, and within 1.1 miles each side of the 167° radial from the Lawton VOR/DME extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.3 miles south of the airport, excluding that airspace within a 2-mile radius of Henry Post AAF. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension of Class D and Class E Surface Areas. ASW OK E4 Fort Sill, OK [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW OK E5 Lawton, OK [Amended] Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, OK (Lat. 34°34′04″ N, long. 98°25′00″ W) Lawton VOR/DME (Lat. 34°29′46″ N, long. 98°24′47″ W) Henry Post AAF (Lat. 34°38′59″ N, long. 98°24′08″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 167° radial from the Lawton VOR/DME extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 13.1 miles south of Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Henry Post AAF, and within 4 miles each side of the 360° bearing from Henry Post AAF extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.9 miles north of Henry AAF, excluding that airspace within Restricted Areas R-5601A, R-5601B, and R-5601H when active.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 8, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-25183 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0683; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-17] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lapeer, MI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dupont-Lapeer Airport, Lapeer, MI. This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Pontiac VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dupont-Lapeer Airport, Lapeer, MI, to support IFR operations at this airport.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 44249; August 30, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0683 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Dupont-Lapeer Airport, Lapeer, MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius (decreased from a 6.5-mile radius) at Dupont-Lapeer Airport, Lapeer, MI; and amends the extension to the north to extend from the 6.4-mile radius (decreased from the 6.5-mile radius) to 11 miles (increased from 10.9 miles) north of the airport.

This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Pontiac VOR, which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MI E5 Lapeer, MI [Amended] Dupont-Lapeer Airport, MI (Lat. 43°03′59″ N, long. 83°16′18″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Dupont-Lapeer Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 357° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11 miles north of the airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 8, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-25182 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0684; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-18] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Jacksonville, IL AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Jacksonville Municipal Airport, Jacksonville, IL. This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Jacksonville VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates for the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Jacksonville Municipal Airport, Jacksonville, IL, to support IFR operations at this airport.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 44251; August 30, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0684 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Jacksonville Municipal Airport, Jacksonville, IL. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (decreased from a 7-mile radius) at Jacksonville Municipal Airport, Jacksonville, IL. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database.

This action is result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Jacksonville VOR, which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL IL E5 Jacksonville, IL [Amended] Jacksonville Municipal Airport, IL (Lat. 39°46′29″ N, long. 90°14′18″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Jacksonville Municipal Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 8, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-25170 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31223; Amdt. No. 3826] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 20, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29 Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2018. Rick Domingo, Executive Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 6-Dec-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 8/1634 10/15/18 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 29, Orig-E. 6-Dec-18 NJ Newark Newark Liberty Intl 8/1636 10/15/18 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 29, Amdt 1C. 6-Dec-18 MT Glendive Dawson Community 8/1795 10/17/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig-A. 6-Dec-18 MT Glendive Dawson Community 8/1861 10/17/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-A. 6-Dec-18 NY Albany Albany Intl 8/3214 10/29/18 VOR RWY 28, Orig-C. 6-Dec-18 TX Albany Albany Muni 8/3862 10/17/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A. 6-Dec-18 TX Albany Albany Muni 8/3873 10/17/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1A. 6-Dec-18 NY Albany Albany Intl 8/6757 10/29/18 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 19, Orig-A. 6-Dec-18 PA Pottstown Heritage Field 8/8210 10/25/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A. 6-Dec-18 NY Albany Albany Intl 8/8629 10/29/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-B.
[FR Doc. 2018-24962 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31222; Amdt. No. 3825] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 20, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29 Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97:

Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2018. Rick Domingo, Executive Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: * * * Effective 6 December 2018 Estherville, IA, Estherville Muni, RANV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1B Rexburg, ID, Rexburg-Madison County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 Philipsburg, PA, Mid-State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig-C Breckenridge, TX, Stephens County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-B Breckenridge, TX, Stephens County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-B * * * Effective 3 January 2019 Brevig Mission, AK, Brevig Mission, BREVIG TWO, Graphic DP Brevig Mission, AK, Brevig Mission, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1 Brevig Mission, AK, Brevig Mission, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1 Brevig Mission, AK, Brevig Mission, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Hot Springs, AR, Memorial Field, VOR RWY 5, Amdt 4D Crescent City, CA, Jack McNamara Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Reedley, CA, Reedley Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig Reedley, CA, Reedley Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig Reedley, CA, Reedley Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Canon City, CO, Fremont County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1 Canon City, CO, Fremont County, RNAV (RNP) RWY 11, Orig-B, CANCELED Canon City, CO, Fremont County, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 29, Orig-B, CANCELED Bridgeport, CT, Igor I Sikorsky Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 2 Oxford, CT, Waterbury-Oxford, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 15 Oxford, CT, Waterbury-Oxford, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 3 Oxford, CT, Waterbury-Oxford, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 3 Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 21, Amdt 12 Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, LOC BC RWY 3, Amdt 7 Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 2 Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21, Amdt 2 Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 3, Amdt 1 Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 21, Amdt 1 Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, VOR RWY 3, Amdt 6D Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls Rgnl, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 10B Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9R, Amdt 12B Mount Vernon, IL, Mount Vernon, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Amdt 12 Mount Vernon, IL, Mount Vernon, VOR RWY 5, Amdt 16C, CANCELED Pittsfield, IL, Pittsfield Penstone Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig-A Connersville, IN, Mettel Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 1 Connersville, IN, Mettel Field, VOR-A, Amdt 1B, CANCELED Peru, IN, Peru Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-B Junction City, KS, Freeman Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-E Eunice, LA, Eunice, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig-A Taunton, MA, Taunton Muni—King Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 2 Albert Lea, MN, Albert Lea Muni, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1C Bigfork, MN, Bigfork Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-C Bigfork, MN, Bigfork Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-C St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 2 St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, ILS RWY 11 CAT II, ILS RWY 11 CAT III, Amdt 1 St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 29, Amdt 2 St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30L, Amdt 12D St Louis, MO, St Louis Lambert Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 30R, ILS RWY 30R CAT II, ILS RWY 30R CAT III, Amdt 12 Greensboro, NC, Piedmont Triad Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5R, ILS RWY 5R SA CAT II, Amdt 7C Grand Forks, ND, Grand Forks Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17R, Amdt 1 Nebraska City, NE, Nebraska City Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 2 Pender, NE, Pender Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-B Pender, NE, Pender Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-B Carson City, NV, Carson, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig Ticonderoga, NY, Ticonderoga Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, Amdt 11 Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24L, Amdt 2 Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 6L, Amdt 1E Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 24R, Amdt 2B Clearfield, PA, Clearfield-Lawrence, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1B Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27L, Amdt 14B Tullahoma, TN, Tullahoma Rgnl Arpt/Wm Northern Field, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 3B, CANCELED Tullahoma, TN, Tullahoma Rgnl Arpt/Wm Northern Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2 Borger, TX, Hutchinson County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Corpus Christi, TX, Corpus Christi Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 14 Corpus Christi, TX, Corpus Christi Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36, Amdt 3 Beaver, UT, Beaver Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Stafford, VA, Stafford Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1A Olympia, WA, Olympia Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 2 Kenosha, WI, Kenosha Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7L, Amdt 3A Kenosha, WI, Kenosha Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7L, Orig-A
[FR Doc. 2018-24960 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9843] RIN 1545-BG07 Allocation of Costs Under the Simplified Methods AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final regulations on allocating costs to certain property produced or acquired for resale by a taxpayer. These final regulations: Provide rules for the treatment of negative adjustments related to certain costs required to be capitalized to property produced or acquired for resale; provide a new simplified method of accounting for determining the additional costs allocable to property produced or acquired for resale; and redefine how certain types of costs are categorized for purposes of the simplified methods. These final regulations affect taxpayers that are producers or resellers of property that are required to capitalize costs to the property and that elect to allocate costs using a simplified method.

DATES:

Effective Date: These regulations are effective on November 20, 2018.

Applicability Date: For date of applicability, see §§ 1.263A-1(l)(5) and 1.263A-2(g)(3).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Natasha M. Mulleneaux, of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting) at (202) 317-7007 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

This document contains final regulations that amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to allocation of costs to certain property produced or acquired for resale under section 263A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).

Section 263A requires taxpayers to capitalize the direct costs and indirect costs that are properly allocable to: (1) Real or tangible personal property produced by the taxpayer, and (2) real and personal property described in section 1221(a)(1) acquired for resale by the taxpayer. The costs that a taxpayer must capitalize under section 263A are its section 471 costs, additional section 263A costs, and interest capitalizable under section 263A(f). Section 263A generally requires taxpayers to allocate capitalizable section 263A costs to specific items of property produced or acquired for resale. However, section 263A(j) instructs the Secretary to prescribe regulations that may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 263A, including regulations providing simplified procedures. Accordingly, § 1.263A-1(f)(1) allows taxpayers to use the simplified methods provided in § 1.263A-2(b) (the simplified production method (SPM)) or § 1.263A-3(d) (the simplified resale method (SRM)) to allocate a lump sum of additional section 263A costs properly allocable to property produced or acquired for resale to property that is on hand at the end of the taxable year, in lieu of allocating costs to specific items of property. Some taxpayers using the SPM or SRM include a negative adjustment in additional section 263A costs when the taxpayer capitalizes a cost as a section 471 cost in an amount that is greater than the amount required to be capitalized for tax purposes. Notice 2007-29 (2007-14 IRB 881) provides that, pending the issuance of additional published guidance, the IRS generally will not challenge the inclusion of negative adjustments in computing additional costs under section 263A or the permissibility of aggregate negative additional section 263A costs.

On September 5, 2012, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (77 FR 54482) a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-126770-06, 2012-38 IRB 347) under section 263A (the proposed regulations) relating to the inclusion of negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs under the simplified methods. The proposed regulations also provided a new simplified method of accounting, the modified simplified production method (MSPM), for determining the additional section 263A costs allocable to property produced or acquired for resale, and redefined how certain types of costs are categorized for purposes of the simplified methods. Two comments responding to the proposed regulations were received and a public hearing was held on January 7, 2013. After consideration of the comments received, these final regulations adopt the proposed regulations as revised by this Treasury decision.

Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions 1. General Prohibition on Negative Adjustments in Additional Section 263A Costs

The proposed regulations generally provided that taxpayers could not include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs to remove section 471 costs, unless the taxpayers used: (1) The SPM and had average annual gross receipts of $10,000,000 or less; (2) the SRM; or (3) the MSPM.

Both commenters stated that the proposed regulations' prohibition on including negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs for taxpayers using the SPM (and above the gross receipts threshold) was unfair to taxpayers unable or unwilling to use the MSPM. One commenter suggested that taxpayers using the SPM are at a disadvantage compared to taxpayers using the MSPM, because the SPM overcapitalizes additional section 263A costs to the raw material content of ending inventory. Another commenter stated that the proposed regulations' prohibition on including negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs under the SPM unduly punished taxpayers that were unable to use the MSPM by requiring those taxpayers to calculate the amount of deductible section 471 costs that should be excluded from ending inventory. This commenter also suggested that only a small number of taxpayers have the resources to determine these costs.

The Treasury Department and the IRS do not adopt these comments because including negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs under the SPM may result in significant distortions of the amount of additional section 263A costs and section 471 costs allocated to ending inventory. However, these final regulations include several changes to address these comments and reduce compliance costs, burden, and administrative complexity. Generally, including negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs results in distortions because the method used to capitalize the section 471 cost is different than the method used to remove the cost from ending inventory. The extent of the distortion, and whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the taxpayer, generally depends on whether the cost was incurred in the production process and how the cost was allocated to raw materials, work-in-process, or finished goods inventories for purposes of section 471. Accordingly, the general restriction on the inclusion of negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs provided in the proposed regulations remains unchanged in these final regulations.

In order to limit potential distortion in the simplified methods, these final regulations also provide a new consistency requirement for taxpayers that are permitted to include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs to remove section 471 costs and that include negative adjustments to remove section 471 costs. The rule provides that such taxpayer must use this method of accounting for all section 471 costs that are permitted to be removed using negative adjustments.

In addition, these final regulations clarify that certain business expenses described in section 162(c), (e), (f), and (g), including bribes, lobbying expenses, and fines and penalties, cannot be removed from a taxpayer's section 471 costs as negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs. This clarification is consistent with § 1.471-3(f), which provides that certain of these expenses are not permitted to be included in the cost of inventories.

2. Classification of Costs

One commenter stated that it was unclear how negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs are measured (for example, in the case of depreciation, at the individual asset level or using total depreciation expense). These final regulations provide that section 471 costs, additional section 263A costs, and any adjustments to section 471 costs or additional section 263A costs are classified using the narrower of (1) the classifications of costs used by the taxpayer in its financial statement or (2) the classifications of costs in § 1.263A-1(e)(2), (3), and (4). If a cost is not described within § 1.263A-1(e)(2), (3), or (4), the cost is classified using the classification of costs used in the taxpayer's financial statement.

3. Modified Simplified Production Method

The proposed regulations provided a new simplified method, the MSPM, to reduce distortions that may result from the SPM. The MSPM in the proposed regulations reduced distortions by more precisely allocating additional section 263A costs, including negative adjustments, among raw materials, work-in-process, and finished goods inventories on hand at year end. Generally, taxpayers would have determined the allocable portion of pre-production additional section 263A costs using a pre-production absorption ratio of pre-production additional section 263A costs incurred during the taxable year over raw materials costs incurred during the taxable year. This ratio would have applied to raw material section 471 costs incurred during the taxable year and remaining on hand at year end (including unprocessed raw materials, and raw materials integrated into work-in-process and finished goods). Similarly, under the MSPM in the proposed regulations, taxpayers would have determined the allocable portion of all other additional section 263A costs using a production absorption ratio of production additional section 263A costs incurred during the taxable year over production section 471 costs incurred during the taxable year. This ratio would have applied to production section 471 costs incurred during the taxable year and remaining on hand at year end (excluding raw materials integrated into work-in-process and finished goods).

Both commenters stated that some taxpayers could not readily identify raw materials that are integrated into work-in-process and finished goods inventories on hand at year end. The commenters asserted that those taxpayers would have to modify their books and records or purchase a new computer system to track these raw materials. Both commenters stated that this requirement would place an unfair burden on taxpayers, especially smaller taxpayers. One commenter suggested that the final regulations clarify that a taxpayer may use any reasonable method to estimate the raw material component of work-in-process and finished goods inventories on hand at year end.

First, to reduce the number of defined terms and to be consistent with the use of that term in § 1.263A-1(e)(2)(i)(A), these final regulations use the term “direct material costs” rather than “raw material costs,” as used in the proposed regulations.

Second, the Treasury Department and the IRS understand that some taxpayers may not be able to readily identify direct material costs in work-in-process and finished goods inventories on hand at year end. Accordingly, these final regulations modify the MSPM so that taxpayers using the MSPM are not required to separately track direct material costs that are integrated into work-in-process and finished goods inventories. Specifically, these final regulations modify the MSPM by: (1) Applying the pre-production absorption ratio to only unprocessed direct material section 471 costs incurred during the taxable year and remaining on hand at year end; (2) applying the production absorption ratio to all production section 471 costs incurred during the taxable year and remaining on hand at year end, which includes direct material costs that have entered or completed production; (3) including the pre-production additional section 263A costs that are not allocated by the pre-production absorption ratio in the numerator of the production absorption ratio; and (4) including the direct material costs that have entered or completed production in the denominator of the production absorption ratio. These modifications to the proposed MSPM reduce compliance costs, burden, and administrative complexity by eliminating the need to separately track direct material costs in work-in-process and finished goods inventories on hand at year end.

One commenter stated that the production absorption ratio under the MSPM in the proposed regulations was distortive because it included post-production additional section 263A costs (for example, storage and handling allocable to finished goods). This commenter suggested the MSPM include a third ratio to allocate post-production additional section 263A costs to finished goods inventories. This suggestion is not adopted in the final regulations because including a third ratio to allocate post-production additional 263A costs adds a degree of complexity to the MSPM that outweighs the benefit of the additional precision it might provide.

4. Allocation of Mixed Service Costs Under the MSPM

The proposed regulations provided that taxpayers must allocate capitalizable mixed service costs to pre-production additional section 263A costs in proportion to the raw material costs in total section 471 costs, with the remaining amount of capitalizable mixed service costs allocated to production additional section 263A costs. The proposed regulations also specifically requested comments on how mixed service costs should be allocated between raw materials, work-in-process, and finished goods under the MSPM.

Both commenters stated that generally raw materials do not attract a large amount of mixed service costs, except for a limited amount of labor-related purchasing costs. The commenters stated that the proposed regulations' allocation of capitalizable mixed service costs between pre-production and production additional section 263A costs resulted in a disproportionate allocation of mixed service costs to pre-production additional section 263A costs. One commenter suggested that the final regulations allow taxpayers to allocate capitalizable mixed service costs between pre-production and production additional section 263A costs using any reasonable method and provided an example of a labor-based allocation method to allocate mixed service costs.

In response to the comments, these final regulations expand the types of methods permitted under the MSPM to allocate mixed service costs between pre-production and production additional section 263A costs. These regulations provide that a taxpayer using the MSPM that capitalizes mixed service costs using the simplified service cost method under § 1.263A-1(h) may allocate capitalizable mixed service costs to pre-production additional section 263A costs based on unprocessed direct material costs in section 471 costs or, alternatively, based on pre-production labor costs in total labor costs. Additionally, if a taxpayer using the MSPM determines its capitalizable mixed service costs using a method described in § 1.263A-1(g)(4) (a direct reallocation method, a step-allocation method, or any other reasonable allocation method), the taxpayer must use a reasonable method to allocate the costs (for example, department or activity costs) between pre-production and production additional section 263A costs, unless the taxpayer's departments or activities are identified as exclusively pre-production or production. For example, it may be reasonable for a taxpayer using a method described in § 1.263A-1(g)(4) to allocate a department's mixed service costs between pre-production and production additional section 263A costs based on labor associated with the department when the department is not exclusively identified as pre-production or production. If a taxpayer that determines its capitalizable mixed service costs using a method described in § 1.263A-1(g)(4) has departments or activities that are identified as exclusively pre-production or production, the department or activity costs must be allocated to pre-production or production additional section 263A costs according to the department's or activity's identification.

One commenter stated that the proposed regulations would unnecessarily require taxpayers that do not have any additional section 263A costs that relate to raw material costs to compute a pre-production absorption ratio. The commenter suggested allocating capitalizable mixed service costs between pre-production and production additional section 263A costs based on the relative proportion of additional section 263A costs in each category that are incurred by the taxpayer. These final regulations do not adopt this suggestion because the relative amount of pre-production and production additional section 263A costs reflect the amount of capitalizable tax costs in excess of the costs capitalized for financial statement purposes but do not accurately reflect the amount of mixed service costs allocable to pre-production and production activities. However, in response to this comment and to reduce compliance costs and burden, these final regulations include a de minimis rule that allows taxpayers using the MSPM to allocate 100 percent of capitalizable mixed service costs to pre-production or production additional section 263A costs if 90 percent or more of the mixed service costs would otherwise be allocated to that amount.

5. Property Produced for the Taxpayer Under a Contract and Property Acquired for Resale

The proposed regulations did not provide explicit rules for the treatment of costs related to property produced for the taxpayer under a contract with another party that is treated as property produced by the taxpayer, as described in § 1.263A-2(a)(1)(ii)(B) (property produced under a contract), and property acquired for resale under the MSPM.

One commenter suggested that all costs related to property produced under a contract and property acquired for resale should be included in the pre-production absorption ratio under the MSPM. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that generally costs related to property produced under a contract and property acquired for resale are best treated as pre-production costs because costs related to such property are primarily purchasing, storage, and handling costs, which are the costs frequently attributable to property that has not entered production. Accordingly, these final regulations adopt this suggestion and provide that additional section 263A costs properly allocable to property produced under a contract and property acquired for resale are generally included in pre-production additional section 263A costs under the MSPM. Similarly, section 471 costs for property produced under a contract and property acquired for resale are generally included in pre-production section 471 costs under the MSPM.

One commenter also suggested that the final regulations clarify the treatment of costs related to property produced under a contract when the property is used in an additional production activity of the taxpayer. These final regulations adopt this suggestion and clarify that for purposes of the MSPM, direct material costs include property produced under a contract that are direct material costs for the taxpayer to be used in an additional production process of the taxpayer. These costs are included in pre-production section 471 costs.

6. Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) Method Taxpayers Using the MSPM

The proposed regulations provided that LIFO method taxpayers using the MSPM must multiply an inventory increment by a combined absorption ratio to determine the amount of additional section 263A costs that must be added to the taxpayers' increment for the year. The proposed regulations defined the numerator of the combined absorption ratio as total additional section 263A costs allocable to eligible property remaining on hand at year end and the denominator as the total section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end. The proposed regulations also specifically requested comments on how the MSPM should apply to taxpayers using the LIFO method.

One commenter suggested that LIFO-method taxpayers should be allowed to use the same two absorption ratios as taxpayers using the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method of accounting for inventories, rather than a combined absorption ratio, to determine the amount of additional section 263A costs that must be added to the inventory increment for the year. This suggestion is not adopted because it would require LIFO-method taxpayers to divide their inventory increments and decrements into raw material and production components, which would add unnecessary complexity and administrability challenges to the LIFO method and the MSPM.

One commenter suggested that LIFO-method taxpayers should be allowed to choose between annual absorption ratios and shorter-term ratios, and base the shorter-term ratios on the taxpayer's method of determining the current-year cost of the items in ending inventory and the value of any inventory increments. This suggestion is not adopted because it ignores the fact that indirect costs are frequently incurred outside of the period used for determining current-year cost, and use of a shorter-term ratio could cause distortions.

One commenter suggested that the final regulations provide special rules for taxpayers that have elected to apply the LIFO method only to raw materials, including raw materials that have entered or completed the production process (the raw material content LIFO method). Specifically, the commenter suggested that final regulations provide that the combined absorption ratio should be applied to any LIFO increment of a taxpayer using the raw material content LIFO method with the pre-production and production absorption ratios applied separately to non-LIFO inventory. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the combined, pre-production, and production absorption ratios could all apply in the case of a taxpayer using the raw material content LIFO method and believe this point is sufficiently clear in these final regulations.

One commenter stated that the definition of the combined absorption ratio was ambiguous because it did not indicate whether the combined absorption ratio was determined on a LIFO basis. The Treasury Department and the IRS intended that the combined absorption ratio be determined on a non-LIFO basis; accordingly, this point is clarified in these final regulations.

7. Definition of Section 471 Costs

The proposed regulations provided one definition of section 471 costs that applied to taxpayers using the SRM, SPM, or MSPM, regardless of whether those taxpayers were in existence before the effective date of section 263A. The proposed regulations generally provided that a taxpayer's section 471 costs were the costs, other than interest, that the taxpayer capitalized to its inventory or other eligible property in its financial statements. The proposed regulations also provided, consistent with the IRS's established administrative practice, that taxpayers must include all direct costs in section 471 costs regardless of the treatment of the costs in their financial statements.

These final regulations clarify that a taxpayer's section 471 costs are the types of costs capitalized to property produced or property acquired for resale in the taxpayer's financial statement. These final regulations also clarify that a taxpayer determines the amounts of its section 471 costs by using the amounts of those costs that are incurred in the taxable year for federal income tax purposes. These final regulations also generally retain the proposed regulations' requirement that section 471 costs must include all direct costs of property produced and property acquired for resale.

However, the Treasury Department and the IRS understand that maintaining separate financial statement and federal income tax cost accounting systems or adjusting the amounts of costs capitalized using the taxpayer's financial statement methods for federal income tax purposes can be costly and burdensome. Therefore, these final regulations provide an alternative method that certain taxpayers may use to determine the amounts of their section 471 costs. This alternative method is available to a taxpayer that is permitted to include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs to remove section 471 costs if that taxpayer's financial statement is described in § 1.263A-1(d)(6)(i), (ii), or (iii) (for example, a financial statement required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); a certified audited financial statement used for a substantial non-tax purpose; or a financial statement (other than a tax return) required to be provided to the government). This method is not available to a taxpayer if the taxpayer's financial statement is described only in § 1.263A-1(d)(6)(iv) (for example, an unaudited financial statement used for a substantial non-tax purpose). The use of this alternative method is limited to taxpayers that have certain financial statements in order to provide adequate safeguards for the use of financial statement amounts in the simplified method formulas. A taxpayer that uses the alternative method determines the amounts of all of its section 471 costs by using the amounts of costs capitalized to property produced or property acquired for resale in the taxpayer's financial statement using the taxpayer's financial statement methods of accounting. A taxpayer using the alternative method may not include any financial statement write-downs, reserves, or other financial statement valuation adjustments when determining the amounts of its section 471 costs.

In order to limit potential distortions in the simplified methods' absorption ratios, these final regulations require a taxpayer that uses the alternative method to consistently apply the method to all of its section 471 costs, including any direct costs required to be included in section 471 costs, any costs used for purposes of applying the de minimis direct costs rules, any costs included in additional section 263A costs after applying the de minimis direct costs rules and the safe harbor rule for certain variances and under or over-applied burdens, and any costs removed from section 471 costs because such costs are not required to be, or are not permitted to be, capitalized under section 263A. In addition, a taxpayer using the alternative method includes in additional section 263A costs all negative adjustments to remove section 471 costs and all permitted positive and negative book-to-tax adjustments. A taxpayer using the alternative method, and the burden rate or standard cost methods described in § 1.263A-1(f)(3), determines the book-to-tax adjustments required to be made as a result of differences in financial statement and tax amounts by comparing the actual amount of the cost incurred in the taxable year for federal income tax purposes to the actual amount of the cost incurred in the taxable year in its financial statement using the taxpayer's financial statement methods of accounting, regardless of how the taxpayer treats its variances or under or over-applied burdens.

One commenter noted that the proposed regulations do not specify how taxpayers must account for differences between their financial statement methods and the tax methods used to determine the value of ending inventory. These differences include special tax methods, such as the lower of cost or market method and the retail inventory method, as well as special financial statement methods, such as write-downs or reserves for slow-moving goods. The final regulations do not change the current requirement that a taxpayer must value its ending inventory by applying its tax methods of accounting, and provide that a taxpayer using the alternative method to determine the amounts of its section 471 costs may not include any financial statement write-downs, reserves, or other financial statement valuation adjustments when determining the amounts of its section 471 costs.

8. Financial Statement Hierarchy and Recordkeeping Requirements for Financial Statements

The proposed regulations did not provide any guidance as to which financial statement a taxpayer uses to determine its section 471 costs. For clarity and consistency, these final regulations provide that for purposes of section 263A, a taxpayer's financial statement is its financial statement of the highest priority, in accordance with the list of categories of financial statements, in order of priority, provided in these final regulations. For example, in order to determine its types of section 471 costs, a taxpayer uses the types of costs capitalized in its financial statement with the highest priority within the categories described in these final regulations.

These final regulations do not impose any specific record keeping requirements for a taxpayer's identification of costs as section 471 or additional section 263A costs, or for a taxpayer's determination of the amounts of section 471 costs. However, the regulations under section 6001 require a taxpayer to keep books and records sufficient to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits, or other matters required to be shown in an income tax return, which includes the identification of costs as section 471 or additional section 263A costs and the determination of the amounts of section 471 costs. This requirement also includes any books and records sufficient to establish a taxpayer's calculation of variances and under or over-applied burdens used for financial statement purposes.

9. De Minimis Exceptions for Certain Direct Costs in Section 471 Costs a. Direct Labor Costs

As noted previously, the proposed regulations provided, consistent with the IRS's established administrative practice, that taxpayers must include all direct costs in section 471 costs regardless of the treatment of the costs in their financial statement. Both commenters stated that some taxpayers do not capitalize certain direct labor costs (for example, holiday pay, sick leave pay, shift differential, and payroll taxes) to inventory for financial statement purposes, and that the proposed regulations' requirement to include all direct costs in section 471 costs would force these taxpayers to create or purchase and maintain a second inventory costing system for tax purposes only.

These final regulations generally retain the proposed regulations' requirement that section 471 costs must include all direct costs of property produced and property acquired for resale. However, to reduce compliance costs, burden, and administrative complexity, these final regulations provide a de minimis direct labor costs rule to allow taxpayers using the SRM, SPM, or MSPM to include in additional section 263A costs, and exclude from section 471 costs, certain direct labor costs that are not capitalized to property produced or property acquired for resale in the taxpayer's financial statement (uncapitalized direct labor costs). However, a taxpayer cannot use this de minimis direct labor costs rule to include in additional section 263A costs basic compensation or overtime or the types of costs included in the taxpayer's standard cost or burden rate methods used for section 471 costs.

Under this de minimis direct labor costs rule, a taxpayer includes in additional section 263A costs, and excludes from section 471 costs, the total amount of all direct labor costs that are incurred in the taxable year that are uncapitalized direct labor costs, if the total amount of those costs is less than five percent of total direct labor costs incurred in the taxable year (whether or not capitalized for financial statement purposes). The de minimis direct labor costs rule requires that any amounts that constitute a reduction to costs be treated as positive amounts for purposes of determining whether the taxpayer's uncapitalized direct labor costs meet the five percent test. For a taxpayer using the alternative method to determine the amounts of its section 471 costs, the five percent test and the amount included in additional section 263A costs are based on the amount of uncapitalized direct labor costs and total direct labor costs that are incurred in the taxable year in the taxpayer's financial statement using the taxpayer's financial statement methods of accounting. The alternative-method taxpayer includes in additional section 263A costs any negative or positive adjustment required to be made as a result of differences in financial statement and tax amounts of the taxpayer's de minimis direct labor costs.

A taxpayer using a historic absorption ratio (HAR) that uses the de minimis direct labor costs rule during its test period or updated test period could treat a particular direct labor cost as an additional section 263A cost in one year of the test period or updated test period, and as a section 471 cost in a different year of the test period or updated test period. The de minimis direct labor costs rule provides a special rule that requires this taxpayer to use the SRM, SPM, or MSPM and HAR during the qualifying period or extended qualifying period in a manner that is most consistent with the treatment of the direct labor costs during the test period or updated test period. Under this rule, the taxpayer determines whether direct labor costs are included in any of its section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end during its qualifying period or extended qualifying period consistent with how those direct labor costs were classified in at least two of the three years of the taxpayer's applicable test period or updated test period.

b. Direct Material Costs

The preamble to the proposed regulations stated that the proposed regulations generally prohibited treating cash or trade discounts as negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs under any of the simplified methods. The proposed regulations expressly prohibited treating cash or trade discounts as negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs under the MSPM and the SRM, inadvertently omitting taxpayers using the SPM from the prohibition. The operative rule in the proposed regulations also specifically requested comments on reasonable methods of allocating cash or trade discounts that taxpayers do not capitalize for financial statement purposes between ending inventory and cost of goods sold. In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that some taxpayers do not capitalize for financial statement purposes certain direct material costs (for example, transportation and other necessary charges incurred to acquire possession of goods).

One commenter stated that the proposed regulations' treatment of cash and trade discounts would impose an administrative burden on taxpayers that do not treat any or all of their cash and trade discounts as negative purchase or production costs for financial statement purposes. The commenter suggested that, if the final regulations preclude a taxpayer from treating cash and trade discounts as negative additional section 263A costs, then taxpayers should be allowed to allocate cash and trade discounts between ending inventory and costs of goods sold using some type of averaging convention.

In general, cash and trade discounts related to section 471 costs, and transportation and other necessary charges incurred to acquire possession of goods, are treated as adjustments to the underlying section 471 costs, and cannot be included as a negative adjustment in additional section 263A costs. However, to reduce compliance costs, burden, and administrative complexity, these final regulations provide a de minimis direct material costs rule to allow taxpayers using the SRM, SPM, or MSPM to include in additional section 263A costs, and exclude from section 471 costs, certain direct material costs that are uncapitalized financial statement costs. This de minimis direct material costs rule can be used for certain direct material costs that are not capitalized to property produced or property acquired for resale in a taxpayer's financial statement (uncapitalized direct material costs) such as cash discounts, trade discounts, and freight-in costs. However, a taxpayer cannot use this de minimis direct material costs rule to include in additional section 263A costs the types of costs that are included in the taxpayer's standard cost method used for section 471 costs (including cash and trade discounts).

Under this de minimis direct material costs rule, a taxpayer includes in additional section 263A costs, and excludes from section 471 costs, the total amount of all direct material costs incurred in the taxable year that are uncapitalized direct material costs, if the amount of those costs in total comprise less than five percent of total direct material costs incurred in the taxable year (whether or not capitalized for financial statement purposes). The de minimis direct material costs rule requires that any amounts that constitute a reduction to costs, such as cash and trade discounts, be treated as positive amounts for purposes of determining whether the taxpayer's uncapitalized direct material costs meet the five percent test. The de minimis direct material costs rule operates similarly to the de minimis direct labor costs rule for an alternative method taxpayer, and for a taxpayer using a HAR. Because any direct material costs included in additional section 263A costs after applying the de minimis direct material costs rule are excluded from section 471 costs, such direct material costs are not treated as section 471 costs for any purpose, including as section 471 costs that are direct material costs in the modified simplified production method formula.

10. Variances and Under- or Over-Applied Burdens

Both commenters stated that some taxpayers do not capitalize certain variances related to direct costs to inventory for financial statement purposes, and that the proposed regulations' requirement to include all direct costs in section 471 costs would force these taxpayers to create or purchase and maintain a second inventory costing system for tax purposes only. The IRS's established administrative practice requires taxpayers to treat positive and negative cost variances and under or over-applied burden amounts related to direct and indirect section 471 costs as adjustments to the underlying section 471 costs. However, to reduce compliance costs, burden, and administrative complexity, these final regulations provide a safe harbor rule for taxpayers using the SRM, SPM, or MSPM to include in additional section 263A costs, and exclude from section 471 costs, certain variances and under or over-applied burdens that are not capitalized to property produced or property acquired for resale in the taxpayer's financial statement (uncapitalized variances or uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens).

Under this safe harbor rule, a taxpayer includes in additional section 263A costs, and excludes from section 471 costs, the sum of the amounts of all of those uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens for that taxable year, if such sum is less than five percent of the taxpayer's total section 471 costs for all items for which the taxpayer uses a standard cost or burden rate method to allocate costs. For purposes of this rule, total section 471 costs for all items for which the taxpayer uses a standard cost or burden rate method to allocate costs are computed before application of the safe harbor method, and must reflect the actual amounts incurred by the taxpayer on these items, which therefore include variances and under or over-applied burdens. If the sum of the amounts of all of those uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens in a taxable year are not less than five percent for the taxable year, the taxpayer must reallocate such uncapitalized amounts to or among units of property as required by § 1.263A-1(f)(3)(i)(C) or (f)(3)(ii)(B), respectively.

Under this safe harbor rule, all variances and under or over-applied burdens are treated as positive amounts for purposes of determining whether the taxpayer's uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens meet this five percent test. Additionally, this safe harbor rule applies to any variances on cash or trade discounts that are included in the taxpayer's standard cost, if those discounts are capitalized as part of the taxpayer's standard cost method used for section 471 costs. An eligible taxpayer must consistently apply the safe harbor method to all items for which the taxpayer uses a standard cost or burden rate method to allocate costs. However, the safe harbor rule only applies to a taxpayer's uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens. In addition, a taxpayer using this safe harbor rule is not permitted to treat uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens that are not significant as not allocable to property produced or property acquired for resale under § 1.263A-1(f)(3)(i)(C) and (f)(3)(ii)(B), respectively.

Finally, for taxpayers using either the SRM or MSPM, allocation rules are provided to help taxpayers allocate these uncapitalized costs between storage and handling costs and current year purchasing costs, in the case of the SRM, and pre-production and production costs, in the case of the MSPM.

11. Smaller Taxpayers Using the SPM

The proposed regulations allowed taxpayers with average annual gross receipts of $10,000,000 or less for the three previous taxable years to include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs under the SPM.

One commenter stated that average annual gross receipts of $10,000,000 or less does not accurately represent a “small taxpayer.” The commenter suggested using the average aggregate value of ending inventory, rather than gross receipts, to identify this group of taxpayers. Both commenters also stated that small taxpayers would have difficulty complying with the MSPM.

The Treasury Department and the IRS do not believe that an average aggregated ending inventory value accurately identifies smaller taxpayers because inventory value can fluctuate greatly within the taxable year, or from year to year. Accordingly, this suggestion is not adopted. However, to reduce compliance costs and burden for smaller taxpayers using the SPM and minimize the difficulty that smaller taxpayers may face complying with the MSPM, these final regulations allow taxpayers with average annual gross receipts of $50,000,000 or less for the three previous taxable years to include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs under the SPM.

12. Comments Regarding the HAR and the MSPM

The proposed regulations provided that a taxpayer using the MSPM could make the HAR election. Under the proposed regulations, a non-LIFO-method taxpayer using the MSPM with the HAR election calculates both a pre-production HAR and a production HAR, to be used for each taxable year within a qualifying period (in place of the actual pre-production absorption ratio and actual production absorption ratio). In the first taxable year following the close of a qualifying period—the recomputation year—if the taxpayer's actual pre-production absorption ratio or actual production absorption ratio is not within one-half of one percentage point (plus or minus) of the corresponding HAR, the taxpayer must use actual absorption ratios during an updated test period, and the qualifying period is not extended. A LIFO-method taxpayer using the MSPM with the HAR election, however, calculates a combined HAR to be used for each taxable year within a qualifying period (in place of the actual combined absorption ratio). In the recomputation year, if the LIFO-method taxpayer's actual combined absorption ratio is not within one-half of one percentage point (plus or minus) of the combined HAR, the taxpayer must use an actual combined absorption ratio during an updated test period, and the qualifying period is not extended.

One commenter suggested that the rules for determining whether a qualifying period is extended for LIFO taxpayers should also apply to non-LIFO-method taxpayers, and therefore, in the recomputation year, all taxpayers should use a combined HAR to compare to an actual combined absorption ratio. This suggestion is not adopted because calculating combined absorption ratios does not match the ratios required to be calculated by a non-LIFO-method taxpayer using the MSPM. A non-LIFO-method taxpayer using the MSPM is required to calculate separate absorption ratios, even when using the HAR.

The proposed regulations also specifically requested comments on transition rules for taxpayers currently using the SPM with the HAR election that change to the MSPM, including comments on how the regulations should apply to taxpayers within a qualifying period as described in § 1.263A-2(b)(4)(ii)(C). One commenter suggested allowing taxpayers currently using the HAR that are changing to the MSPM with the HAR election to open a new test period. Additionally, one commenter suggested that taxpayers be permitted to make the change using a section 481(a) adjustment instead of a cut-off method.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code or the regulations thereunder, section 446(e) and § 1.446-1(e)(2) require a taxpayer to secure the consent of the Commissioner before changing a method of accounting for federal income tax purposes. Section 1.446-1(e)(3)(ii) authorizes the Commissioner to prescribe administrative procedures setting forth the terms and conditions necessary for a taxpayer to obtain consent to a change in method of accounting. Revenue Procedure 2015-13, 2015-5 IRB 419, as clarified and modified by Rev. Proc. 2015-33, 2015-24 IRB 1067, as modified by Rev. Proc. 2016-1, 2016-1 IRB 1, and as modified by Rev. Proc. 2017-59, 2017-48 IRB 543, provides the general procedures by which a taxpayer may obtain automatic consent of the Commissioner to a change in method of accounting described in Rev. Proc. 2018-31, 2018-22 IRB 637. The automatic consent procedures reduce filing requirements, waive user fees, and extend filing deadlines normally associated with a request for change in method of accounting.

Simultaneously with the publication of these final regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing Revenue Procedure 2018-56 (2018-50 IRB) to modify Rev. Proc. 2018-31 and provide the procedures by which a taxpayer may obtain automatic consent to make certain method changes to conform to these final regulations, such as a change to the MSPM by a taxpayer using the HAR.

13. Procedural Requirements for Changing Section 471 Costs or Changing to the MSPM

The proposed regulations did not provide procedural rules for taxpayers changing to comply with the final regulations. One commenter suggested that the automatic change procedures apply or that procedures be implemented allowing the change to be made on an expedited basis.

Simultaneously with the publication of these final regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing Revenue Procedure 2018-56 to modify Rev. Proc. 2018-31 and provide the procedures by which a taxpayer may obtain automatic consent to make certain method changes to conform to these final regulations, such as a change to comply with the new definition of section 471 costs or a change to the MSPM.

Effective Date

These final regulations are generally effective as of November 20, 2018 and apply for taxable years beginning on or after November 20, 2018. For any taxable year that both begins before November 20, 2018 and ends after November 20, 2018, the IRS will not challenge return positions consistent with all of these final regulations.

Special Analyses Regulatory Planning and Review—Economic Analysis

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

These final regulations have been designated by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as Significant under Executive Order 12866 and section 1(b) of the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding review of tax regulations and thereby subject to review under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, these final regulations have been reviewed by OIRA.

A. Overview

These final regulations provide taxpayers with computational and definitional guidance regarding the application of section 263A under the simplified methods. Specifically, they provide guidance for taxpayers to determine the amount of additional section 263A costs to capitalize and make several changes regarding the application of section 263A under the simplified methods to reduce compliance costs, burden, and administrative complexity. This economic analysis describes the economic benefits and costs of these final regulations.

B. Economic Analysis of the Final Regulations 1. Background

For a discussion of the background of these final regulations, see the Background sections of this preamble and the proposed regulations.

2. Anticipated Benefits and Costs of the Final Regulations a. Baseline

The Treasury Department and the IRS have assessed the benefits and costs of these final regulations against a status quo baseline that reflects projected tax-related and other behavior in the absence of these final regulations and includes the effect of Notice 2007-29. Notice 2007-29 allows taxpayers to include negative adjustments in computing additional costs under section 263A and allows aggregate negative additional section 263 costs.

b. Anticipated Benefits

The Treasury Department and the IRS expect that the certainty and clarity provided by these final regulations as well as the substantive contribution of the regulations will enhance economic efficiency relative to the baseline.

In developing these final regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS have generally aimed to apply the principle that an economically efficient tax system would treat income derived from similar economic decisions similarly, to the extent consistent with the Code and considerations of administrability of the tax system.

An economically efficient tax system would generally allow businesses to deduct from income taxes an amount meant to capture the economic cost of their capital investments. Under this principle, rules for capitalization and deductions are most efficient when they most closely mimic true economic depreciation. This conclusion is complicated by a large number of real world factors, including that economic depreciation is endogenous and difficult to measure and that the tax system itself will affect true depreciation. Furthermore, the principles from which the true-economic-depreciation prescription is derived are themselves based on a “pure” tax system rather than the complex real world tax code. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not anticipate substantial changes to the aggregate cost of goods sold, the aggregate tax bases of other produced assets, or the depreciation deductions that will be generated under the new simplified method, the MSPM, relative to the baseline. Therefore these final regulations should not materially affect aggregate tax revenues or aggregate inventory investment relative to the baseline. There may be some modest increase in investment in inventory. For example, investment in raw materials inventory may increase under these final regulations because the relative tax cost of buying and carrying raw materials under the MSPM is generally less than under the SPM. Treatment of inventory under the simplified methods generally remains the same. Because the tax system requires a periodic determination of inventory, there was and still is, an incentive to minimize inventory as of that date, usually the end of the taxable year. The increased investment in raw materials inventory under the MSPM is due to the fact that inventory as of the determination date may be divided into pre-production and production inventory and a specific rate is applied to estimate overhead for each category. While under the SPM the inventory as of the determination date is not divided and one rate is used to estimate overhead for all inventory. There may also be a modest shifting of investment between different types of inventory because the MSPM should improve the measurement of certain types of final inventory and improved precision would generally lead to small adjustments in inventory amounts. Though no specific types of inventory are treated favorably, the modest shifting of investment is expected because the reduced carrying cost associated with maintaining raw materials inventory may encourage or allow some taxpayers to carry a larger quantity of raw materials for business purposes.

c. Anticipated Impacts on Administrative and Compliance Costs

The Treasury Department and the IRS expect that the certainty, clarity, and simplifying changes regarding the application of section 263A provided by these final regulations, relative to the baseline, will reduce annual compliance costs, burden, and administrative complexity. Absent these final regulations, different parties would continue to take different positions regarding the inclusion of negative adjustments in computing additional costs under section 263A and the permissibility of aggregate negative additional section 263A costs. More uniform positions by taxpayers will in general reduce the costs of tax administration.

For taxpayers, the major cost savings of these final regulations derive from the reduction in the computational and record-keeping burdens involved with the use of the simplified methods for calculating end-of-year inventory. These burdens are reduced because taxpayers will now generally be able to use their own current financial accounting methods to determine their section 471 costs, albeit using cost amounts determined under tax law. Taxpayers with audited financial statements, or those who file regulatory financial statements, will also be able to use cost amounts determined according to financial accounting rules. In addition, taxpayers using a simplified method will be able to make positive and negative adjustments to their additional section 263A costs in cases where their section 471 costs, determined using financial accounting methods, either do not capitalize all actual costs or over-capitalize those costs. Finally, taxpayers using the SRM or the MSPM, and smaller taxpayers (those with average gross receipts of $50 million or less) using the SPM will be able to make negative adjustments to their additional section 263A costs in cases where the capitalization of certain costs is either optional or not permitted under the tax law. It is anticipated that larger taxpayers using the SPM who desire such treatment will switch from using the SPM to the MSPM in order to continue to make these negative adjustments.

In addition, absent these final regulations, taxpayers and the IRS would: (1) Continue to be required to use definitions based on a taxpayer's accounting practices used in 1986; (2) continue to be required to use tax accounting rules, rather than their own financial accounting rules, to determine the allocation of certain capitalized amounts; (3) not be able to use the MSPM to more precisely determine the lump-sum of costs to capitalize; (4) not be able to use the new safe-harbors for direct labor and direct material costs not capitalized on a taxpayer's financial statements; and (5) not be able to use the de minimis rules for variances and under- or over-applied burden not capitalized on a taxpayer's financial statements. The changes in each of these directions under the final regulations will generally reduce taxpayer compliance costs. For example, under these final regulations, one definition of section 471 costs applies to all taxpayers, regardless of when the taxpayer came into existence. Previously, taxpayers in existence when section 263A was enacted were required to use definitions based on their actual tax cost accounting practices as of enactment. However, taxpayers that were not in existence when section 263A was enacted were required to use definitions based on what their tax cost accounting practices would have been as of enactment under the law at that time. Under these final regulations, all taxpayers use their present financial statement cost accounting practices. Moreover, taxpayers using the simplified resale method or simplified production method will benefit from no longer being required to adjust their section 471 costs incurred during the taxable year to reflect tax adjustments in their respective simplified method formula. Rather, these simplified method taxpayers may use an alternative method that permits them to use their financial statement amounts for their section 471 costs incurred during the taxable year and make tax adjustments to these costs by using negative adjustments to their section 263A costs.

The most recently available Statistics of Income (SOI) indicates that approximately 30,000 taxpayers were subject to section 263A in 2015 and would be impacted by these final regulations. While the number of affected taxpayers will increase with growth in the economy, the Treasury Department and the IRS do not expect that these final regulations will change the portion of affected taxpayers that use a simplified method because those taxpayers not using a simplified method will likely continue to allocate capitalizable costs to specific items of property under their present method, and taxpayers using a simplified method are not likely to begin capitalizing costs to specific items of property due to these final regulations. The IRS's Office of Research, Applied Analytics, and Statistics (RAAS) estimate that these 30,000 taxpayers spent approximately 315,000 hours and $26 million ($2015) annually to comply with the simplified methods, as implemented under Notice 2007-29. The dollar burden is derived from RAAS's Business Taxpayer Burden model that relates time and out-of-pocket costs of business tax preparation, derived from survey data, to assets and receipts of affected taxpayers along with other relevant variables, and converted by the Treasury Department to $2015. See Tax Compliance Burden (John Guyton et al, July 2018) at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/d13315.pdf. The Treasury Department and IRS then used this framework to estimate the taxpayer burden associated with section 263A compliance under the final regulations. These estimates reflect the Treasury Department's and IRS's estimate that because these final regulations implement an approach substantially consistent with current practice, but also offer taxpayers additional compliance simplifications, these final regulations will result in a reduction in the aggregate annual taxpayer compliance burden of approximately ten percent. The estimated reduction in annual compliance burden for impacted taxpayers is summarized below.

Estimated Reduction in Annual Compliance Burden (2015 levels) Baseline Final
  • regulations
  • Burden
  • reduction
  • Taxpayers 30,000 30,000 Hours 315,000 283,500 31,500 Cost ($2015) $26,000,000 $23,400,000 $2,600,000
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 1.263A-2(c)(4)(i). The collection of information in § 1.263A-2(c)(4)(i) only applies to taxpayers using the MPSM with HAR. The burden for the collection of information contained in these final regulations is reflected in the burden for §§ 1.263A-2(b)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) and 1.263A-3(d)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) and is not expected to change the previously determined estimated annual burden per respondent, the estimated annual burden per recordkeeper, or the estimated number of respondents because (i) taxpayers could previously use a simplified method with HAR, (ii) these final regulations do not make a simplified method with HAR more or less desirable, and (iii) only those taxpayers previously using a simplified method with HAR are likely to do so under these final regulations. For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the reporting burden associated with § 1.263A-2(c)(4)(i) will be reflected in the IRS Form 14029, Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, associated with Form 1120 (OMB control number 1545-0123) at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201706-1545-005.

    D. Executive Order 13771

    These final regulations are expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated effects of this rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

    E. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    It is hereby certified that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that: (1) Many small business taxpayers are no longer required to capitalize costs under section 263A if their average annual gross receipts are less than $25,000,000; (2) a taxpayer with average annual gross receipts of less than $50,000,000 may continue to use the simplified production method and the simplified production method with a historical absorption rate (HAR) with negative amounts in additional section 263A costs; and (3) a relatively small number of taxpayers use a simplified method with HAR compared to a simplified method without HAR and, therefore, it is expected that few small business taxpayers will use the modified simplified production method with HAR. Thus, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required.

    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a state, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2018, that threshold is approximately $150 million. This rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.

    G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on state and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these final regulations is Natasha M. Mulleneaux of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

    PART I—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by revising the sectional authority entries for §§ 1.263A-1, 1.263A-2, 1.263A-3 and 1.263A-7, and adding a sectional authority for § 1.471-3 in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805.

    Section 1.263A-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 263A(j).

    Section 1.263A-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 263A(j).

    Section 1.263A-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 263A(j).

    Section 1.263A-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 263A(j).

    Section 1.471-3 issued under 26 U.S.C. 471(a).

    Par. 2. Section 1.263A-0 is amended by: 1. Revising the entry for § 1.263A-1(d)(2)(ii). 2. Adding entries for § 1.263A-1(d)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). 3. Revising the entry for § 1.263A-1(d)(2)(iii). 4. Adding entries for § 1.263A-1(d)(2)(iii)(A) through (E), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(iv)(A) through (E), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(v)(A) through (E), and (d)(2)(vi) and (vii). 5. Adding entries for § 1.263A-1(d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), and (d)(3)(ii)(A) through (E). 6. Adding entries for § 1.263A-1(d)(5) and (6). 7. Adding entries for § 1.263A-2(b)(4)(v)(A) and (B). 8. Revising the entry for § 1.263A-2(c). 9. Adding entries for § 1.263A-2(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(2)(i) and (ii), (c)(3), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(i)(A) and (B), (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), (c)(3)(ii)(B)(1) and (2), (c)(3)(ii)(C) and (D), (c)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4), (c)(3)(ii)(E) and (F), (c)(3)(iii), (c)(3)(iii)(A) through (C), (c)(3)(iv), (c)(3)(iv)(A) and (B), (c)(3)(iv)(B)(1) and (2), (c)(3)(iv)(C), (c)(3)(v) and (vi), (c)(4), (c)(4)(i) and (ii), (c)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), (c)(4)(iii), (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B), (c)(4)(iii)(B)(1) and (2), and (c)(4)(iv) and (v). 10. Revising the entry for § 1.263A-2(d). 11. Revising the entry for § 1.263A-2(e). 12. Removing the entries for § 1.263A-2(e)(1) through (5). 13. Revising the entry for § 1.263A-2(f). 14. Adding entries for § 1.263A-2(f)(1) through (5). 15. Adding an entry for § 1.263A-2(g). 16. Adding entries for § 1.263A-3(d)(4)(v)(A) and (B).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.263A-0 Outline of regulations under section 263A.
    § 1.263A-1 Uniform Capitalization of Costs.

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Inclusion of direct costs.

    (A) In general.

    (B) Allocation of direct costs.

    (iii) Alternative method to determine amounts of section 471 costs by using taxpayer's financial statement.

    (A) In general.

    (B) Book-to-tax adjustments.

    (C) Exclusion of certain financial statement items.

    (D) Changes in method of accounting.

    (E) Examples.

    (iv) De minimis rule exceptions for certain direct costs.

    (A) In general.

    (B) De minimis rule for certain direct labor costs.

    (C) De minimis rule for certain direct material costs.

    (D) Taxpayers using a historic absorption ratio.

    (E) Examples.

    (v) Safe harbor method for certain variances and under or over-applied burdens.

    (A) In general.

    (B) Consistency requirement.

    (C) Allocation of variances and under or over-applied burdens between production and preproduction costs under the modified simplified production method.

    (D) Allocation of variances and under or over-applied burdens between storage and handling costs absorption ratio and purchasing costs absorption ratio under the simplified resale method.

    (E) Method of accounting.

    (vi) Removal of section 471 costs.

    (vii) Method changes.

    (3) * * *

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Negative adjustments.

    (A) In general.

    (B) Exception for certain taxpayers removing costs from section 471 costs.

    (C) No negative adjustments for cash or trade discounts.

    (D) No negative adjustments for certain expenses.

    (E) Consistency requirement for negative adjustments.

    (4) Section 263A costs.

    (5) Classification of costs.

    (6) Financial statement.

    § 1.263A-2 Rules Relating to Property Produced by the Taxpayer.

    (b) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (v) * * *

    (A) Transition to elect historic absorption ratio.

    (B) Transition to revoke historic absorption ratio.

    (c) Modified simplified production method.

    (1) Introduction.

    (2) Eligible property.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Election to exclude self-constructed assets.

    (3) Modified simplified production method without historic absorption ratio election.

    (i) General allocation formula.

    (A) In general.

    (B) Effect of allocation.

    (ii) Definitions.

    (A) Direct material costs.

    (B) Pre-production absorption ratio.

    (1) Pre-production additional section 263A costs.

    (2) Pre-production section 471 costs.

    (C) Pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end.

    (D) Production absorption ratio.

    (1) Production additional section 263A costs.

    (2) Residual pre-production additional section 263A costs.

    (3) Production section 471 costs.

    (4) Direct materials adjustment.

    (E) Production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end.

    (F) Costs allocated to property sold.

    (iii) Allocable mixed service costs.

    (A) In general.

    (B) Taxpayer using the simplified service cost method.

    (C) De minimis rule.

    (iv) LIFO taxpayers electing the modified simplified production method.

    (A) In general.

    (B) LIFO increment.

    (1) In general.

    (2) Combined absorption ratio defined.

    (C) LIFO decrement.

    (v) De minimis rule for producers with total indirect costs of $200,000 or less.

    (vi) Examples.

    (4) Modified simplified production method with historic absorption ratio election.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Operating rules and definitions.

    (A) Pre-production historic absorption ratio.

    (B) Production historic absorption ratio.

    (iii) LIFO taxpayers making the historic absorption ratio election.

    (A) In general.

    (B) Combined historic absorption ratio.

    (1) Total allocable additional section 263A costs incurred during the test period.

    (2) Total section 471 costs remaining on hand at each year end of the test period.

    (iv) Extension of qualifying period.

    (v) Examples.

    (d) Additional simplified methods for producers.

    (e) Cross reference.

    (f) Change in method of accounting.

    (1) In general.

    (2) Scope limitations.

    (3) Audit protection.

    (4) Section 481(a) adjustment.

    (5) Time for requesting change.

    (g) Effective/applicability date.

    § 1.263A-3 Rules Relating to Property Acquired for Resale.

    (d) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (v) * * *

    (A) Transition to elect historic absorption ratio.

    (B) Transition to revoke historic absorption ratio.

    Par. 3. Section 1.263A-1 is amended by: 1. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (c)(1). 2. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (3). 3. Adding paragraphs (d)(5) and (6). 4. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (f)(1). 5. In paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(C) and (f)(3)(ii)(B), removing the language “financial reports” and adding “financial statement” in its place. 6. Revising paragraph (h)(9). 7. Adding paragraph (l)(5).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.263A-1 Uniform capitalization of costs.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * * See however, the simplified production method, the modified simplified production method, and the simplified resale method in §§ 1.263A-2(b) and (c) and 1.263A-3(d).

    (d) * * *

    (2) Section 471 costs—(i) In general. Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of this section, for purposes of section 263A, a taxpayer's section 471 costs are the types of costs, other than interest, that a taxpayer capitalizes to property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement. Thus, although section 471 applies only to inventories, section 471 costs include any non-inventory costs, other than interest, that a taxpayer capitalizes to, or includes in acquisition or production costs of, property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, a taxpayer determines the amounts of section 471 costs by using the amounts of such costs that are incurred in the taxable year for federal income tax purposes.

    (ii) Inclusion of direct costs—(A) In general. Notwithstanding the last sentence of paragraph (g)(2) of this section, a taxpayer's section 471 costs must include all direct costs of property produced and property acquired for resale, whether or not a taxpayer capitalizes these costs to property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement. See paragraph (e)(2) of this section for a description of direct costs of property produced and property acquired for resale.

    (B) Allocation of direct costs. Except for any direct costs that are treated as additional section 263A costs under paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (v) of this section, a taxpayer's direct costs of property produced and property acquired for resale must be allocated using a method provided in paragraph (f) of this section.

    (iii) Alternative method to determine amounts of section 471 costs by using taxpayer's financial statement—(A) In general. In lieu of determining the amounts of section 471 costs under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, a taxpayer described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B) of this section may determine the amounts of section 471 costs by using the amounts of such costs that are incurred in the taxable year in its financial statement using the taxpayer's financial statement methods of accounting if the taxpayer's financial statement is described in paragraph (d)(6)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section. If the taxpayer's financial statement is described only in paragraph (d)(6)(iv) of this section, the taxpayer may not use the alternative method described in this paragraph (d)(2)(iii) and must use the method described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section to determine its amounts of section 471 costs. A taxpayer using the alternative method described in this paragraph (d)(2)(iii) must remove all section 471 costs described in paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of this section, if any, by including negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs. A taxpayer using the alternative method described in this paragraph (d)(2)(iii) applies the method to all of its section 471 costs, including costs described under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (iv), (v), and (vi) of this section.

    (B) Book-to-tax adjustments. A taxpayer using the alternative method described in this paragraph (d)(2)(iii) must include as additional section 263A costs all negative and positive adjustments required to be made as a result of differences in the book and tax amounts of the taxpayer's section 471 costs, including adjustments for direct costs required to be added to section 471 costs under paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, and costs removed from section 471 costs under paragraphs (d)(2)(vi) and (d)(3)(ii)(B) of this section. In addition, the taxpayer must include as additional section 263A costs all negative and positive adjustments required to be made as a result of differences in the book and tax amounts of section 471 costs that are treated as additional section 263A costs (for example, de minimis direct costs described in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section and certain variances and under or over-applied burdens described in paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section). For purposes of determining the negative and positive adjustments required to be made as a result of differences in book and tax amounts for a taxpayer using the burden rate or standard cost methods described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, the taxpayer compares the actual amount of the cost incurred in the taxable year for federal income tax purposes to the actual amount of the cost incurred in the taxable year in its financial statement using the taxpayer's financial statement methods of accounting, regardless of how the taxpayer treats its variances or under or over-applied burdens.

    (C) Exclusion of certain financial statement items. A taxpayer that determines the amounts of section 471 costs under this paragraph (d)(2)(iii) may not include any financial statement write-downs, reserves, or other financial statement valuation adjustments when determining the amounts of its section 471 costs.

    (D) Changes in method of accounting. The use of this method to determine the amounts of section 471 costs under this paragraph (d)(2)(iii) is the adoption of, or a change in, a method of accounting under section 446 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    (E) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (d)(2)(iii):

    (1) Example 1—Alternative-method taxpayer using de minimis direct labor costs rule.

    Taxpayer P uses the modified simplified production method described in § 1.263A-2(c) and determines its amounts of section 471 costs by using the alternative method under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section. Additionally, P uses the de minimis direct labor costs rule under paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B) of this section. P does not capitalize vacation pay or holiday pay to property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement but does capitalize all other direct labor costs to such property in its financial statement. On its 2018 financial statement, P incurs $3,500,000 of total direct labor costs, including $110,000 of vacation pay costs and $10,000 of holiday pay costs. For federal income tax purposes, P incurs $150,000 of vacation pay costs and $18,000 of holiday pay costs in the taxable year. P's uncapitalized direct labor costs are $120,000 ($110,000 of vacation pay plus $10,000 of holiday pay). For purposes of the five percent test in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B) of this section, P's uncapitalized direct labor costs are 3.43% of total direct labor costs ($120,000 divided by $3,500,000). Accordingly, under paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B) of this section, P includes $120,000 in its additional section 263A costs and excludes that amount from its section 471 costs in the taxable year. Additionally, pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, P includes in additional section 263A costs a positive book-to-tax adjustment of $40,000 for vacation pay costs ($150,000 tax amount−$110,000 book amount) and a positive book-to-tax adjustment of $8,000 for holiday pay costs ($18,000 tax amount−$10,000 book amount).

    (2) Example 2—Alternative-method taxpayer with under and over-applied burdens that uses safe harbor rule for certain variances and under or over-applied burdens.

    Taxpayer X uses the modified simplified production method described in § 1.263A-2(c) and determines its amounts of section 471 costs by using the alternative method under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section. In 2018, X uses a burden rate method for book purposes to allocate costs to Products A and B, and does not capitalize any under or over-applied burdens to property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement. X does not allocate costs to any other products using a burden rate method, and X does not allocate costs to any products using a standard cost method. On its 2018 financial statement, using X's burden rate, the total amount of predetermined indirect costs for Product A is $545,000 and the total amount of actual indirect costs incurred for Product A is $550,000; accordingly, X has an under-applied burden of $5,000 for Product A. For federal income tax purposes, the actual indirect costs incurred in 2018 for Product A is $560,000. Additionally, on its 2018 financial statement, using X's burden rate, the total amount of predetermined indirect costs for Product B is $250,000 and the total amount of actual indirect costs incurred for Product B is $225,000; accordingly, X has an over-applied burden of $25,000 for Product B. For federal income tax purposes, the actual indirect costs incurred in 2018 for Product B is $240,000. X uses the safe harbor rule for certain variances and under or over-applied burdens. Prior to the application of this safe harbor rule, X's total section 471 costs for 2018 for Products A and B (the only items to which X allocates costs using a standard cost method or burden rate method) are $2,000,000, which includes $550,000 actual indirect costs for Product A, $225,000 actual indirect costs for Product B, and $1,225,000 of other section 471 costs for Products A and B that are not allocated under X's burden rate method. For purposes of determining the amount of uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens for the five percent test in paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) of this section, X's under and over-applied burdens for Products A and B are treated as positive amounts. Consequently, the sum of X's uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens is $30,000 ($5,000 under-applied burden for Product A plus $25,000 over-applied burden for Product B). Accordingly, under paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) of this section, the sum of X's uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens is 1.5% of X's total section 471 costs for all items to which it allocates costs using a standard cost method or burden rate method ($30,000 divided by $2,000,000), and X includes a positive $5,000 under-applied burden for Product A and a negative $25,000 over-applied burden for Product B in its additional section 263A costs, and excludes those amounts from its section 471 costs. Additionally, pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, X includes in its additional section 263A costs a positive book-to-tax adjustment of $10,000 for Product A ($560,000 actual cost tax amount−$550,000 actual cost book amount) and a positive book-to-tax adjustment of $15,000 for Product B ($240,000 actual tax amount cost−$225,000 actual book amount cost) in the taxable year.

    (iv) De minimis rule exceptions for certain direct costs—(A) In general. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, a taxpayer that uses the simplified resale method, the simplified production method, or the modified simplified production method, and that does not capitalize certain direct costs to property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement (uncapitalized direct labor costs or uncapitalized direct material costs), may use either or both the de minimis direct labor costs rule or the de minimis direct material costs rule to include in additional section 263A costs, and exclude from section 471 costs, certain uncapitalized direct labor costs or uncapitalized direct material costs that are incurred in the taxable year as provided in paragraphs (d)(2)(iv)(B) and (C) of this section, respectively. The use of the de minimis rules described in paragraphs (d)(2)(iv)(B) and (C) of this section is the adoption of, or a change in, a method of accounting under section 446 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    (B) De minimis rule for certain direct labor costs. A taxpayer described in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(A) of this section that uses the de minimis rule described in this paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B) includes in additional section 263A costs, and excludes from section 471 costs, the sum of the amounts of all of those uncapitalized direct labor costs that are incurred in the taxable year, if that sum is less than five percent of total direct labor costs incurred in the taxable year (whether or not capitalized in the taxpayer's financial statement), or another amount specified in other published guidance (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter). For purposes of determining the amount of uncapitalized direct labor costs for this five percent test, any amounts that constitute a reduction to costs are treated as a positive amount. The amounts of uncapitalized direct labor costs used for the five percent test, and the amounts of uncapitalized direct labor costs included in additional section 263A costs under this paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B), must not include amounts relating to basic compensation or overtime, or the types of costs included in the taxpayer's standard cost or burden rate methods used for section 471 costs (but see paragraphs (d)(2)(v) and (f)(3)(i)(C) of this section for special rules for certain variances and under or over-applied burdens).

    (C) De minimis rule for certain direct material costs. A taxpayer described in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(A) of this section that uses the de minimis rule described in this paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C) includes in additional section 263A costs, and excludes from section 471 costs, the sum of the amounts of all of those uncapitalized direct material costs that are incurred in the taxable year, if that sum is less than five percent of total direct material costs incurred in the taxable year (whether or not capitalized in the taxpayer's financial statement), or another amount specified in other published guidance (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter). For purposes of determining the amount of uncapitalized direct material costs for this five percent test, any amounts that constitute a reduction to costs, such as cash and trade discounts, are treated as a positive amount. The amounts of uncapitalized direct material costs used for the five percent test, and the amounts of uncapitalized direct material costs included in additional section 263A costs under this paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C), must not include the types of costs included in the taxpayer's standard cost method used for section 471 costs (but see paragraphs (d)(2)(v) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section for special rules for certain variances).

    (D) Taxpayers using a historic absorption ratio. A taxpayer that uses the historic absorption ratio provided in § 1.263A-2(b)(4) or (c)(4) or § 1.263A-3(d)(4), and that uses a de minimis rule described in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section during its test period or updated test period, determines whether direct labor costs or direct material costs, as applicable, are included in any of its section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end during its qualifying period or extended qualifying period according to how those direct labor costs or direct material costs, respectively, are identified in at least two of the three years of the taxpayer's applicable test period or updated test period. If a taxpayer described in this paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D) is required to revise any of its actual absorption ratios for its test period or updated test period as a result of a change in a method of accounting, the taxpayer determines whether direct labor costs or direct material costs, as applicable, are included in any of its section 471 costs on hand at year end during a qualifying period or extended qualifying period according to how those direct labor costs or direct material costs, respectively, are identified in the taxpayer's revised actual absorption ratios during its applicable test period or updated test period.

    (E) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (d)(2)(iv):

    (1) Example 1—Taxpayer using de minimis direct material costs rule.

    Taxpayer R uses the modified simplified production method described in § 1.263A-2(c) and the de minimis method of accounting under paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C) of this section. In 2018, R does not capitalize freight-in costs or trade discounts to property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement but does capitalize all other direct material costs to such property in its financial statement. R incurs total direct material costs of $3,105,000, which represents invoice price of $3,000,000 on goods purchased, plus $120,000 of freight-in costs, less $15,000 for trade discounts. For purposes of determining the amount of uncapitalized direct material costs for the five percent test in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C) of this section, R's trade discounts are treated as a positive amount. Consequently, R's uncapitalized direct material costs for purposes of the five percent test are $135,000 ($120,000 of freight-in plus $15,000 of trade discounts). Accordingly, under paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C) of this section, R's uncapitalized direct material costs are 4.35% of total direct material costs ($135,000 divided by $3,105,000), and R includes a positive $120,000 of freight-in and a negative $15,000 of trade discounts in its additional section 263A costs and excludes those amounts from its section 471 costs in the taxable year.

    (2) Example 2—Taxpayer using de minimis direct labor costs rule and historic absorption ratio.

    Taxpayer S uses the historic absorption ratio provided in § 1.263A-2(c)(4). S uses the de minimis method of accounting under paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B). S excludes certain uncapitalized direct labor costs from its section 471 costs (and includes them in additional section 263A costs) under paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B) of this section in Years 1 and 3 of its applicable test period. Because S excluded direct labor costs from its section 471 costs in at least two of the three years of its applicable test period, S must exclude those same costs from its pre-production and production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end during its qualifying period or extended qualifying period.

    (v) Safe harbor method for certain variances and under or over-applied burdens—(A) In general. Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii), (f)(3)(i)(C), and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, a taxpayer that uses the simplified resale method, the simplified production method, or the modified simplified production method, may use the safe harbor method described in this paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) for all of its variances and under or over-applied burdens that are not capitalized to property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement (uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens). A taxpayer using this safe harbor method must include in additional section 263A costs, and exclude from section 471 costs, the sum of the amounts of all of those uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens for the taxable year, if that sum is less than five percent of the taxpayer's total section 471 costs for all items to which it allocates costs using a standard cost method or burden rate method, or another percentage specified in other published guidance (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter). If the sum of uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens is not less than this five percent threshold, the taxpayer may not exclude such uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens from section 471 costs, and must reallocate such uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens to or among the units of property to which the costs are allocable in accordance with paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(C) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section (but see paragraph (d)(2)(v)(B) of this section for a rule that a taxpayer using the safe harbor method described in this paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) may not use the methods of accounting described in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(C) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section to treat certain uncapitalized variances and certain uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens as not allocable to property). For purposes of determining the amounts of uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens for this five percent test, all variances and under or over-applied burdens are treated as positive amounts. Additionally, for purposes of this five percent test, a taxpayer's total section 471 costs for all items to which it allocates costs using a standard cost method or burden rate method are determined before application of the safe harbor method described in this paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A), and therefore this amount must reflect the actual amounts incurred by the taxpayer for those items during the taxable year, which includes variances and under or over-applied burdens. The variances described in this paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) include any variances on cash or trade discounts, if those discounts are capitalized as part of the taxpayer's standard cost method used for section 471 costs.

    (B) Consistency requirement. A taxpayer using the safe harbor method described in paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) of this section must use the method consistently for all items to which it allocates costs using a standard cost method or burden rate method and may not use the methods of accounting described in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(C) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section to treat its uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens that are not significant in amount relative to the taxpayer's total indirect costs incurred with respect to production and resale activities for the year as not allocable to property produced or property acquired for resale.

    (C) Allocation of variances and under or over-applied burdens between production and preproduction costs under the modified simplified production method. In the case of a taxpayer using the modified simplified production method and the safe harbor method described in paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) of this section, uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens treated as additional section 263A costs under the safe harbor method must be allocated between production additional section 263A costs, as described in § 1.263A-2(c)(3)(ii)(D)(1), and pre-production additional section 263A costs, as described in § 1.263A-2(c)(3)(ii)(B)(1), using any reasonable method. In the case of a taxpayer using the modified simplified production method and the safe harbor method described in paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) of this section, uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens that are not excluded from section 471 costs must be allocated between production section 471 costs, as described in § 1.263A-2(c)(3)(ii)(D)(3), and pre-production section 471 costs, as described in § 1.263A-2(c)(3)(ii)(B)(2) based on the taxpayer's reallocation of such uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens to or among the units of property to which the costs are allocable in accordance with paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(C) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, as described in paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) of this section.

    (D) Allocation of variances and under or over-applied burdens between storage and handling costs absorption ratio and purchasing costs absorption ratio under the simplified resale method. In the case of a taxpayer using the simplified resale method, any uncapitalized variances and uncapitalized under or over-applied burdens treated as additional section 263A costs under the safe harbor method described in paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A) of this section must be allocated between storage and handling costs, as described in § 1.263A-3(d)(3)(i)(D)(2), and current year's purchasing costs, as described in § 1.263A-3(d)(3)(i)(E)(2), using any reasonable method.

    (E) Method of accounting. The use of the safe harbor method described in this paragraph (d)(2)(v) is the adoption of, or a change in, a method of accounting under section 446 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    (vi) Removal of section 471 costs. A taxpayer must remove those costs included in its section 471 costs that are not permitted to be capitalized under either paragraph (c)(2) or (j)(2)(ii) of this section and those costs included in its section 471 costs that are eligible for capitalization under paragraph (j)(2) of this section that the taxpayer does not elect to capitalize under section 263A. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, a taxpayer must remove costs pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2)(vi) by adjusting its section 471 costs and may not remove the costs by including a negative adjustment in its additional section 263A costs. A taxpayer that removes costs pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2)(vi) by adjusting its section 471 costs must use a reasonable method that approximates the manner in which the taxpayer originally capitalized the costs to its property produced or property acquired for resale in its financial statement.

    (vii) Method changes. A taxpayer using the simplified production method, simplified resale method, or the modified simplified production method and that changes its financial statement practices for a cost in a manner that would change its section 471 costs is required to change its method of accounting for federal income tax purposes. A taxpayer may change its method of accounting for determining section 471 costs only with the consent of the Commissioner as required under section 446(e) and the corresponding regulations.

    (3) Additional section 263A costs—(i) In general. Additional section 263A costs are the costs, other than interest, that are not included in a taxpayer's section 471 costs but that are required to be capitalized under section 263A. Additional section 263A costs generally do not include the direct costs that are required to be included in a taxpayer's section 471 costs under paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section; however, additional section 263A costs must include any direct costs excluded from section 471 costs under paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (v) of this section. For a taxpayer using the alternative method described in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, additional section 263A costs must also include any negative or positive adjustments required to be made as a result of differences in the book and tax amounts of the taxpayer's section 471 costs.

    (ii) Negative adjustments—(A) In general. Except as otherwise provided by regulations or other published guidance (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter), a taxpayer may not include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs. However, for a taxpayer using the alternative method described in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, see paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section for negative or positive adjustments required to be made as a result of differences in the book and tax amounts of the taxpayer's section 471 costs.

    (B) Exception for certain taxpayers removing costs from section 471 costs. Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(2)(vi) and (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) of this section, the following taxpayers may, but are not required to, include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs to remove the taxpayer's section 471 costs that are described in paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of this section (costs that are not required to be, or are not permitted to be, capitalized under section 263A):

    (1) A taxpayer using the simplified production method under § 1.263A-2(b) if the taxpayer's (or its predecessor's) average annual gross receipts for the three previous taxable years (test period) do not exceed $50,000,000, or another amount specified in other published guidance (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter). The rules of § 1.263A-3(b) apply for purposes of determining the amount of a taxpayer's gross receipts and the test period;

    (2) A taxpayer using the modified simplified production method under § 1.263A-2(c); and

    (3) A taxpayer using the simplified resale method under § 1.263A-3(d).

    (C) No negative adjustments for cash or trade discounts. A taxpayer may not include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs for cash or trade discounts described in § 1.471-3(b). However, see paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C) of this section for a de minimis rule for certain direct material costs that may be included in additional section 263A costs and paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section for certain variance amounts that may be included in additional section 263A costs.

    (D) No negative adjustments for certain expenses. A taxpayer may not include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs for an amount which is of a type for which a deduction would be disallowed under section 162(c), (e), (f), or (g) and the regulations thereunder in the case of a business expense.

    (E) Consistency requirement for negative adjustments. A taxpayer that is permitted to include negative adjustments in additional section 263A costs to remove section 471 costs under paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B) of this section and that includes negative adjustments to remove section 471 costs must use that method of accounting to remove all section 471 costs required to be removed under paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of this section.

    (5) Classification of costs. A taxpayer must classify section 471 costs, additional section 263A costs, and any permitted adjustments to section 471 or additional section 263A costs, using the narrower of the classifications of costs described in paragraphs (e)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, whether or not the taxpayer is required to maintain inventories, or the classifications of costs used by a taxpayer in its financial statement. If a cost is not described in paragraph (e)(2), (3), or (4) of this section, the cost is to be classified using the classification of costs used in the taxpayer's financial statement.

    (6) Financial statement. For purposes of section 263A, financial statement means the taxpayer's financial statement listed in paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section that has the highest priority, including within paragraphs (d)(6)(ii) and (iv) of this section. The financial statements are, in descending priority:

    (i) A financial statement required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (the 10-K or the Annual Statement to Shareholders);

    (ii) A certified audited financial statement that is accompanied by the report of an independent certified public accountant (or in the case of a foreign entity, by the report of a similarly qualified independent professional) that is used for:

    (A) Credit purposes;

    (B) Reporting to shareholders, partners, or similar persons; or

    (C) Any other substantial non-tax purpose;

    (iii) A financial statement (other than a tax return) required to be provided to the federal or a state government or any federal or state agency (other than the SEC or the Internal Revenue Service); or

    (iv) A financial statement that is used for:

    (A) Credit purposes;

    (B) Reporting to shareholders, partners, or similar persons; or

    (C) Any other substantial non-tax purpose.

    (f) * * *

    (1) * * * In addition, in lieu of a facts-and-circumstances allocation method, taxpayers may use the simplified methods provided in §§ 1.263A-2(b) and (c) and 1.263A-3(d) to allocate direct and indirect costs to eligible property produced or eligible property acquired for resale; see those sections for definitions of eligible property.* * *

    (h) * * *

    (9) Separate election. A taxpayer may elect the simplified service cost method in conjunction with any other allocation method used at the trade or business level, including the simplified methods described in §§ 1.263A-2(b) and (c) and 1.263A-3(d). However, the election of the simplified service cost method must be made independently of the election to use those other simplified methods.

    (l) * * *

    (5) Definitions of section 471 costs and additional section 263A costs. Paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section apply for taxable years beginning on or after November 20, 2018. For any taxable year that both begins before November 20, 2018 and ends after November 20, 2018, the IRS will not challenge return positions consistent with all of paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section.

    Par. 4. Section 1.263A-2 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (a)(5). 2. Designating the text of paragraph (b)(4)(v) as paragraph (b)(4)(v)(A) and adding a paragraph heading. 3. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(v)(B). 4. Redesignating paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g). 5. Adding a new paragraph (c). 6. Adding paragraph (g)(3).

    The revision and additions read as follows:

    § 1.263A-2 Rules relating to property produced by the taxpayer.

    (a) * * *

    (5) Taxpayers required to capitalize costs under this section. This section generally applies to taxpayers that produce property. If a taxpayer is engaged in both production activities and resale activities, the taxpayer applies the principles of this section as if it read production or resale activities, and by applying appropriate principles from § 1.263A-3. If a taxpayer is engaged in both production and resale activities, the taxpayer may elect the simplified production method or the modified simplified production method provided in this section, but generally may not elect the simplified resale method discussed in § 1.263A-3(d). If elected, the simplified production method or the modified simplified production method must be applied to all eligible property produced and all eligible property acquired for resale by the taxpayer.

    (b) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (v) * * *

    (A) Transition to elect historic absorption ratio. * * *

    (B) Transition to revoke historic absorption ratio. Notwithstanding the requirements provided in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section regarding revocations of the historic absorption ratio during a qualifying period, a taxpayer will be permitted to revoke the historic absorption ratio in their first, second, or third taxable year ending on or after November 20, 2018, under such administrative procedures and with terms and conditions prescribed by the Commissioner.

    (c) Modified simplified production method—(1) Introduction. This paragraph (c) provides a simplified method for determining the additional section 263A costs properly allocable to ending inventories of property produced and other eligible property on hand at the end of the taxable year.

    (2) Eligible property—(i) In general. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, the modified simplified production method, if elected for any trade or business of a producer, must be used for all production and resale activities associated with any of the categories of property to which section 263A applies as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.

    (ii) Election to exclude-self-constructed assets. A taxpayer using the modified simplified production method may elect to exclude self-constructed assets from application of the modified simplified production method by following the same rules applicable to a taxpayer using the simplified production method provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.

    (3) Modified simplified production method without historic absorption ratio election—(i) General allocation formula—(A) In general. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section, the additional section 263A costs allocable to eligible property remaining on hand at the close of the taxable year under the modified simplified production method are computed as follows:

    ER20NO18.001

    (B) Effect of allocation. The pre-production and production absorption ratios generally are multiplied by the pre-production and production section 471 costs, respectively, remaining in ending inventory or otherwise on hand at the end of each taxable year in which the modified simplified production method is applied. The sum of the resulting products is the additional section 263A costs that are added to the taxpayer's ending section 471 costs to determine the section 263A costs that are capitalized. See, however, paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section for special rules applicable to LIFO taxpayers. Except as otherwise provided in this section or in § 1.263A-1 or § 1.263A-3, additional section 263A costs that are allocated to inventories on hand at the close of the taxable year under the modified simplified production method of this paragraph (c) are treated as inventory costs for all purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.

    (ii) Definitions—(A) Direct material costs. For purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, direct material costs has the same meaning as described in § 1.263A-1(e)(2)(i)(A). For purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, direct material costs include property produced for the taxpayer under a contract with another party that are direct material costs for the taxpayer to be used in an additional production process of the taxpayer.

    (B) Pre-production absorption ratio. Under the modified simplified production method, the pre-production absorption ratio is determined as follows:

    ER20NO18.002

    (1) Pre-production additional section 263A costs. Pre-production additional section 263A costs are defined as the additional section 263A costs described in § 1.263A-1(d)(3) that are pre-production costs, as described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year, including capitalizable mixed service costs allocable to pre-production additional section 263A costs, as described in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year:

    (i) Plus additional section 263A costs properly allocable to property acquired for resale that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year; and

    (ii) Plus additional section 263A costs properly allocable to property produced for the taxpayer under a contract with another party that is treated as property produced by the taxpayer, as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year.

    (2) Pre-production section 471 costs. Pre-production section 471 costs are defined as the section 471 costs described in § 1.263A-1(d)(2) that are direct material costs that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year plus the section 471 costs for property acquired for resale (see § 1.263A-1(e)(2)(ii)) that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year, including property produced for the taxpayer under a contract with another party that is acquired for resale.

    (C) Pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end. Pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end means the pre-production section 471 costs, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year which remain in its ending inventory or are otherwise on hand at year end, excluding the section 471 costs that are direct material costs that have entered or completed production at year end (for example, direct material costs in ending work-in-process inventory and ending finished goods inventory). For LIFO inventories of a taxpayer, see paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section.

    (D) Production absorption ratio. Under the modified simplified production method, the production absorption ratio is determined as follows:

    ER20NO18.003

    (1) Production additional section 263A costs. Production additional section 263A costs are defined as the additional section 263A costs described in § 1.263A-1(d)(3) that are not pre-production additional section 263A costs, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year, including capitalizable mixed service costs not allocable to pre-production additional section 263A costs, as described in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year. For example, production additional section 263A costs include post-production costs, other than post-production costs included in section 471 costs, as described in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section.

    (2) Residual pre-production additional section 263A costs. Residual pre-production additional section 263A costs are defined as the pre-production additional section 263A costs, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year less the product of the pre-production absorption ratio, as determined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, and the pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.

    (3) Production section 471 costs. Production section 471 costs are defined as the section 471 costs described in § 1.263A-1(d)(2) that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year less pre-production section 471 costs, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section, that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year.

    (4) Direct materials adjustment. The direct materials adjustment is defined as the section 471 costs that are direct material costs, including property produced for a taxpayer under a contract with another party that are direct material costs for the taxpayer to be used in an additional production process of the taxpayer, that had not entered production at the beginning of the current taxable year:

    (i) Plus the section 471 costs that are direct material costs incurred during the current taxable year (that is, direct material purchases); and

    (ii) Less the section 471 costs that are direct material costs that have not entered production at the end of the current taxable year.

    (E) Production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end. Production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end means the section 471 costs, as defined in § 1.263A-1(d)(2), that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year which remain in its ending inventory or are otherwise on hand at year end, less the pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end, as described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C) of this section. For LIFO inventories of a taxpayer, see paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section.

    (F) Costs allocated to property sold. The terms defined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section do not include costs described in § 1.263A-1(e)(3)(ii) or cost reductions described in § 1.471-3(e) that a taxpayer properly allocates entirely to property that has been sold.

    (iii) Allocable mixed service costs—(A) In general. If a taxpayer using the modified simplified production method determines its capitalizable mixed service costs using a method described in § 1.263A-1(g)(4), the taxpayer must use a reasonable method to allocate the costs (for example, department or activity costs) between production and pre-production additional section 263A costs. If the taxpayer's § 1.263A-1(g)(4) method allocates costs to a department or activity that is exclusively identified as production or pre-production, those costs must be allocated to production or pre-production additional section 263A costs, respectively.

    (B) Taxpayer using the simplified service cost method. If a taxpayer using the modified simplified production method determines its capitalizable mixed service costs using the simplified service cost method described in § 1.263A-1(h), the amount of capitalizable mixed service costs, as computed using the general allocation formula in § 1.263A-1(h)(3)(i), allocated to and included in pre-production additional section 263A costs in the absorption ratio described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section is determined based on either of the following: The proportion of direct material costs to total section 471 costs that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year or the proportion of pre-production labor costs to total labor costs that a taxpayer incurs during its current taxable year. The taxpayer must include the capitalizable mixed service costs that are not allocated to pre-production additional section 263A costs in production additional section 263A costs in the absorption ratio described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D) of this section. A taxpayer that allocates capitalizable mixed service costs based on labor under this paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) must exclude mixed service labor costs from both pre-production labor costs and total labor costs.

    (C) De minimis rule. Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, if 90 percent or more of a taxpayer's capitalizable mixed service costs determined under paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section are allocated to pre-production additional section 263A costs or production additional section 263A costs, the taxpayer may elect to allocate 100 percent of its capitalizable mixed service costs to that amount. For example, if 90 percent of capitalizable mixed service costs are allocated to production additional section 263A costs based on the labor costs that are pre-production costs in total labor costs incurred in the taxpayer's trade or business during the taxable year, then 100 percent of capitalizable mixed service costs may be allocated to production additional section 263A costs. An election to allocate capitalizable mixed service costs under this paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C) is the adoption of, or a change in, a method of accounting under section 446 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    (iv) LIFO taxpayers electing the modified simplified production method—(A) In general. Under the modified simplified production method, a taxpayer using a LIFO method must calculate a particular year's index (for example, under § 1.472-8(e)) without regard to its additional section 263A costs. Similarly, a taxpayer that adjusts current-year costs by applicable indexes to determine whether there has been an inventory increment or decrement in the current year for a particular LIFO pool must disregard the additional section 263A costs in making that determination.

    (B) LIFO increment—(1) In general. If the taxpayer determines there has been an inventory increment, the taxpayer must state the amount of the increment in terms of section 471 costs in current-year dollars. The taxpayer then multiplies this amount by the combined absorption ratio, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2) of this section. The resulting product is the additional section 263A costs that must be added to the taxpayer's increment in terms of section 471 costs in current-year dollars for the taxable year.

    (2) Combined absorption ratio defined. For purposes of paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(B)(1) of this section, the combined absorption ratio is the additional section 263A costs allocable to eligible property remaining on hand at the close of the taxable year, as described in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section, determined on a non-LIFO basis, divided by the pre-production and production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end, determined on a non-LIFO basis.

    (C) LIFO decrement. If the taxpayer determines there has been an inventory decrement, the taxpayer must state the amount of the decrement in dollars applicable to the particular year for which the LIFO layer has been invaded. The additional section 263A costs incurred in prior years that are applicable to the decrement are charged to cost of goods sold. The additional section 263A costs that are applicable to the decrement are determined by multiplying the additional section 263A costs allocated to the layer of the pool in which the decrement occurred by the ratio of the decrement, excluding additional section 263A costs, to the section 471 costs in the layer of that pool.

    (v) De minimis rule for producers with total indirect costs of $200,000 or less. Paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section, which provides that the additional section 263A costs allocable to eligible property remaining on hand at the close of the taxable year are deemed to be zero for producers with total indirect costs of $200,000 or less, applies to the modified simplified production method.

    (vi) Examples. The provisions of this paragraph (c) are illustrated by the following examples:

    (A) Example 1—FIFO inventory method.

    (1) Taxpayer P uses the FIFO method of accounting for inventories valued at cost. P's beginning inventory for 2018 (all of which is sold during 2018) is $2,500,000, consisting of $500,000 of pre-production section 471 costs (including $400,000 of direct material costs and $100,000 of property acquired for resale), $1,500,000 of production section 471 costs, and $500,000 of additional section 263A costs. During 2018, P incurs $2,500,000 of pre-production section 471 costs (including $1,900,000 of direct material costs and $600,000 of property acquired for resale), $7,500,000 of production section 471 costs, $200,000 of pre-production additional section 263A costs, and $800,000 of production additional section 263A costs. P's additional section 263A costs include capitalizable mixed service costs under the simplified service cost method. P's pre-production and production section 471 costs remaining in ending inventory at the end of 2018 are $1,000,000 (including $800,000 of direct material costs and $200,000 of property acquired for resale) and $2,000,000, respectively. P computes its pre-production absorption ratio for 2018 under paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, as follows:

    ER20NO18.004

    (2) Under paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D)(2) of this section, P's residual pre-production additional section 263A costs for 2018 are $120,000 ($200,000 of pre-production additional section 263A costs less $80,000 (the product of the 8% pre-production absorption ratio and the $1,000,000 of pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end)).

    (3) Under paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D)(4) of this section, P's direct materials adjustment for 2018 is $1,500,000 ($400,000 of direct material costs in beginning raw materials inventory, plus $1,900,000 of direct material costs incurred to acquire raw materials during the taxable year, less $800,000 direct material costs in ending raw materials inventory).

    (4) P computes its production absorption ratio for 2018 under paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D) of this section, as follows:

    ER20NO18.005

    (5) Under the modified simplified production method, P determines the additional section 263A costs allocable to its ending inventory under paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section by multiplying the pre-production absorption ratio by the pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end and the production absorption ratio by the production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end, as follows:

    Additional section 263A costs = (8% × $1,000,000) + (10.22% × $2,000,000) = $284,400

    (6) P adds this $284,400 to the $3,000,000 of section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end to calculate its total ending inventory of $3,284,400. The balance of P's additional section 263A costs incurred during 2018, $715,600 ($1,000,000 less $284,400), is taken into account in 2018 as part of P's cost of goods sold.

    (7) P's computation is summarized in the following table:

    Reference Amount Beginning Inventory: Direct material costs a $ 400,000 Property acquired for resale b 100,000 Pre-production section 471 costs c = a + b 500,000 Production section 471 costs d 1,500,000 Additional section 263A costs e 500,000 Total f = c d + e 2,500,000 Incurred During 2018: Direct material costs g 1,900,000 Property acquired for resale h 600,000 Pre-production section 471 costs i = g + h 2,500,000 Production section 471 costs j 7,500,000 Pre-production additional section 263A costs k 200,000 Production additional section 263A costs l 800,000 Total m = i + j + k + l 11,000,000 Ending Inventory: Direct material costs n 800,000 Property acquired for resale o 200,000 Pre-production section 471 costs p = n + o 1,000,000 Production section 471 costs q 2,000,000 Section 471 costs r = p + q 3,000,000 Additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory s = v + z 284,400 Total t = r + s 3,284,400 Modified Simplified Production Method: Pre-production additional section 263A costs k 200,000 Pre-production section 471 costs i 2,500,000 Pre-production absorption ratio u = k / i 8.00% Pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end p 1,000,000 Pre-production additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory v = u * p 80,000 Production additional section 263A costs l 800,000 Residual pre-production additional section 263A costs w = k−(u * p) 120,000 Production section 471 costs j 7,500,000 Direct materials adjustment x = a + g−n 1,500,000 Production absorption ratio y = (l + w) / (j + x) 10.22% Production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end q 2,000,000 Production additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory z = y * q 204,400 Summary: Pre-production additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory v 80,000 Production additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory z 204,400 Additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory s 284,400 Section 471 costs r 3,000,000 Total Ending Inventory t 3,284,400 (B) Example 2—FIFO inventory method with alternative method to determine amounts of section 471 costs.

    (1) The facts are the same as in Example 1 of paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section, except that P uses the alternative method to determine amounts of section 471 costs by using its financial statement under § 1.263A-1(d)(2)(iii) rather than tax amounts under § 1.263A-1(d)(2)(i). In 2018, P's production section 471 costs exclude $40,000 of tax depreciation in excess of financial statement depreciation and include $50,000 of financial statement direct labor in excess of tax direct labor. These are P's only differences in its book and tax amounts.

    (2) Under § 1.263A-1(d)(2)(iii)(B), the positive $40,000 depreciation adjustment and the negative $50,000 direct labor adjustment must be included in additional section 263A costs. Accordingly, P's production additional section 263A costs are $790,000 ($800,000 plus $40,000 less $50,000).

    (3) P computes its production absorption ratio for 2018 under paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D) of this section, as follows:

    ER20NO18.006

    (4) Under the modified simplified production method, P determines the additional section 263A costs allocable to its ending inventory under paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section by multiplying the pre-production absorption ratio by the pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end and the production absorption ratio by the production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end, as follows:

    Additional section 263A costs = (8.00% × $1,000,000) + (10.11% × $2,000,000) = $282,200

    (5) P adds this $282,200 to the $3,000,000 of section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end to calculate its total ending inventory of $3,282,200. The balance of P's additional section 263A costs incurred during 2018, $717,800 ($1,000,000 less $282,200), is taken into account in 2018 as part of P's cost of goods sold.

    (C) Example 3—LIFO inventory method.

    (1) The facts are the same as in Example 1 of paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section, except that P uses a dollar-value LIFO inventory method rather than the FIFO method. P's 2018 LIFO increment is $1,500,000.

    (2) Under paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(B)(1) of this section, to determine the additional section 263A costs allocable to its ending inventory, P multiplies the combined absorption ratio by the $1,500,000 of LIFO increment. Under paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2) of this section, the combined absorption ratio is 9.48% ($284,400 additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory, determined on a non-LIFO basis, divided by $3,000,000 of section 471 costs on hand at year end, determined on a non-LIFO basis). Thus, P's additional section 263A costs allocable to its ending inventory are $142,200 ($1,500,000 multiplied by 9.48%). This $142,200 is added to the $1,500,000 to determine a total 2018 LIFO increment of $1,642,200. The balance of P's additional section 263A costs incurred during 2018, $857,800 ($1,000,000 less $142,200), is taken into account in 2018 as part of P's cost of goods sold.

    (3) In 2019, P sells one-half of the inventory in its 2018 increment. P must include in its cost of goods sold for 2019 the amount of additional section 263A costs relating to this inventory, $71,100 (one-half of the $142,200 additional section 263A costs capitalized in 2018 ending inventory).

    (D) Example 4—Direct materials-based allocation of mixed service costs.

    (1) Taxpayer R computes its capitalizable mixed service costs using the simplified service cost method described in § 1.263A-1(h). During 2018, R incurs $200,000 of capitalizable mixed service costs, computed using the general allocation formula in § 1.263A-1(h). During 2018, R also incurs $8,000,000 of total section 471 costs, including $2,000,000 of direct material costs.

    (2) Under paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, R determines its capitalizable mixed service costs allocable to pre-production additional section 263A costs based on the proportion of direct material costs in total section 471 costs. R's direct material costs are 25% of total section 471 costs ($2,000,000 of direct material costs incurred during the year divided by $8,000,000 of total section 471 costs incurred during the year). Thus, R allocates $50,000 (25% × $200,000) of mixed service costs to pre-production additional section 263A costs. R includes the remaining $150,000 ($200,000 less $50,000) of capitalizable mixed service costs as production additional section 263A costs.

    (E) Example 5—Labor-based allocation of mixed service costs.

    (1) Taxpayer S computes its capitalizable mixed service costs using the simplified service cost method described in § 1.263A-1(h). During 2018, S incurs $200,000 of capitalizable mixed service costs, computed using the general allocation formula in § 1.263A-1(h). During 2018, S also incurs $10,000,000 of total labor costs (excluding any labor costs included in mixed service costs), including $1,000,000 of labor costs that are pre-production costs as described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section (excluding any labor costs included in mixed service costs).

    (2) Under paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, S determines its capitalizable mixed service costs allocable to pre-production additional section 263A costs based on the proportion of labor costs that are pre-production costs in labor costs. S's pre-production labor costs are 10% of labor costs ($1,000,000 of labor costs incurred during the year that are pre-production costs (excluding any labor costs included in mixed service costs), divided by $10,000,000 of total labor costs incurred during the year (excluding any labor costs included in mixed service costs). Thus, S allocates $20,000 (10% × $200,000) of mixed service costs to pre-production additional section 263A costs. S includes the remaining $180,000 ($200,000 less $20,000) of capitalizable mixed service costs as production additional section 263A costs.

    (F) Example 6—De minimis rule for allocation of mixed service costs.

    The facts are the same as in Example 5 in paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(E) of this section, except that S uses the de minimis rule for mixed service costs in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C) of this section. Because 90% or more of S's capitalizable mixed service costs are allocated to production additional section 263A costs, under the de minimis rule, S allocates all $200,000 of capitalizable mixed service costs to production additional section 263A costs. None of the capitalizable mixed service costs are allocated to pre-production additional section 263A costs.

    (4) Modified simplified production method with historic absorption ratio election—(i) In general. This paragraph (c)(4) generally permits taxpayers using the modified simplified production method to elect a historic absorption ratio in determining additional section 263A costs allocable to eligible property remaining on hand at the close of their taxable years. A taxpayer may only make a historic absorption ratio election under this paragraph (c)(4) if it has used the modified simplified production method for three or more consecutive taxable years immediately prior to the year of election and has capitalized additional section 263A costs using an actual pre-production absorption ratio, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, and an actual production absorption ratio, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D) of this section, or an actual combined absorption ratio, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2) of this section, for its three most recent consecutive taxable years. This method is not available to a taxpayer that is deemed to have zero additional section 263A costs under paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section. The historic absorption ratio is used in lieu of the actual absorption ratios computed under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section or the actual combined absorption ratio computed under paragraph (c)(3)(iv) and is based on costs capitalized by a taxpayer during its test period. If elected, the historic absorption ratio must be used for each taxable year within the qualifying period described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C) of this section. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (c)(4), paragraph (b)(4) of this section applies to the historic absorption ratio election under the modified simplified production method.

    (ii) Operating rules and definitions—(A) Pre-production historic absorption ratio. The pre-production historic absorption ratio is computed as follows:

    ER20NO18.007

    (1) Pre-production additional section 263A costs incurred during the test period are defined as the pre-production additional section 263A costs described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section that the taxpayer incurs during the test period described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

    (2) Pre-production section 471 costs incurred during the test period are defined as the pre-production section 471 costs described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B)(2) of this section that the taxpayer incurs during the test period described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

    (B) Production historic absorption ratio. The production historic absorption ratio is computed as follows:

    ER20NO18.008

    (1) Production additional section 263A costs incurred during the test period are defined as the production additional section 263A costs described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D)(1) of this section that the taxpayer incurs during the test period described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

    (2) Residual pre-production additional section 263A costs incurred during the test period are defined as the residual pre-production additional section 263A costs described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D)(2) of this section that the taxpayer incurs during the test period described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

    (3) Production section 471 costs incurred during the test period are defined as the production section 471 costs described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D)(3) of this section that the taxpayer incurs during the test period described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

    (4) Direct materials adjustments made during the test period are defined as the direct materials adjustments described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(D)(4) of this section that the taxpayer incurs during the test period described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.

    (iii) LIFO taxpayers making the historic absorption ratio election—(A) In general. Instead of the pre-production and production historic absorption ratios defined in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, a LIFO taxpayer making the historic absorption ratio election under the modified simplified production method calculates a combined historic absorption ratio based on costs the taxpayer capitalizes during its test period.

    (B) Combined historic absorption ratio. The combined historic absorption ratio is computed as follows:

    ER20NO18.009

    (1) Total allocable additional section 263A costs incurred during the test period. Total allocable additional section 263A costs incurred during the test period are the sum of the total additional section 263A costs allocable to eligible property on hand at year end as described in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section, determined on a non-LIFO basis, for all taxable years in the test period.

    (2) Total section 471 costs remaining on hand at each year end of the test period. Total section 471 costs remaining on hand at each year end of the test period are the sum of the total pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end as described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C) of this section and the total production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end as described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(E) of this section, determined on a non-LIFO basis, for all taxable years in the test period.

    (iv) Extension of qualifying period. In the first taxable year following the close of each qualifying period (for example, the sixth taxable year following the test period), a taxpayer must compute the actual absorption ratios under paragraph (c)(3) of this section (pre-production and production absorption ratios or, for LIFO taxpayers, the combined absorption ratio). If the actual combined absorption ratio or both the actual pre-production and production absorption ratios, as applicable, computed for this taxable year (the recomputation year) is within one-half of one percentage point, plus or minus, of the corresponding historic absorption ratio or ratios used in determining capitalizable costs for the qualifying period (the previous five taxable years), the qualifying period is extended to include the recomputation year and the following five taxable years, and the taxpayer must continue to use the historic absorption ratio or ratios throughout the extended qualifying period. If, however, the actual combined historic absorption ratio or either the actual pre-production absorption ratio or production absorption ratio, as applicable, is not within one-half of one percentage point, plus or minus, of the corresponding historic absorption ratio, the taxpayer must use the actual combined absorption ratio or ratios beginning with the recomputation year and throughout the updated test period. The taxpayer must resume using the historic absorption ratio or ratios based on the updated test period in the third taxable year following the recomputation year.

    (v) Examples. The provisions of this paragraph (c)(4) are illustrated by the following examples:

    (A) Example 1—HAR and FIFO inventory method.

    (1) Taxpayer S uses the FIFO method of accounting for inventories valued at cost and for 2021 elects to use the historic absorption ratio with the modified simplified production method. S identifies the following costs incurred during the test period:

    2018 2019 2020 Pre-production additional section 263A costs $100 $200 $300 Production additional section 263A costs 200 350 450 Pre-production section 471 costs 2,000 2,500 3,000 Production section 471 costs 2,500 3,500 4,000 Residual pre-production additional section 263A costs 60 136 220 Direct materials adjustments 2,700 3,200 3,700

    (2) Under paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, S computes the pre-production historic absorption ratio as follows:

    ER20NO18.010

    (3) Under paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, S computes the production historic absorption ratio as follows:

    ER20NO18.011

    (4) In 2021, S incurs $10,000 of section 471 costs of which $1,000 pre-production section 471 costs and $2,000 production 471 costs remain in ending inventory. Under the modified simplified production method using a historic absorption ratio, S determines the pre-production additional section 263A costs allocable to its ending inventory by multiplying its pre-production historic absorption ratio (8.00%) by the pre-production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end ($1,000). Thus, S allocates $80 of pre-production additional section 263A costs to its ending inventory (8.00% × $1,000). S determines the production additional section 263A costs allocable to its ending inventory by multiplying its production historic absorption ratio (7.22%) by the production section 471 costs remaining on hand at year end ($2,000). Thus, S allocates $144 of production additional section 263A costs to its ending inventory (7.22% × $2,000).

    (5) Under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, S's total additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory in 2021 are $224, which is the sum of the allocable pre-production additional section 263A costs ($80) and the allocable production additional section 263A costs ($144). S's ending inventory in 2021 is $3,224, which is the sum of S's additional section 263A costs allocable to ending inventory and S's section 471 costs remaining in ending inventory ($224 + $3,000). The balance of S's additional section 263A costs incurred during 2021 is taken into account in 2021 as part of S's cost of goods sold.

    (B) Example 2—HAR and LIFO inventory method. (1)(i)

    The facts are the same as in Example 1 in paragraph (c)(4)(v)(A) of this section, except that S uses a dollar-value LIFO inventory method rather than the FIFO method. S calculates additional section 263A costs incurred during the taxable year and allocable to ending inventory under paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section and identifies the following costs incurred during the test period:

    2018 2019 2020 Additional section 263A costs incurred during the taxable year allocable to ending inventory $90 $137 $167 Section 471 costs incurred during the taxable year that remain in ending inventory 1,000 1,400 2,100

    (ii) In 2021, the LIFO value of S's increment is $1,500.

    (2) Under paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section, S computes a combined historic absorption ratio as follows:

    ER20NO18.012

    (3) S's additional section 263A costs allocable to its 2021 LIFO increment are $131 ($1,500 beginning LIFO increment × 8.76% combined historic absorption ratio). S adds the $131 to the $1,500 LIFO increment to determine a total 2021 LIFO increment of $1,631.

    (g) * * *

    (3) Paragraph (c) of this section applies for taxable years beginning on or after November 20, 2018. For any taxable year that both begins before November 20, 2018 and ends after November 20, 2018, the IRS will not challenge return positions consistent with all of paragraphs (c) of this section.

    Par. 5. Section 1.263A-3 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (a)(4)(i). 2. Designating the text of paragraph (d)(4)(v) as paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) and adding a paragraph heading. 3. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(v)(B).

    The revision and additions read as follows:

    § 1.263A-3 Rules relating to property acquired for resale.

    (a) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) In general. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section, a taxpayer may elect the simplified production method, as described in § 1.263A-2(b), or the modified simplified production method, as described in § 1.263A-2(c), but may not elect the simplified resale method, as described in paragraph (d) of this section, if the taxpayer is engaged in both production and resale activities with respect to the items of eligible property listed in § 1.263A-2(b)(2).

    (d) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (v) * * *

    (A) Transition to elect historic absorption ratio. * * *

    (B) Transition to revoke historic absorption ratio. Notwithstanding the requirements provided in paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B) of this section regarding revocations of the historic absorption ratio during a qualifying period, a taxpayer will be permitted to revoke the historic absorption ratio in their first, second, or third taxable year ending on or after November 20, 2018, under such administrative procedures and with terms and conditions prescribed by the Commissioner.

    Par. 6. In § 1.263A-7, paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(2)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.263A-7 Changing a method of accounting under section 263A.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Simplified method used. A dollar-value LIFO taxpayer using the 3-year average method and the simplified production method, the modified simplified production method, or the simplified resale method to revalue its inventory is permitted, but not required, to establish a new base year.

    Par. 7. In § 1.471-3, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.471-3 Inventories at cost.

    (b) In the case of merchandise purchased since the beginning of the taxable year, the invoice price less trade or other discounts, except strictly cash discounts approximating a fair interest rate, which may be deducted or not at the option of the taxpayer, provided a consistent course is followed. To this net invoice price should be added transportation or other necessary charges incurred in acquiring possession of the goods. But see § 1.263A-1(d)(2)(iv)(C) for special rules for certain direct material costs that in certain cases are permitted to be capitalized as additional section 263A costs by taxpayers using a simplified method under § 1.263A-2(b) or (c) or § 1.263A-3(d). For taxpayers acquiring merchandise for resale that are subject to the provisions of section 263A, see §§ 1.263A-1 and 1.263A-3 for additional amounts that must be included in inventory costs.

    Kirsten Wielobob, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: July 23, 2018. David J. Kautter, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). Note:

    This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on November 6, 2018.

    [FR Doc. 2018-24545 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission 28 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. USPC-2018-01] Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes AGENCY:

    United States Parole Commission, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Parole Commission is revising its regulations to account for a membership of fewer than three Commissioners.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Helen H. Krapels, General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 346-7030. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the telephone.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Parole Commission is modifying its voting procedures to account for commissioner unavailability. The recommended modifications retain a second Commissioner review procedure in cases where the first Commissioner voting on the case has a significant disagreement with the panel recommendation. The Commission is making these changes permanent even though its membership may be increased in the future.

    With regard to the problem of resolving a tie vote, the rule revisions incorporate the principle that the consensus of all agency decision-makers in a given case, Commissioners and examiners, is best represented by the Commissioner's vote that is in agreement with the hearing examiner panel. If no Commissioner vote is in agreement with the hearing examiner panel, the vote that is the most favorable to the offender will be the Commission's decision.

    The revision of § 2.63 resolves split decisions for the variety of decisions found in the Commission's rules, including original jurisdiction cases, NAB appeals, and reopenings.

    The revisions at §§ 2.68, 2.74, and 2.76, modify the present two-vote requirements in Transfer Treaty Determinations, D.C. parole decisions, and decisions to reduce the minimum term for D.C. Code offenders sentenced to parolable sentences by providing that these may be made by one Commissioner, with a second vote required only if the first Commissioner disagrees with the panel recommendation. A conforming amendment to the rule on miscellaneous provisions at 28 CFR 2.89 is also made. The Commission is publishing the revisions as final rules without seeking public comment because they are procedural in nature and do not establish any new substantive criteria for making parole or release decisions.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    These regulations have been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulation Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13565, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation. The Commission has determined that these rules are not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly these rules have not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Executive Order 13132

    These rules will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, these rules do not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    These rules will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    These rules will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and they will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E—Congressional Review Act)

    None of these rules are a “major rule” as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E—Congressional Review Act, now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). These rules will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. Moreover, these are rules of agency practice or procedure that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, and does not come within the meaning of the term “rule” as used in Section 804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and parole.

    The Final Rule

    Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission adopts the following revisions to 28 CFR part 2:

    PART 2—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6).

    2. Revise § 2.63 to read as follows:
    § 2.63 Quorum and voting requirements.

    (a) A quorum of the Commission consists of the majority of those Commissioners holding office at the time an action is under consideration. Any action authorized by law may be decided by the majority vote of the Commissioners holding office at the time the action is taken. Voting requirements in parole decision-making are established in other provisions of this part, including paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

    (b)(1) In the event of a tie vote of the Commission's membership on an issue that requires the vote or authorization of the Commission, the issue that is the subject of the vote is not adopted by the Commission.

    (2) If the matter that is the subject of the tie vote is whether to reopen or reconsider a previous decision of the Commission, the previous decision shall remain in effect. This includes decisions as to whether to rescind a parole date, to revoke parole or supervised release, or to grant parole after parole has been denied under 18 U.S.C. 4206(d).

    (3) If the matter that is the subject of a tie vote is whether to grant parole at any initial hearing, 15-year reconsideration hearing, or D.C. Code rehearing, that decision shall be the Commissioner vote that is in agreement with the hearing examiner panel. If there is a tie vote and no commissioner agrees with the hearing examiner panel, then the decision will be the Commissioner's vote most favorable to the prisoner.

    (4) If the matter that is the subject of the tie vote is whether to grant or deny release at the two-thirds date of the sentence per 18 U.S.C. 4206(d), or to terminate parole after the parolee has been on parole for 5 years per 18 U.S.C. 4211(c) and D.C. Code sec. 24-404(a-1)(3), the prisoner must be granted release under the statute or parole must be terminated respectively.

    (5) If the matter that is the subject of a tie vote is a decision under appellate review per § 2.26, if no concurrence is reached, the decision under appellate review shall be considered affirmed. This rule also applies to decisions under § 2.17 to remove a case from the original jurisdiction of the Commission.

    (6) The Commission may re-vote on a case disposition to resolve a tie vote or other impasse in satisfying a voting requirement of these rules.

    (c) If there is only one Commissioner holding office, all provisions in these rules requiring concurring votes or resolving split decisions are suspended until the membership of the Commission is increased, and any action may be taken by one Commissioner.

    3. Revise § 2.68(i)(1) to read as follows:
    § 2.68 Prisoners transferred pursuant to treaty.

    (i) * * *

    (1) The Commission shall render a decision as soon as practicable and without unnecessary delay. Upon review of the examiner panel recommendation, the Commissioner may make the decision by concurring with the panel recommendation. If the Commissioner does not concur, the Commissioner shall refer the case to another Commissioner and the decision shall be made on the concurring votes of two Commissioners. The decision shall set a release date and a period and conditions of supervised release. If the Commission determines that the appropriate release date under 18 U.S.C. 4106A is the full term date of the foreign sentence, the Commission will order the transferee to “continue to expiration.”

    4. Revise § 2.74(c) to read as follows:
    § 2.74 Decision of the Commission.

    (c) All decisions may be made by one Commissioner, except that if the Commissioner does not concur with a panel recommendation, the case shall be referred to another Commissioner for a vote and the decision shall be based on the concurring votes of two Commissioners.

    5. Revise § 2.76(b) to read as follows:
    § 2.76 Reduction in minimum sentence.

    (b) A prisoner's request under this section may be approved on the vote of one Commissioner.

    6. Amend § 2.89 by adding an entry for “2.63” in numerical order to read as follows:
    § 2.89 Miscellaneous provisions.

    2.63 (Quorum)

    Patricia K. Cushwa, Chairman (Acting), U.S. Parole Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25103 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission 28 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. USPC-2018-02] Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes AGENCY:

    United States Parole Commission, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Interim rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Parole Commission is amending its rule allowing hearings by videoconference to include parole termination hearings.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 20, 2018. Comments due on or before January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification number USPC-2018-02 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Mail: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, attention: USPC Rules Group, 90 K Street NE, Washington, DC 20530.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Helen H. Krapels, General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 346-7030. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the telephone.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Since early 2004, the Parole Commission has been conducting some parole proceedings by videoconference to reduce travel costs and conserve the time and effort of its hearing examiners, and cut down on delays in scheduling in-person hearings. The Commission originally initiated the use of videoconference in parole release hearings as a pilot project and then extended the use of videoconferencing to institutional revocation hearings and probable cause hearings. Using videoconference for termination hearings is a natural progression in the use of this technology. The hearings are informal administrative proceedings and there is little value in having the hearing examiner and the offender appear in person.

    There are several benefits to using videoconferencing for parole termination hearings, which are conducted pursuant to 28 CFR 2.43(c) and 2.95(c). Videoconferencing will save time and expense for travel, which will allow the hearing examiner to make the best use of his or her time in the office. The examiner will have access to documents in the parolee's file and can quickly resolve problems or answer questions. Videoconference may offer the possibility of more expeditious hearings and decisions regarding the disposition of the case.

    The Commission is promulgating this rule as an interim rule in order to determine the utility of the videoconference procedure for parole termination hearings and is providing a 60-day period for the public to comment on the use of the procedure for such hearings.

    The amended rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register and will apply to termination hearings conducted on or after the effective date.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulation Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13565, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation. The Commission has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Executive Order 13132

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E—Congressional Review Act)

    This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E—Congressional Review Act, now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. Moreover, this is a rule of agency practice or procedure that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, and does not come within the meaning of the term “rule” as used in Section 804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and parole.

    The Interim Rule

    Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission is adopting the following amendment to 28 CFR part 2:

    PART 2—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6).

    2. Revise § 2.25 to read as follows:
    § 2.25 Hearings by videoconference.

    The Commission may conduct a parole determination hearing (including a rescission hearing), a probable cause hearing, an institutional revocation hearing, and a parole termination hearing by videoconference between the hearing examiner and the prisoner or releasee.

    Patricia K. Cushwa, Chairman (Acting), U.S. Parole Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25104 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0962] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; NASA Activities, Gulf of Mexico, Galveston, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary, moving safety zone for all navigable waters within a 1,000-yard radius of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) crew module uprighting system test article while it is being tested in the territorial waters of the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Galveston, TX. The safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by vessels and equipment engaged in the crew capsule's at-sea testing. This rulemaking prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Houston-Galveston or a designated representative

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from November 28, 2018 through December 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0962 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Collin Sykes, Eighth Coast Guard District, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2119, email [email protected].

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

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Orion program is evaluating an updated design to the crew module uprighting system (CMUS), the system of five airbags on top of the crew capsule that inflate upon splashdown. NASA tested the CMUS at the Neutral Buoyancy Lab at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, and requested Coast Guard support for the at-sea uprighting tests. On October 19, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; NASA Activities, Gulf of Mexico, Galveston, TX (83 FR 53023). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this at-sea test. During the comment period that ended November 5, 2018, we received 3 comments.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because it is contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard must make this rule effective soon enough to allow for immediate action to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the at-sea testing and that it does not compromise publish safety.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The at-sea testing of the CMUS will involve numerous surface vessels, divers, and remote-operated submarine vehicles, and feature a rapid rotation of the Orion test article in a confined area and partially controlled environment. The Captain of the Port Sector Houston-Galveston (COTP) has determined that due to the complexity of the test and proximity of the participants, unauthorized access by persons or vessels outside the scope of the test present a significant hazard to human life, vessels, and government property. The purpose of this rule to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by vessels and equipment engaged in the crew capsule's at-sea testing.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received 03 comments on our NPRM published October 19, 2018. Two of the comments supported the rule for establishing the described safety measures to protect scientists as they search for solutions to complex problems in potentially hazardous environments.

    One comment expressed concerns regarding the impact the safety zone would have on local anglers and requested a more precise location of the test. The planned location of the test is between 9 and 12 nautical miles (NMs) offshore of Galveston, TX, to the south and west of the Galveston Bay Entrance Channel. However, due to the drifting nature of the test, the Coast Guard cannot provide a specific geographical position at this time. Mariners in the vicinity will be notified of the test location via Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) no less than 3 hours prior to the commencement of testing. The BNMs, paired with the relatively small area encompassed by the 1,000-yd radius safety zone, will provide anglers an ample opportunity to seek alternative fishing grounds during the limited duration test. This same commenter also requested reasons that the NPRM was issued with a 15-day comment period. The Coast Guard published the NPRM with a 15-day comment period because it was impracticable to provide a 30-day comment period. It was impracticable to publish an NPRM with a 30-day comment period because we needed to establish this temporary safety zone by November 28, 2018. A 15-day comment period allowed the Coast Guard to provide for public notice and comment, but also publish a rule, if adopted, soon enough that the length of the notice and comment period does not compromise public safety. Finally, this commenter requested justification for the non-retaliation statement in the Impact on Small Entities section of the NPRM. This statement is required to be included in all Coast Guard Rulemakings by the Coast Guard Non-Retaliation Policy outlined in 69 FR 12864 (March 18, 2004). Based on the public comments received, we have edited the regulatory text to clarify that that the test would occur between 9 and 12 NM offshore of Galveston, TX, to the south and west of the Galveston Bay Entrance Channel. There are no other changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a temporary, moving safety zone that covers all navigable waters within 1,000 yards of NASA's CMUS test article, which will be located in the territorial waters of the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Galveston, TX. NASA anticipates that the testing activities will take place on approximately three days during the effective period, during daylight hours only. The effective period of this rule covers a nine-day window from November 28, 2018 through December 6, 2018, to allow for scheduling delays due to inclement weather or technical difficulties. On each of the approximately three days that the rule will be enforced, the enforcement periods will begin approximately 2 hours before testing activities and last until approximately 2 hours after the testing activities. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through BNMs, Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), and/or other means of public notice, as appropriate, at least 3 hours in advance of each enforcement period. Such notice of enforcement will also include more specific information regarding the location of the CMUS test article.

    The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters during the NASA testing activities. No vessel or person is permitted to enter or remain in the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16. All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times, dates, and locations, for this safety zone through BNMs, LNMs, and/or MSIBs, as appropriate.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will affect a small, designated area off the coast of Galveston, TX, outside of the Houston Ship Channel and safety fairway during daylight hours on approximately three days. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary, moving safety zone that prohibit entry within 1,000 yards of the CMUS test article during daylight hours on approximately nine days in the Gulf of Mexico. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0962 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0962 Safety Zone; NASA Activities, Gulf of Mexico, Galveston, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters within 1000 yards of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) crew module uprighting system test article. The test will occur between 9 and 12 nautical miles (NM) offshore of Galveston, TX, to the south and west of the Galveston Bay Entrance Channel.

    (b) Effective period. This section will be effective from November 28, 2018 through December 6, 2018.

    (c) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced on approximately 3 days during the effective period, during daylight hours. Each period of enforcement will begin approximately 2 hours before testing activities and end approximately 2 hours after testing activities. The Captain of the Port Sector Houston-Galveston (COTP) or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) or other means of public notice at least 3 hours in advance of the enforcement of this safety zone. Such notice of enforcement will also include more specific information regarding the location of the CMUS test article.

    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”.

    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative by VHF Channel 16.

    (3) If granted permission to enter, all vessels must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful orders or directions of the COTP or a designated representative.

    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) or other means of public notice of the enforcement period for the temporary safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Kevin D. Oditt, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Houston-Galveston.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25242 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-1014] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of LNG GOLAR TUNDRA while the vessel transits within the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel. A temporary security zone of the receiving facility's mooring basin will also remain in effect while LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is moored at the facility. The security zones are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by LNG cargo aboard the vessel. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Corpus Christi.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from November 20, 2018 through November 21, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 11, 2018 through November 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-1014 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Margaret Brown, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-5130, email [email protected].

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is scheduled to be transit inbound on November 11, 2018 and anticipated to depart on November 21, 2018, and it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this security zone by November 11, 2018. The security zone must be in effect through those dates in order to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety and security of the public and marine environment from hazards associated with the LNG cargo.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to establish the security zone to ensure the safety and security of the public and marine environment from hazards associated with the LNG cargo.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the transit and mooring of LNG GOLAR TUNDRA from November 11, 2018 through November 21, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the vessel, and while LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is moored within the mooring basin, bound by 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W on the northern shoreline; thence to 27°52′45.58″ N, 097°16′19.60″ W; thence to 27°52′38.55″ N, 097°15′45.56″ W; thence to 27°52′49.30″ N, 097°15′45.44″ W; thence west along the shoreline to 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W. This rule is needed to protect the public and marine environment while the vessel is transiting and moored within the COTP zone.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from the time LNG GOLAR TUNDRA enters the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on November 11, 2018 until departure on or about November 21, 2018. The moving security zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of LNG GOLAR TUNDRA while transiting inbound and outbound through the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel, and the fixed security zone will cover all waters bound by 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W; on the northern shoreline; thence to 27°52′45.58″ N, 097°16′19.60″ W; thence to 27°52′38.55″ N, 097°15′45.56″ W; thence to 27°52′49.30″ N, 097°15′45.44″ W; thence west along the shoreline to 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W, while LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is moored at the facility. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    Entry into the security zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Corpus Christi. Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through the zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 361-939-0450. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate of the enforcement times and dates for the security zones.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the security zones. Vessel traffic will only be impacted for a short duration of time in the immediate area of the LNG GOLAR TUNDRA during its transit and in the area of the facility while the vessel is moored. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves security zones around navigable waters within a 500-foot radius of the transiting LNG GOLAR TUNDRA and within the mooring basin. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-1014 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-1014 Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Corpus Christi, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone:

    (1) For LNG GOLAR TUNDRA transiting shoreward of the seaward extremity of the Aransas Pass Jetties in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel, the waters within a 500 yards of LNG GOLAR TUNDRA while transiting until moored.

    (2) The mooring basin bound by 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W on the northern shoreline; thence to 27°52′45.58″ N, 097°16′19.60″ W; thence to 27°52′38.55″ N, 097°15′45.56″ W; thence to 27°52′49.30″ N, 097°15′45.44″ W; thence west along the shoreline to 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W, while LNG GOLAR TUNDRA is moored.

    (b) Effective/enforcement period. This section is effective without actual notice from November 20, 2018 until November 21, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 11, 2018 through November 20, 2018. Enforcement of this section began from the time LNG GOLAR TUNDRA entered the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on November 11, 2018 and will continue until LNG GOLAR TUNDRA's departure on or about November 21, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in § 165.33 of this part apply. Entry into these zones are prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Corpus Christi.

    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through the zones must request permission from the COTP Sector Corpus Christi on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 361-939-0450.

    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

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

    Dated: November 9, 2018. J.E. Smith, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25251 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51, 60, and 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0510; FRL-9986-42-OAR] RIN 2060-AS95 Revisions to Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources Correction

    In rule document 2018-24747, appearing on pages 56713 through 56734 in the issue of Wednesday, November 14, 2018 make the following correction:

    On page 56732, the asterisks directly above Eq. 323-8 were printed in error and those after were omitted. The equation is corrected to appear as set forth below: Appendix A to Part 63 [Corrected] Method 323-Measurment of Formaldehyde Emissions From Natural Gas-Fired Stationary Sources-Acetyl Acetone Derivitization Method ER20NO18.013
    [FR Doc. C1-2018-24747 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0460; FRL-9985-98] Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503 in or on all food commodities when this pesticide chemical is used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Envera, LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503 in or on all food commodities under FFDCA.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective November 20, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before January 22, 2019, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0460, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0460 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 22, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0460, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

    II. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 15, 2017 (82 FR 59604) (FRL-9970-50), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 7F8546) by Envera, LLC, 220 Garfield Ave., West Chester, PA 19380. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the bactericide and fungicide Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503 in or on all food commodities. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Envera, LLC and available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit III.C.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

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

    EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503 and the available toxicological data on Bacillus subtilis strain GB03, a microorganism that is genetically identical to Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503, and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Safety Determination for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503” (Safety Determination). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    The available data demonstrated that, with regard to humans, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503 is not toxic, pathogenic, or infective via any route of exposure. Although there may be some exposure to residues when Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503 is used on all food commodities in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices, such exposure is unlikely to significantly increase exposure above the background levels of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens organisms naturally present on food commodities. EPA also determined in the Safety Determination that retention of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor was not necessary as part of the qualitative assessment conducted for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503.

    Based upon its evaluation in the Safety Determination, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503 in or on all food commodities when this pesticide chemical is used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    C. Response to Comments

    Four comments were received in response to the notice of filing. EPA reviewed the comments and determined that they are irrelevant to the tolerance exemption in this action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    V. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 5, 2018. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. Add § 180.1363 to subpart D to read as follows:
    § 180.1363 Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain ENV503 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

    [FR Doc. 2018-25313 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    83 224 Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRM-50-116; NRC-2018-0201] Elimination of Immediate Notification Requirements for Non-Emergency Events AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking from Bill Pitesa, of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), dated August 2, 2018, requesting that the NRC amend its regulations regarding the immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors. The petition was docketed by the NRC on September 4, 2018, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-116. The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-50-116 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comment on this petition.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by February 4, 2019. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0201. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Doyle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3748; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0201 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-2018-0201.

    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 incoming petition for rulemaking is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18247A204.

    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.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0201 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 https://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.

    II. The Petitioner

    The petition was submitted by Bill Pitesa on behalf of NEI members. Members of NEI include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations and entities involved in the nuclear energy industry.

    III. The Petition

    The petitioner is requesting that the NRC revise part 50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to remove non-emergency notification requirements from the current regulations. The petitioner contends that the elimination of non-emergency notification requirements would eliminate duplicative notifications to the NRC and reduce unnecessary burden to licensees without presenting any incremental risk to public health and safety.

    IV. Discussion of the Petition

    The petitioner requests that the NRC revise its regulations in 10 CFR part 50 to remove the current requirement for licensees to immediately report non-emergency events that occur at operating nuclear power reactors. The petitioner believes the regulations should be revised because licensees currently have procedures for responding to non-emergency events and ensuring that NRC resident inspectors are notified of non-emergency events independent of the requirements in § 50.72. The petitioner states that “duplicative notifications under 10 CFR 50.72 serve no safety function and are not needed to prevent or minimize possible injury to the public or to allow the NRC to take necessary action.”

    The petitioner suggests that in lieu of the currently required notifications, the NRC should establish guidance for the resident inspectors that provides consistent and standard expectations for using the existing communication protocols that have proven effective from the site to the resident inspectors and, from there, on to NRC management.

    The petitioner discusses the NRC's stated purpose in promulgating the non-emergency event notification requirements in § 50.72 by referring to final rules published in the Federal Register. The basis and purpose of the current requirements are primarily discussed in final rules published in the Federal Register on February 29, 1980 (45 FR 13434); August 29, 1983 (48 FR 39039); September 10, 1992 (57 FR 41378); and October 25, 2000 (65 FR 63769).1

    1 These final rules are publicly available in the Federal Register section of the U.S. Government Publishing Office's govinfo website: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr.

    V. Request for Comment

    The NRC staff is requesting the public to consider the following specific questions when commenting on this petition:

    1. The NRC publishes the event notifications it receives from licensees on the NRC's public website every weekday. Do you or does your organization regularly review these event notifications? If so, please describe your use of this information and explain how the elimination of all non-emergency event notification requirements would affect you or your organization.

    2. If all non-emergency event notification requirements were removed from § 50.72, the NRC would still receive licensee event reports within 60 days of discovery of the event as required by § 50.73 unless there is no corresponding § 50.73 report. These reports typically contain a more detailed account of the event and are released to the public in ADAMS after receipt. There is no corresponding § 50.73 report for § 50.72(b)(2)(xi) for a news release or notification to other government agencies, § 50.72(b)(3)(xii) for transportation of a radioactively contaminated person, and § 50.72(b)(3)(xiii) for major loss of emergency assessment capability. Would the public release of licensee event reports alone meet your needs? Please explain why or why not.

    3. The petitioner asserts that the non-emergency notifications under § 50.72 “create unnecessary burdens for both the licensee and the NRC staff, and should be eliminated.” What specific provisions in § 50.72, if any, do you consider to be especially burdensome (e.g., the timing requirements for submittal of event notifications, certain types of event notifications)? Please provide a supporting justification, as appropriate.

    4. The petitioner asserts that § 50.72 non-emergency notifications are contrary to the best interests of the public and are contrary to the stated purpose of the regulation. Do you agree with this assertion? Please explain why or why not.

    5. Are there alternatives to the petitioner's proposed changes that would address the concerns raised in the petition while still providing timely event information to the NRC and the public? Please provide a detailed discussion of any suggested alternatives.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of November, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25273 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 61 [WC Docket Nos. 17-308, 18-276; FCC 18-142] Elimination of Outdated Tariff-Related Requirements AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission proposes to eliminate outdated tariff-related requirements that provide little benefit while imposing burdens on carriers.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before December 20, 2018. Reply comments are due on or before January 4, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    ○ Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    ○ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    ○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

    ○ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robin Cohn, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at 202-418-1540 or at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released October 18, 2018. A full text copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may be obtained at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-waives-and-seeks-comment-eliminating-obsolete-tariff-rules.

    I. Discussion A. Amending the Cross-Referencing Rule

    1. In light of the public's ability to access online all tariffs filed with the Commission through the Electronic Tariff Filing System (ETFS) on our website, we propose to amend our cross-referencing rule to allow a carrier to refer to its own tariff and the tariffs of its affiliated companies in its tariff publications. We seek comment on this proposal.

    2. The cross-referencing rule provides that, subject to certain exceptions, no tariff publication filed with the Commission may make reference to any other tariff publication or to any other document or instrument. The rule was adopted more than 75 years ago when tariffs were filed in hard copy with the Commission and reviewing them was time consuming and expensive. As the Commission explained in 1984, “[c]onfusion may result if references to other tariffs are allowed since all important information will not be consolidated in one place and references may be incomplete. In addition, referenced documents may not be easily accessible to the public.” We seek comment on whether those concerns are as legitimate today, as they were in past decades. Does the fact that all interstate tariffs are now filed electronically and are available to the public on our website alleviate concerns about the confusion that may result from a carrier cross-referencing its own or an affiliate's tariffs? Does the nature of the cross-referencing rule as essentially a procedural requirement adopted decades ago counsel in favor of its modification at this juncture, given the passage of time since its adoption and the changed circumstances due to technological advances that make tariff information more publicly and readily accessible?

    3. We also seek comment on the burden to a carrier of complying with the prohibition on cross-referencing its own and its affiliates' tariffs. Currently, a carrier seeking to cross-reference its own tariffs can use the “special permission” procedures set forth in our rules, which require submission of an application requesting a one-time waiver of the rule. The Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureau) routinely grants such waivers and as a practical matter those waivers do not appear to have resulted in any negative consequences. In their waiver requests, both Verizon and AT&T argue that the current process requiring a carrier to obtain special permission each time it seeks to refer to its own tariffs is unduly burdensome. Do other commenters agree? What are the costs and benefits of requiring a carrier to follow the procedural rule of getting special permission to refer to its own or an affiliate's tariff in a tariff publication?

    4. We invite commenters to identify any other costs and benefits of amending the cross-referencing rule to allow a carrier to refer to its own or an affiliate's tariff publications in its tariffs. Are there any disadvantages to permitting carriers' tariffs to include cross-references to their own or an affiliate's tariffs? Are there any different approaches we should take to this issue?

    5. Consistent with the general approach of the cross-referencing rule and with the approach recommended by some stakeholders, our proposed amendments to the cross-referencing rule would apply to all carriers that file tariffs. We seek comment on this approach. Are there reasons to exclude particular types of carriers from application of the proposed rule revision?

    B. Eliminating Advance Filing of Materials That Support Interstate Access Tariffs

    6. We propose to eliminate, as no longer necessary and unduly burdensome, the provision in our rules requiring price cap incumbent LECs to file short form tariff review plans 90 days before their access tariffs are due. We seek comment on this proposal.

    7. Eliminating the short form tariff review plan requirement is consistent with the Commission's past efforts to reduce the burden of tariff filings on price cap LECs while ensuring Commission staff and the public have sufficient information about such tariffs in advance of their effective date. Before 1997, the Commission required LECs to file their interstate access tariff revisions 90 days before the effective date of those tariffs, which gave the Commission staff and stakeholders a substantial amount of time to review those tariffs before they became effective. Pursuant to section 204(a)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), the Commission modified its rules to permit tariff filings on a streamlined basis on either seven days' notice (for rate reductions) or 15 days' notice (for rate increases). At the same time, in light of the shortened time for review and the high volume and complexity of tariff filings it was receiving, the Commission adopted a requirement that price cap carriers file supporting information, without rate data, 90 days in advance of the annual access tariff filing to allow the public and Commission staff the opportunity to review that information well in advance of the actual tariff filing.

    8. Typically, price cap carriers have satisfied the requirement to file material supporting their interstate access tariffs 90 days in advance of their tariff filings by filing standardized short form tariff review plans. The standardized short form tariff review plans are spreadsheets that detail exogenous cost adjustments that price cap LECs intend to make to their price cap indices. For example, price cap carriers make exogenous cost adjustments related to: (1) Regulatory fees; (2) Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) expenses; (3) excess deferred taxes; and (4) North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) expenses.

    9. Over the last few years, the Bureau has found that the information needed to populate the short form tariff review plans is often not available when the short form tariff review plans are due. To address the insufficiency of available information, by waiver the Bureau reduced the time period for filing short form tariff review plans: first to 60 days prior to the annual access charge tariff filing and then to 45 days prior to the annual access charge tariff filing. For the 2017 and 2018 tariff filing years, the Bureau waived the short form tariff review plan filing requirement altogether because some of the factors needed to calculate exogenous cost adjustments for regulatory fees and TRS and NANPA expenses were not going to be available prior to the short form tariff review plan filing deadline. The Bureau found that absent such information the short form tariff review plans would provide little value to the Commission, industry, and consumers. Also, over the last decade, the Commission has taken a variety of deregulatory actions, including access charge reform and the grant of forbearance to price cap LECs from dominant carrier regulation for their newer packet-based and higher bandwidth services, that have resulted in a decline in the number of interstate access tariff filings as the scope of services subject to price cap regulation has narrowed.

    10. We seek comment on our proposal to stop requiring the filing of materials supporting price cap LECs' interstate access tariffs 90 days in advance of their tariff filings. In both 2017 and 2018, this requirement was waived by the Bureau and it does not appear that the Bureau waivers have interfered with the ability of interested stakeholders to review the price cap LECs' more extensive tariff review plans filed with their annual access charge tariff filings in advance of the July 1 effective date. However, we seek comment on whether in previous years there was a benefit to stakeholders of the short form tariff review plan filings that we should consider? Were there any negative effects of either shortening the filing deadline for short form tariff review plans or waiving the short form tariff review plan requirement entirely? Does the decline in the number of interstate access tariff filings due to regulatory changes provide an additional basis for eliminating the short form tariff review plan requirement?

    11. We also seek comment on the burden of filing the short form tariff review plans. What were the costs to filers that had to file short form tariff review plans in previous years? The same exogenous cost information collected in the short form tariff review plans is also required in the long form tariff review plans submitted 15 days before the annual access tariff filing. Is submission of the same information twice unduly burdensome? Are there benefits to price cap carriers from filing the short form tariff review plans? What would be the practical consequences of eliminating the short form tariff review plan requirement? Should carriers be given the option to file the short form tariff review plan or should the rule be completely eliminated? Finally, we seek comment on whether there are alternatives to eliminating the rule that the Commission should consider.

    C. Implementing the Proposed Rule Changes

    12. We seek comment on the timing for making the changes to our part 61 rules proposed herein. We propose an effective date that is thirty (30) days following publication of any revised rules in the Federal Register, which will effectuate application of any such rules in a timely manner. We invite parties to comment on this proposal and to explain the implications of different effective dates for any changes we make to our part 61 rules. We further note that none of the rule modifications proposed herein would affect either the Commission's authority to reject, suspend, and investigate particular tariff filings or parties' ability to challenge a tariff filing on the grounds that it is unjust and unreasonable. Do commenters have input on these or other issues related to the legal ramifications or implementation of the proposed rule amendments?

    II. Procedural Matters

    13. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of this document.

    14. Ex Parte Presentations. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    15. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document eliminates, and thus does not contain new or revised, information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.

    16. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    17. In this NPRM, we propose to amend two of the Commission's rules applicable to tariffs, §§ 61.49(k) and 61.74(a), in order to minimize burdens associated with such rules and as part of the Commission's efforts to reduce unnecessary regulations that no longer serve the public interest. These proposed revisions to § 61.49(k) only impact price cap LECs for the services that continue to be tariffed and any impact of these rule changes is minor, while the proposed revisions to § 61.74(a) are procedural in nature and the impact is likewise minor. Therefore, we certify that the proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    18. The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including a copy of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The initial certification will also be published in the Federal Register.

    19. Contact Person. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Robin Cohn, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1540, or [email protected].

    III. Ordering Clauses

    20. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-205, 215, 218, and 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-05, 215, 218, 220, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

    21. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 61

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Tariffs, Telecommunications, Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission Cecilia Sigmund, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend part 61 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 61—TARIFFS 1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 403, unless otherwise noted.

    § 61.49 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 61.49 by removing and reserving paragraph (k). 3. Amend § 61.74 by redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (c) through (f) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 61.74 References to other instruments.

    (b) Tariff publications filed by a carrier may reference other tariff publications filed by that carrier or its affiliates.

    [FR Doc. 2018-25324 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 13-249; FCC 18-139] Revitalization of the AM Radio Service AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM), in which it sought comment on alternative revised proposals to change the interference protection given to Class A AM radio broadcast stations. These proposals were revised based on responses to the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding.

    DATES:

    Comments may be filed on or before January 22, 2019 and reply comments may be filed on or before February 19, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 13-249, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 888-835-5322.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2700; Thomas Nessinger, Senior Counsel, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2700. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at 202-418-2918, or via the internet at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM), MB Docket No. 13-249; FCC 18-139, adopted and released on October 5, 2018. The full text of this document will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/ndbedp.

    Synopsis

    1. The 73 Class A AM stations in the United States are authorized to broadcast at up to 50 kW both day and night and, by current rule, are designed to render primary and secondary service over extended areas and are afforded extensive daytime and nighttime protection from interference by co- and adjacent-channel AM stations. Currently, Class A AM stations in the continental United States are protected during the day to their 0.1 mV/m groundwave contour from co-channel stations, and to their 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour from adjacent-channel stations. At night, such Class A stations are protected to their 0.5 mV/m-50 percent skywave contour from co-channel stations and to their 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour from adjacent-channel stations.

    2. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (AMR FNPRM), FCC 15-142, 30 FCC Rcd 12145, 81 FR 2818, Jan. 19, 2016, in this AM Revitalization proceeding, the Commission recognized that many of the areas previously receiving only Class A secondary service are now served by FM stations and smaller, more local AM stations. 30 FCC Rcd at 12168, 12170, paras. 51, 55. In the latter case, local AM service is often curtailed by the need for a local AM station to protect a (sometimes distant) Class A station's service. The Commission therefore tentatively concluded in the AMR FNPRM (1) that all Class A stations should be protected, both day and night, to their 0.1 mV/m groundwave contour, from co-channel stations, thus maintaining daytime protection but reducing protection to secondary coverage service areas at night; (2) that all Class A stations should continue to be protected to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour, both day and night, from first adjacent channel stations; and (3) that the critical hours protection of Class A stations should be eliminated completely. The Commission sought comment on these proposals.

    3. The AMR FNPRM proposals attracted voluminous and diverse comments. The licensees of Class A stations, represented primarily by the AM Radio Preservation Alliance (AMRPA), argue against the proposals and in favor of retaining the current protection rules. AMRPA argues that the Commission's proposal would do “significant harm” to the AM band by creating new interference, and point out the vital role that Class A stations have played in prior emergencies, such as Hurricane Katrina, noting further that 25 such stations are Primary Entry Points (PEPs) for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), 22 of which have been outfitted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to improve operating capability in national emergencies. A number of other commenters joining AMRPA in opposing the AMR FNPRM proposal agree that the proposal would reduce those stations' utility during national emergencies. Others contend that the proposal will increase nighttime interference in exchange for little in the way of increased nighttime coverage for less-powerful stations, while still others object to losing the ability to listen to distant signals for extended time periods.

    4. On the other hand, a number of commenters supported the Commission's proposal. Many believe that Class A AM stations' current protected status may be an anachronism with little relevance to a world with more FM stations, the internet, and other forms of communications. Some licensees of AM stations that must reduce nighttime power to protect Class A stations wish to improve their local nighttime service. Some point out that the extended skywave service that Class A licensees seek to protect has become increasingly unreliable and prone to interference, particularly given high environmental noise floors caused by various sources of radiofrequency noise. Many also criticize some of the opponents' calculations of potential signal losses due to the proposed rule changes, questioning opponents' technical showings. As for emergency communications, some commenters note that Class A stations seldom broadcast weather or other alerts for distant areas beyond their immediate communities of license, and thus contend that it is more valuable for local stations to have the ability to broadcast emergency alerts and other locally relevant emergency information at night.

    5. A third category of commenters believe that changes to Class A protections are necessary, but do not believe the Commission's proposals to be the correct approach. Most share certain premises: That a 0.1 mV/m signal is not listenable under most circumstances; that nighttime skywave service is sporadic and unreliable; and that the wide-area coverage of Class A stations written into the rules should be preserved to at least some extent. At the same time, these commenters propose solutions that they believe will offer some relief to AM broadcasters currently protecting Class A stations that are sometimes many hundreds of miles away.

    6. The majority of these commenters propose instead that Class A stations be protected to their 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour, both day and night, from co-channel stations and, in some cases, first-adjacent channel stations as well. They differ in how they believe Class A stations should be protected from nighttime skywave interference from other stations. Some propose nighttime protection of a Class A station's 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour based on the RSS values calculated for Class A stations in the continental United States, and further propose that the interfering contour should be the 0.025 mV/m-10 percent skywave contour based on single signal calculations. Others propose that Class A stations be protected to their nighttime 0.5 mV/m groundwave contours in a similar fashion to the way that Class B stations are currently protected to their 2.0 mV/m nighttime groundwave contours; they state that other stations making facility changes would have to show that they do not increase interference above the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour, or the 50 percent exclusion RSS nighttime interference-free (NIF) level, if higher, of any Class A station; believing that this more fairly protects the actual interference-free service enjoyed by Class A AM stations, rather than the theoretical service being protected by the current rules or the Commission's proposed rules. These commenters, however, do not all agree with the Commission's proposal to eliminate critical hours protection to Class A AM stations, favoring instead protection to the Class A stations' 0.5 mV/m groundwave contours during those hours.

    7. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission now seeks further comment on revised proposals for amending protections to Class A AM stations. Some commenters purport to demonstrate that protection of the 0.1 mV/m contour as proposed in the AMR FNPRM would be excessive because a 0.1 mV/m signal cannot be heard under current noise conditions and suggest that it is only necessary to protect Class A stations to their 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour. However, other commenters disagree. The Commission seeks further comment on this determination.

    8. Moreover, commenters argue that some skywave protection of Class A stations is desirable. The Commission therefore seeks comment on revised proposals for amending protections to Class A AM stations, which include alternative protection standards for critical hours and nighttime hours. These alternative protection standards are proposed as revisions to the proposed rules set forth at 81 FR 2818, Jan. 19, 2016. The following proposals all provide Class A stations with less protection than they currently enjoy; in the case of the critical hours proposals, Alternative 1 provides Class A stations with less protection than does Alternative 2, and in the case of the nighttime protection proposals, Alternative 2 in some cases provides Class A stations with less protection than does Alternative 1:

    Daytime Hours Proposal

    • During daytime hours, Class A AM stations are protected to their 0.5 mV/m daytime groundwave contour, from both co-channel and first-adjacent channel stations;

    Critical Hours Proposals

    Alternative 1: During critical hours, Class A AM stations are afforded no protection from other AM stations, as proposed in the AMR NPRM (no change to current 47 CFR 73.99), or

    Alternative 2: During critical hours, Class A AM stations are protected to their 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour (revise 47 CFR 73.99);

    Nighttime Hours Proposals

    Alternative 1: During nighttime hours, there may be no overlap between a Class A AM station's 0.5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contour and any interfering AM station's 0.025 mV/m 10 percent skywave contour (calculated using the single station method); or

    Alternative 2: During nighttime hours, Class A AM stations are protected from other AM stations in the same manner as Class B AM stations are protected, that is, interference may not be increased above the greater of the 0.5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contour or the 50 percent exclusion RSS NIF level (calculated using the multiple station method).

    9. The Commission seeks comment on these alternative proposals and asks once again for the comments to address those issues set forth in the AMR FNPRM concerning the effects on licensees and listeners of each type of station that could result from the combination of reduced protection to Class A stations and power increases by co- and adjacent-channel stations that this proposal would allow. The Commission also asks that commenters be mindful of the engineering comments already submitted concerning the calculation of listener interference, and, with this in mind, requests realistic estimates of the numbers of listeners that may lose primary service, as opposed to secondary or sporadic service, under each of the alternatives. Is there common agreement that protection of the 0.1 mV/m contour is excessive because a 0.1 mV/m signal cannot be heard under current noise conditions or are there studies to the contrary? Is the appropriate level of protection to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour? Likewise, the Commission seeks realistic estimates of the populations that could receive new primary local service, especially nighttime service, under each of these alternatives. It also seeks comment on whether its statutory authority imposes any limitations on implementation of these proposals, and whether such implementation is consistent with the public interest. Finally, the Commission asks for comment on the effect of these proposals on AM broadcasters that are small entities and seek comment as to alternatives that would minimize burdens on such small entities.

    10. The Commission also asked for specific comments addressing the effect of these proposals, if any, on the functioning of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and IPAWS. FEMA's IPAWS Office noted in comments that twenty-five Class A stations are Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations, and stated that under certain circumstances, the Commission's original proposal would diminish the reach of EAS alerts from these stations. The Commission sought comment as to the effect of its alternative proposals on emergency communications. In particular, it requested that any such evaluation include specifics as to what effect, if any, our proposals would have on the ability of other radio stations to receive EAS alerts from Class A stations that function as PEPs. It asked commenters to identify the affected stations and the populations covered by such stations to the extent possible. Such comments should also include an evaluation of the current reliability of Class A nighttime skywave service in providing emergency communications to distant listeners and to other radio stations that are not PEPs, compared to the expected reliability and reach of such communications if any of the alternative proposals are adopted. Commenters were also asked to address the potential benefits during emergencies of having more local service on the AM band available to listeners.

    11. The AMR FNPRM also included a tentative conclusion to roll back 1991 rule changes pertaining to calculation of nighttime RSS values of interfering field strengths and nighttime interference-free service. 30 FCC Rcd at 12170-73. It also proposed a return to predicting the nighttime interference-free coverage area using only the interference contributions from co-channel stations and the 50 percent exclusion method. Id. at 12172. The AMR FNPRM also included a proposed revision to daytime protection to Class B, C, and D AM stations, to return to the pre-1991 0 dB daytime 1:1 protection ratio for first adjacent channels; change second adjacent channel groundwave protection to match the current levels for third adjacent channel protection; and eliminate third adjacent channel groundwave protection. Additionally, the AMR FNPRM included a proposal to change the daytime protected contour for Class B, C, and D stations to the 2.0 mV/m contour. These proposals were intended to allow AM broadcasters greater flexibility to make station modifications designed to increase signal strength to their primary service areas.

    12. While not revising these proposals at this time, the Commission requested that in light of the alternative Class A protection proposals set forth above, commenters state whether they would revise their previously submitted comments regarding calculation of RSS values and changes to Class B, C, and D daytime protection and, if so, in what way and for what reasons. Commenters should consider the proposed revisions to AM station protection in terms of a new system designed to maximize local radio service without unduly jeopardizing wide-area service.

    13. The Commission thus sought comment on the rule changes proposed above, including the costs and benefits associated with the various proposals. It also sought comment on the costs and benefits of any other alternative approaches to addressing the issues raised in the record. To the extent possible, commenters should quantify the claimed costs and benefits and provide supporting information.

    Comments and Reply Comments

    14. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    Procedural Matters Ex Parte Rules

    15. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    16. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies proposed in the Second FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second FNPRM provided in paragraph 18. The Commission will send a copy of this entire Second FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the Second FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. Id.

    1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

    Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    18. This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain further comments concerning certain proposals designed to revitalize the AM broadcast radio service. It is based in substantial part on proposals raised by commenters in this rulemaking proceeding, in response to the Commission's call in the original NPRM in this proceeding for further ideas and proposals.

    19. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the following: (1) Whether to change the nighttime and critical hours signal protection to Class A AM stations, based on new alternative proposals; (2) whether to change the methodology for calculating nighttime root sum square (RSS) values, based on the new alternative proposals for protection to Class A AM stations; and (3) whether to change daytime signal protection to Class B, C, and D stations, based on the new alternative proposals for protection to Class A AM stations.

    Legal Basis

    20. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 303(r), 307, 316, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 303(r), 307, 316, and 403.

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

    21. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as encompassing the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental entity.” Id. section 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Id. section 601(3). A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.

    Radio Stations

    22. The proposed rules and policies could apply to AM radio broadcast licensees, and potential licensees of the AM radio service. A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Id. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations. Id. Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are similarly included. Id. However, radio stations that are separate establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio program material are classified under another NAICS number. Id. The SBA has established a small business size standard for this category, which is: Firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 515112 (updated for inflation in 2008). According to the BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database on May 14, 2018, 4,630 (99.94%) of 4,633 AM radio stations have revenues of $38.5 million or less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

    23. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    24. The proposed rule and procedural changes may, in some cases, impose different reporting, recordkeeping, or other requirements on existing and potential AM radio licensees and permittees. In the case of proposed changes to the technical rules regarding calculation of daytime and nighttime interfering contours, and changes to daytime, nighttime, and critical hours protection to some stations, there would be changes in the calculation of inter-station interference and reporting of same. However, the information to be filed is already familiar to broadcasters, and the nature of the interference calculations would not change, only the values that are acceptable, so any additional burdens would be minimal.

    Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    25. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.2 In the Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks to assist AM broadcasters by changing certain daytime, nighttime, and critical hours interference protection standards as they apply to certain classes of AM stations. The Commission seeks comment as to whether its goal of revitalizing the AM service could be effectively accomplished through these means. The Commission is open to consideration of alternatives to the proposals under consideration, as set forth herein, including but not limited to alternatives that will minimize the burden on AM broadcasters, most of which are small businesses. There may be unique circumstances these entities may face, and we will consider appropriate action for small broadcasters when preparing a Fourth Report and Order in this matter.

    2 5 U.S.C. 603(b).

    Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commission's Proposals

    26. None.

    27. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Ordering Clause

    28. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 303(r), 307, 316, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 303(r), 307, 316, and 403, this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted.

    List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 73

    Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    47 CFR Part 74

    Communications equipment, Radio.

    Federal Communications Commission. Cecilia Sigmund, Federal Register Liaison, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.

    2. Amend § 73.21 by revising the last two sentences of paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 73.21 Classes of AM broadcast channels and stations.

    (a) * * * These stations are protected from objectionable interference within their primary service areas. Stations operating on these channels are classified as follows:

    (1) Class A Station. A Class A station is an unlimited time station that operates on a clear channel and is designed to render primary service over an extended area at relatively long distances from its transmitter. Its primary service area is protected from objectionable interference from other stations on the same and adjacent channels. (See § 73.182). The operating power shall not be less than 10 kW nor more than 50 kW. (Also see § 73.25(a)).

    § 73.24 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 73.24 as follows: Option 1: Amend § 73.24 by removing paragraph (h) and redesignating paragraphs (i) and (j) as paragraphs (h) and (i). Option 2: Amend § 73.24 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 73.24 Broadcast facilities; showing required.

    (h) That, in the case of an application for a Class B or Class D station on a clear channel, the proposed station would radiate, during two hours following local sunrise and two hours preceding local sunset, in any direction toward the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour of a co-channel United States Class A station, no more than the maximum value permitted under the provisions of § 73.187.

    4. Amend § 73.37 by revising the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 73.37 Applications for broadcast facilities, showing required.

    (a) * * *

    Frequency
  • separation
  • (kHz)
  • Contour of
  • proposed station
  • (classes B,
  • C and D)
  • (mV/m)
  • Contour of any other station
  • (mV/m)
  • 0 0.025 0.500 (Class A). 0.5 0.025 (Class A). 0.100 2.0 (Other classes). 2.0 0.100 (Other classes). 10 0.500 0.500 (Class A). 2.0 2.0 (Other classes). 20 25.0 25.0 (All classes).
    5. Amend § 73.99 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), (c)(1)(ii) and (iii), (d)(2) and (3), (f)(1) and (3) to read as follows:
    § 73.99 Presunrise service authorization (PSRA) and postsunset service authorization (PSSA).

    (b) * * *

    (2) Class D stations situated outside the 0.5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contours of co-channel U.S. Class A stations to commence PSRA operation at 6 a.m. local time and to continue such operation until sunrise times specified in their basic instruments of authorization.

    (3) Class D stations located within the co-channel 0.5 mV/m groundwave contours of U.S. Class A stations, to commence PSRA operation either at 6 a.m. local time, or at sunrise at the nearest Class A station located east of the Class D station (whichever is later), and to continue such operation until the sunrise times specified in their basic instruments of authorization.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) Protection is to be provided to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contours of co-channel U.S. Class A stations or the NIF groundwave contour based on the 50 percent RSS exclusion method, whichever is greater.

    (iii) In determining the protection to be provided, the effect of each interfering signal will be evaluated such that interference may not be increased above the 0.5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contour or the NIF groundwave contour based on the 50 percent RSS exclusion method, whichever is greater.

    (d) * * *

    (2) Class D stations situated outside the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contours of co-channel U.S. Class A stations to commence PSSA operations at sunset times specified in their basic instruments of authorization and to continue for two hours after such specified times.

    (3) Class D stations located within the co-channel 0.5 mV/m groundwave contours of U.S. Class A stations to commence PSSA operation at sunset times specified in their basic instruments of authorization and to continue such operation until two hours past such specified times, or until sunset at the nearest Class A station located west of the Class D station, whichever is earlier. Class D stations located west of the Class A station do not qualify for PSSA operation.

    (f) * * *

    (1) Class D stations operating in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), (d)(1) and (2) of this section are required to protect the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contours or the NIF groundwave contour of co-channel Class A stations based on the 50 percent RSS exclusion method, whichever is greater.

    (3) Class D stations operating in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section are required to limit the extent of the 0.025 mV/m skywave 10% contour to the co-channel Class A 0.5 mV/m ground wave or the NIF groundwave contour based on the 50%-RSS exclusion method, whichever is greater. The location of the 0.5 mV/m contour or the NIF contour of a Class A station will be determined by use of Figure M3, Estimated Ground Conductivity in the United States. When the 0.5 mV/m contour extends beyond the national boundary, the international boundary shall be considered the 0.5 mV/m contour.

    § 73.182 [Amended]
    6. Amend § 73.182 as follows: Option 1: Amend § 73.182 by: a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), (c) and (d); b. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h); c. Redesignating paragraphs (i) through (t) as paragraphs (g) though (r); and d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (i) and (j), (m)(1), and the tables in paragraphs (o) and (p).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 73.182 Engineering standards of allocation.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Class A stations operate on clear channels with powers between 10 kW and 50 kW. These stations are designed to render primary service over a large area protected from objectionable interference from other stations on the same and adjacent channels. Class A stations may be divided into two groups: those located in any of the conterminous United States and those located in Alaska.

    (i) Class A stations in the conterminous United States operate on the channels assigned by § 73.25 with minimum power of 10 kW, maximum power of 50 kW, and minimum antenna efficiency of 275 mV/m/kW at 1 kilometer. The Class A stations in this group are afforded protection as follows:

    (A) Daytime. To the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour from stations on the same or adjacent channels.

    (B) Nighttime. There shall be no overlap between the Class A station's 0.5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contour and any interfering AM station's 0.025 mV/m-10% skywave contour, calculated based on a single station method.

    (ii) Class A stations in Alaska operate on the channels assigned by § 73.25 with minimum power of 10 kW, maximum power of 50 kW, and minimum antenna efficiency of 215 mV/m/kW at 1 kilometer. The Class A stations in this group are afforded protection, both daytime and nighttime, to the 0.1 mV/m groundwave contour from other co-channel stations and to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour from other stations on first adjacent channels.

    (2) Class B stations are stations which operate on clear and regional channels with powers not less than 0.25 kW or greater than 50 kW. These stations render primary service, the area of which depends on their geographic location, power, and frequency. It is recommended that Class B stations be located so that the interference received from other stations will not limit the service area to a groundwave contour value greater than 2.0 mV/m groundwave contour both daytime and nighttime, which are the values for the mutual protection between this class of stations and other stations of the same class.

    Note: * * *

    (3) Class C stations operate on local channels, normally rendering primary service to a community and the suburban or rural areas immediately contiguous thereto, with powers not less than 0.25 kW or greater than 1 kW, except as provided in § 73.21(c)(1). Such stations are normally protected to the daytime 2.0 mV/m contour. On local channels the separation required for the daytime protection shall also determine the nighttime separation. Where directional antennas are employed daytime by Class C stations operating with power equal to or greater than 0.25 kW, the separations required shall in no case be less than those necessary to afford protection assuming nondirectional operation with power of 0.25 kW. In no case will nighttime power of 0.25 kW or greater be authorized to a station unable to operate nondirectionally with power of 0.25 kW during daytime hours. The actual nighttime limitation will be calculated. For nighttime protection purposes, Class C stations in the 48 conterminous United States may assume that stations in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands operating on 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490 kHz are Class C stations.

    (c) All classes of AM broadcast stations have in general three types of service areas, i.e., primary, secondary and intermittent. (See § 73.14 for the definitions of primary, secondary and intermittent service areas.) All classes of AM stations render service to a primary area but the secondary and intermittent service areas may be materially limited or destroyed due to interference from other stations, depending on the station assignments involved.

    (d) The groundwave signal strength required to render primary service is 2 mV/m for communities with populations of 2,500 or more and 0.5 mV/m for communities with populations of less than 2,500. Because only Class A stations have protected primary service extending beyond the 2 mV/m contour, the groundwave signal strength constituting primary service for Class A stations is that set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. See § 73.184 for curves showing distance to various groundwave field strength contours for different frequencies and ground conductivities, and also see § 73.183, “Groundwave signals.”

    (i) Objectionable nighttime interference from a broadcast station occurs when, at a specified field strength contour with respect to the desired station, the field strength of an undesired co-channel station exceeds for 10% or more of the time the values set forth in these standards. The value derived from the root-sum-square of all interference contributions represents the extent of a station's interference-free coverage.

    (1) With respect to the root-sum-square (RSS) values of interfering field strengths referred to in this section, calculation of nighttime interference-free service is accomplished by considering co-channel signals in order of decreasing magnitude, adding the squares of the values and extracting the square root of the sum, excluding those signals which are less than 50% of the RSS values of the higher signals already included. This is known as the “50% Exclusion Method.”

    (2) The RSS value will not be considered to be increased when a new interfering signal is added which is less than the appropriate exclusion percentage as applied to the RSS value of the interference from existing stations, and which at the same time is not greater than the smallest signal included in the RSS value of interference from existing stations.

    (3) It is recognized that application of the 50% Exclusion Method for calculating the RSS interference may result in some cases in anomalies wherein the addition of a new interfering signal or the increase in value of an existing interfering signal will cause the exclusion of a previously included signal and may cause a decrease in the calculated RSS value of interference. In order to provide the Commission with more realistic information regarding gains and losses in service (as a basis for determination of the relative merits of a proposed operation) the following alternate method for calculating the proposed RSS values of interference will be employed wherever applicable.

    (4) In cases where it is proposed to add a new interfering signal which is not less than 50% of the RSS value of interference from existing stations or which is greater than the smallest signal already included to obtain this RSS value, the RSS limitation after addition of the new signal shall be calculated without excluding any signal previously included. Similarly, in cases where it is proposed to increase the value of one of the existing interfering signals which has been included in the RSS value, the RSS limitation after the increase shall be calculated without excluding the interference from any source previously included.

    (5) If the new or increased signal proposed in such cases is ultimately authorized, the RSS values of interference to other stations affected will thereafter be calculated by the 50% Exclusion Method without regard to this alternate method of calculation.

    (6) Examples of RSS interference calculations:

    (i) Existing interferences:

    Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.

    Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.

    Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.

    Station No. 4—0.58 mV/m.

    The RSS value from Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is 1.31 mV/m; therefore interference from No. 4 is excluded for it is less than 50% of 1.31 mV/m.

    (ii) Station A receives interferences from:

    Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.

    Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.

    Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.

    It is proposed to add a new limitation, 0.68 mV/m. This is more than 50% of 1.31 mV/m, the RSS value from Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The RSS value of Station No. 1 and of the proposed station would be 1.21 mV/m which is more than twice as large as the limitation from Station No. 2 or No. 3. However, under the above provision the new signal and the three existing interferences are nevertheless calculated for purposes of comparative studies, resulting in an RSS value of 1.47 mV/m. However, if the proposed station is ultimately authorized, only No. 1 and the new signal are included in all subsequent calculations for the reason that Nos. 2 and 3 are less than 50% of 1.21 mV/m, the RSS value of the new signal and No. 1.

    (iii) Station A receives interferences from:

    Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.

    Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.

    Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.

    No. 1 proposes to increase the limitation it imposes on Station A to 1.21 mV/m. Although the limitations from stations Nos. 2 and 3 are less than 50% of the 1.21 mV/m limitation, under the above provision they are nevertheless included for comparative studies, and the RSS limitation is calculated to be 1.47 mV/m. However, if the increase proposed by Station No. 1 is authorized, the RSS value then calculated is 1.21 mV/m because Stations Nos. 2 and 3 are excluded in view of the fact that the limitations they impose are less than 50% of 1.21 mV/m.

    (j) Objectionable nighttime interference from a station shall be considered to exist to a station when, at the field strength contour specified in paragraph (o) of this section with respect to the class to which the station belongs, the field strength of an interfering station operating on the same channel exceeds for 10% or more of the time the value of the permissible interfering signal set forth opposite such class in paragraph (o) of this section.

    (m) Computation of skywave field strength values:—(1) Fifty percent skywave field strength values. To compute fifty percent skywave field strength values, Formula 1 of § 73.190, entitled “Skywave field strength, 50% of the time (at SS+6)” shall be used.

    (o) * * *

    Class of station Class of channel used Signal strength contour of area protected from objectionable interference
  • (µV/m)
  • Day 1 Night 1 Permissible interfering signal
  • (µV/m)
  • Day 1 Night 2
    A Clear SC 500 SC 500 SC 25 SC 25 AC 500 AC 500 AC 500 AC 500 B Regional SC 2000 SC 2000 SC 100 Not presc. AC 2000 AC 2000 AC 2000 Not presc. C Local 2000 Not presc 3 SC 100 Not presc. D Regional 2000 Not presc SC 100 Not presc. AC 2000 Not presc. 1 Groundwave. 2 Skywave field strength for 10 percent or more of the time. 3 During nighttime hours, Class C stations in the contiguous 48 States may treat all Class B stations assigned to 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490 kHz in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as if they were Class C stations. Note: SC = Same channel; AC = Adjacent channel; SW = Skywave; GW = Groundwave.

    (p) * * *

    Frequency separation of desired to undesired signals
  • (kHz)
  • Desired groundwave to: Undesired
  • groundwave
  • (dB)
  • Undesired 10%
  • skywave
  • (dB)
  • 0 26 26 10 0 0
    Option 2: Amend § 73.182 by: a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), (c) and (d); b. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h); c. Redesignating paragraphs (i) through (t) as paragraphs (g) though (r); and d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (i) and (j), (m)(1), and the tables in paragraphs (o) and (p).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 73.182 Engineering standards of allocation.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Class A stations operate on clear channels with powers between 10 kW and 50 kW. These stations are designed to render primary service over a large area protected from objectionable interference from other stations on the same and adjacent channels. Class A stations may be divided into two groups: Those located in any of the conterminous United States and those located in Alaska.

    (i) Class A stations in the conterminous United States operate on the channels assigned by § 73.25 with minimum power of 10 kW, maximum power of 50 kW, and minimum antenna efficiency of 275 mV/m/kW at 1 kilometer. The Class A stations in this group are afforded protection as follows:

    (A) Daytime. To the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour from stations on the same or adjacent channels.

    (B) Nighttime. Interference may not be increased above the 0.5 mV/m nighttime groundwave contour or the NIF groundwave contour based on the 50 percent RSS exclusion method, whichever is greater.

    (ii) Class A stations in Alaska operate on the channels assigned by § 73.25 with minimum power of 10 kW, maximum power of 50 kW, and minimum antenna efficiency of 215 mV/m/kW at 1 kilometer. The Class A stations in this group are afforded protection, both daytime and nighttime, to the 0.1 mV/m groundwave contour from other stations on the same channel and to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour from other stations on first adjacent channels.

    (2) Class B stations are stations which operate on clear and regional channels with powers not less than 0.25 kW or greater than 50 kW. These stations render primary service, the area of which depends on their geographic location, power, and frequency. It is recommended that Class B stations be located so that the interference received from other stations will not limit the service area to a groundwave contour value greater than 2.0 mV/m groundwave contour both daytime and nighttime, which are the values for the mutual protection between this class of stations and other stations of the same class.

    Note: * * *

    (3) Class C stations operate on local channels, normally rendering primary service to a community and the suburban or rural areas immediately contiguous thereto, with powers not less than 0.25 kW or greater than 1 kW, except as provided in § 73.21(c)(1). Such stations are normally protected to the daytime 2.0 mV/m contour. On local channels the separation required for the daytime protection shall also determine the nighttime separation. Where directional antennas are employed daytime by Class C stations operating with power equal to or greater than 0.25 kW, the separations required shall in no case be less than those necessary to afford protection assuming nondirectional operation with power of 0.25 kW. In no case will nighttime power of 0.25 kW or greater be authorized to a station unable to operate nondirectionally with power of 0.25 kW during daytime hours. The actual nighttime limitation will be calculated. For nighttime protection purposes, Class C stations in the 48 conterminous United States may assume that stations in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands operating on 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490 kHz are Class C stations.

    (c) All classes of AM broadcast stations have in general three types of service areas, i.e., primary, secondary and intermittent. (See § 73.14 for the definitions of primary, secondary and intermittent service areas.) All classes of AM stations render service to a primary area but the secondary and intermittent service areas may be materially limited or destroyed due to interference from other stations, depending on the station assignments involved.

    (d) The groundwave signal strength required to render primary service is 2 mV/m for communities with populations of 2,500 or more and 0.5 mV/m for communities with populations of less than 2,500. Because only Class A stations have protected primary service extending beyond the 2 mV/m contour, the groundwave signal strength constituting primary service for Class A stations is that set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. See § 73.184 for curves showing distance to various groundwave field strength contours for different frequencies and ground conductivities, and also see § 73.183, “Groundwave signals.”

    (i) Objectionable nighttime interference from a broadcast station occurs when, at a specified field strength contour with respect to the desired station, the field strength of an undesired co-channel station exceeds for 10% or more of the time the values set forth in these standards. The value derived from the root-sum-square of all interference contributions represents the extent of a station's interference-free coverage.

    (1) With respect to the root-sum-square (RSS) values of interfering field strengths referred to in this section, calculation of nighttime interference-free service is accomplished by considering co-channel signals in order of decreasing magnitude, adding the squares of the values and extracting the square root of the sum, excluding those signals which are less than 50% of the RSS values of the higher signals already included. This is known as the “50% Exclusion Method.”

    (2) The RSS value will not be considered to be increased when a new interfering signal is added which is less than the appropriate exclusion percentage as applied to the RSS value of the interference from existing stations, and which at the same time is not greater than the smallest signal included in the RSS value of interference from existing stations.

    (3) It is recognized that application of the 50% Exclusion Method for calculating the RSS interference may result in some cases in anomalies wherein the addition of a new interfering signal or the increase in value of an existing interfering signal will cause the exclusion of a previously included signal and may cause a decrease in the calculated RSS value of interference. In order to provide the Commission with more realistic information regarding gains and losses in service (as a basis for determination of the relative merits of a proposed operation) the following alternate method for calculating the proposed RSS values of interference will be employed wherever applicable.

    (4) In cases where it is proposed to add a new interfering signal which is not less than 50% of the RSS value of interference from existing stations or which is greater than the smallest signal already included to obtain this RSS value, the RSS limitation after addition of the new signal shall be calculated without excluding any signal previously included. Similarly, in cases where it is proposed to increase the value of one of the existing interfering signals which has been included in the RSS value, the RSS limitation after the increase shall be calculated without excluding the interference from any source previously included.

    (5) If the new or increased signal proposed in such cases is ultimately authorized, the RSS values of interference to other stations affected will thereafter be calculated by the 50% Exclusion Method without regard to this alternate method of calculation.

    (6) Examples of RSS interference calculations:

    (i) Existing interferences:

    Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.

    Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.

    Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.

    Station No. 4—0.58 mV/m.

    The RSS value from Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is 1.31 mV/m; therefore interference from No. 4 is excluded for it is less than 50% of 1.31 mV/m.

    (ii) Station A receives interferences from:

    Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.

    Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.

    Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.

    It is proposed to add a new limitation, 0.68 mV/m. This is more than 50% of 1.31 mV/m, the RSS value from Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The RSS value of Station No. 1 and of the proposed station would be 1.21 mV/m which is more than twice as large as the limitation from Station No. 2 or No. 3. However, under the above provision the new signal and the three existing interferences are nevertheless calculated for purposes of comparative studies, resulting in an RSS value of 1.47 mV/m. However, if the proposed station is ultimately authorized, only No. 1 and the new signal are included in all subsequent calculations for the reason that Nos. 2 and 3 are less than 50% of 1.21 mV/m, the RSS value of the new signal and No. 1.

    (iii) Station A receives interferences from:

    Station No. 1—1.00 mV/m.

    Station No. 2—0.60 mV/m.

    Station No. 3—0.59 mV/m.

    No. 1 proposes to increase the limitation it imposes on Station A to 1.21 mV/m. Although the limitations from stations Nos. 2 and 3 are less than 50% of the 1.21 mV/m limitation, under the above provision they are nevertheless included for comparative studies, and the RSS limitation is calculated to be 1.47 mV/m. However, if the increase proposed by Station No. 1 is authorized, the RSS value then calculated is 1.21 mV/m because Stations Nos. 2 and 3 are excluded in view of the fact that the limitations they impose are less than 50% of 1.21 mV/m.

    (j) Objectionable nighttime interference from a station shall be considered to exist to a station when, at the field strength contour specified in paragraph (o) of this section with respect to the class to which the station belongs, the field strength of an interfering station operating on the same channel exceeds for 10% or more of the time the value of the permissible interfering signal set forth opposite such class in paragraph (o) of this section.

    (m) Computation of skywave field strength values:—(1) Fifty percent skywave field strength values. To compute fifty percent skywave field strength values, Formula 1 of § 73.190, entitled “Skywave field strength, 50% of the time (at SS+6)” shall be used.

    (o) * * *

    Class of station Class of channel used Signal strength contour of area protected from objectionable interference
  • (µV/m)
  • Day 1 Night 1 Permissible interfering signal
  • (µV/m)
  • Day 1 Night 2
    A Clear SC 500 SC 5003 SC 25 SC 25 AC 500 AC 500 AC 500 AC 500 B Regional SC 2000 SC 2000 SC 100 Not presc. AC 2000 AC 2000 AC 2000 Not presc. C Local 2000 Not presc 3 SC 100 Not presc. D Regional 2000 Not presc SC 100 Not presc. AC 2000 Not presc. 1 Groundwave. 2 Skywave field strength for 10 percent or more of the time. 3 Class A AMs are protected such that interference may not be increased above the greater of the 0.5 mV/m nighttime ground wave contour or the 50% exclusion RSS NIF level. 4 During nighttime hours, Class C stations in the contiguous 48 States may treat all Class B stations assigned to 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450, and 1490 kHz in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as if they were Class C stations. Note: SC = Same channel; AC = Adjacent channel; SW = Skywave; GW = Groundwave.

    (p) * * *

    Frequency separation of desired to undesired signals
  • (kHz)
  • Desired groundwave to: Undesired
  • groundwave
  • (dB)
  • Undesired 10%
  • skywave
  • (dB)
  • 0 26 26 10 0 0
    § 73.187 [Amended]
    7. In paragraphs (a)(1), (2)(ii), and (3) remove all references to “0.1 mV/m” and add in their place “0.5 mV/m”.
    § 73.190 [Amended]
    8. In paragraph (e), on right-hand side of Figures 9, 10, and 11, remove the axis label “Distance from 0.1 mV/m Contour in Miles” and add in its place “Distance from 0.5 mV/m Contour in Miles.”
    [FR Doc. 2018-25101 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 180212157-8897-01] RIN 0648-BH72 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Electronic Reporting for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels and Headboats in Gulf of Mexico Fisheries AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS extends the comment period on the proposed rule to implement management measures described in the Gulf For-hire Electronic Reporting Amendment, as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council). The Gulf For-hire Reporting Amendment includes amendments to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Reef Fish FMP) and the FMP for Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (CMP FMP). On October 26, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule to revise reporting requirements for charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels) with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf Reef Fish or Gulf CMP species. The purpose of the proposed rule is to increase and improve fisheries information collected from federally permitted for-hire vessels in the Gulf. The information is expected to improve recreational fisheries management of the for-hire component in the Gulf. The comment period on the proposed rule is extended through January 9, 2019. NMFS is extending the comment period to provide additional opportunities for interested parties to comment on the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    The deadline for written comments on the proposed rule published on October 26, 2018 (83 FR 54069), is extended from November 26, 2018, to January 9, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2018-0111,” by either of the following methods:

    Electronic submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0111, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit all written comments to Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, [email protected], or by email to [email protected], or fax to 202-395-5806.

    Electronic copies of the Gulf For-hire Reporting Amendment may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/For-HireElectronicReporting/index.html.

    The Gulf For-hire Reporting Amendment includes an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and fishery impact statement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CMP fishery in the Gulf is managed jointly under the CMP FMP by the Gulf Council and South Atlantic Council. The Gulf Council manages the reef fish fishery under the Reef Fish FMP. These FMPs are implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    On October 26, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would implement management measures described in the Gulf For-hire Electronic Reporting Amendment (83 FR 54069). The proposed rule would revise reporting requirements for an owner or operator of a for-hire vessel with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf Reef Fish or Gulf CMP species to submit an electronic fishing report for each fishing trip before offloading fish from the vessel, using NMFS-approved hardware and software. The proposed rule would also require that a for-hire vessel owner or operator use NMFS-approved hardware and software with global positioning system capabilities that, at a minimum, archive vessel position data during a trip. Lastly, prior to departing for any trip, this proposed rule would require the owner or operator of a federally permitted charter vessel or headboat to notify NMFS and declare whether they are departing on a for-hire trip, or on another trip type. The purpose of the proposed rule is to increase and improve fisheries information collected from federally permitted for-hire vessels in the Gulf. The information is expected to improve recreational fisheries management of the for-hire component in the Gulf. The comment period on the proposed rule was previously announced to end on November 26, 2018.

    On October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael made landfall in the Florida panhandle. As a result of the substantial impacts that this hurricane caused to Gulf residents that may be interested in providing public comment on the proposed rule, NMFS is extending the proposed rule comment period to provide additional opportunities to comment on the proposed rule. Therefore, the comment period for the proposed rule published on October 26, 2018, is extended through January 9, 2019.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25205 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 224 Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request November 15, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by December 26, 2018. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Reporting Requirements Under Regulations Governing Inspection and Grading Services of Manufactured or Processed Dairy Products and the Certification of Sanitary Design & Fabrication of Equipment used in the Slaughter, Processing, and Packaging of Livestock and Poultry Products.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0126.

    Summary of Collection: The Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), directs the Department to develop programs which will provide for and facilitate the marketing of agricultural products. The regulations governing the voluntary inspection and grading program for dairy products is contained in 7 CFR part 58. The certification regulations for livestock and poultry products are contained in 7 CFR part 54. The Government, industry and consumer will be well served if the Government can help insure that dairy products are produced under sanitary conditions and that buyers have the choice of purchasing the quality of the product they desire. The dairy grading program is a voluntary user fee program. For a voluntary inspection program to perform satisfactorily with a minimum of confusion, information must be collected to determine what services are requested.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is used to identify the product offered for grading; to identify and contact the individuals responsible for payment of the grading or equipment evaluation fee and expense; and to identify the person responsible for administering the grade label program. The Agriculture Marketing service will use several forms to collect essential information to carry out and administer the inspection and grading program.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit.

    Number of Respondents: 240.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion; Other (when forms are requested).

    Total Burden Hours: 1,027.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25295 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Information Collection Request; Measurement Service (MS) Records AGENCY:

    Farm Service Agency, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision and an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with the MS Records.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments that we receive by January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include date, volume and page number, the OMB Control Number, and the title of the information collection of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Clay Lagasse, Common Provisions Section, Production Emergencies and Compliance Division, USDA, FSA, Farm Programs 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 0517, Washington, DC 20250-0517.

    You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Clay Lagasse at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clay Lagasse, (202) 205-9893. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Description of Information Collection

    Title: Measurement Service (MS) Records.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0260.

    Expiration Date: 03/31/2019.

    Type of Request: Revision.

    Abstract: When a producer requests a measurement of acreage or production from FSA, the producer uses the form FSA-409 (Measurement Service (MS) Record) to make the request, which requires that the producer pays a measurement fee to FSA.

    The form is manual. The types of MS being performed are currently at the Land (Office or Field) and Commodity Bin. Using the FSA-409 to make a request, the producer provides FSA: The farm serial number, program year, farm location, contact person, and type of service request (acreage or production). The MS procedure is done in accordance with 7 CFR part 718. FSA is using the collected information to fulfill producers' measurement request and to ensure that measurements are accurate.

    A producer will use the FSA-409 to request and receive certain MS information from FSA and provide it to FSA at the time of applying for certain program benefits. The MS information includes, but is not limited to, measuring land and crop areas, quantities of farm-stored commodities, and appraising the yields of crops in the field. There is a reduction of the burden hours by 135,000 because travel time was removed from the information collection. The respondents go to the county offices to do regular and customary business with FSA; therefore; the travel time is not required to be included in the burden hours in this request.

    For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hour is the estimated average time per responses hours multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response.

    Type of Respondents: Producers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 135,000.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual of Responses: 135,000.

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 33,750 hours.

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us:

    (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 collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate 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 where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.

    Richard Fordyce, Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25253 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2018-0040] Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Stakeholder Input on Federal Outreach To Control Listeria Monocytogenes at Retail AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to collect information from stakeholders from industry, State and public health and agriculture departments with responsibilities for retail food safety, local health departments, and grocers to gather information on FSIS outreach efforts related to retail best practices to control Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in retail delicatessens. The purpose of this information collection is to enhance Federal outreach and interagency coordination to control Lm at retail.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this Federal Register notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this web page or to attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2018-0040. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, call (202) 720-5627 to schedule a time to visit the FSIS Docket Room at 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Stakeholder Input on Federal Outreach to Control Listeria Monocytogenes at Retail.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53) as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.) and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq.). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

    In 2016, the National Advisory Committee for Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) made recommendations to FSIS on best practices for the control of Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in retail delicatessens. Several of the committee's key recommendations focused on messaging and outreach. Specifically, the Committee recommended that FSIS's Lm related guidance and messaging for retail be clear, understandable, practical, and available to all audiences. The committee asked that FSIS get input from stakeholders regarding their information needs, how they currently get or would prefer to get information, and to provide input on FSIS's current outreach materials (e.g., brochure—“Guidance for Controlling Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in Retail Delicatessens”, Lm Deli Self-Assessment Tool, etc.). This stakeholder input will be used to guide FSIS's outreach efforts to retail delicatessens.

    In response to the NACMPI recommendations, FSIS, in collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), will conduct focus groups with a sample of stakeholders from industry, state and local public health and agriculture departments, and retail delicatessens to gather feedback. In the focus groups, a sample of stakeholders will be invited to provide input on the awareness and usefulness of existing outreach materials and tools related to best practices for controlling Lm in delicatessens, how they currently receive this type of information (e.g., from FSIS, FDA, CDC, State Health department, Cooperative Extension), and how those channels of communication could be improved. FSIS's Office of Planning, Analysis, and Risk Management will analyze and summarize the data, and provide it to the interagency team (FSIS, FDA, and CDC) for further consideration to enhance Federal outreach and interagency coordination to control Lm at retail. This feedback will help FSIS, FDA and CDC better understand the information needs of State public health and agriculture departments with retail food safety responsibilities, local health departments, and retail delicatessens, how these stakeholders currently get information used to guide retail food safety efforts, and provide feedback on the usefulness and practicality of current FSIS outreach (e.g., tools and communication) to support control of Lm in retail delicatessens. The feedback collected from participants may also include practical recommendations for improving Federal communications and outreach efforts to support the control of Lm at retail moving forward.

    The focus group participants will be selected from State and local health or agriculture departments with responsibilities for food safety in retail delicatessens, supermarket chains, independent grocers with retail delis, and the Cooperative Research and Extension Services. Within those groups, FSIS seeks to include participants representative of specific selection criteria, which was determined based on input from several national associations representing State public health and agriculture departments, local health departments, and grocers. The selection criteria include (but are not limited to) geographic diversity (and within that, urban and rural location), whether retail food safety falls under a State health or agricultural departments, whether the retail deli in a grocery store of a national versus regional supermarket chain or an independent grocery store, and whether English is a second language. These criteria were developed based on input from several associations, including: Association for Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), Association for Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), Federal Marketing Institute (FMI), National Grocers Association (NGA), National Environmental Health Association (NEHA), National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA).

    Estimate of Burden:

    Respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Participation
  • time
  • (hours)
  • Burden
  • (hours)
  • Stakeholders—Industry/Large Retailers 80 1.75 140 Stakeholders—Independent/Small Retailers and Deli Owners 80 1.75 140 Stakeholders—State/Local Organizations 80 1.75 140 Totals 240 1.75 420

    Respondents: Stakeholders.

    Estimated No. of Respondents: 240.

    Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 420 hours.

    Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

    Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Additional Public Notification

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

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

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

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

    How to File a Complaint of Discrimination

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

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email: [email protected]

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

    Paul Kiecker, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25265 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, December 7, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is project planning and to finalize the speaker list for a briefing on prosecutorial appointments at the State House in Hartford on January 15, 2019.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, December 7, 2018 at 12 p.m. (EST).

    Public Call-In Information: Conference call-in number: 1-877-260-1479 and conference call 5899893.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-260-1479 and conference call 5899893. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-877-260-1479 and conference call 5899893.

    Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://gsageo.force.com/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzlqAAA; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda Wednesday, December 7, 2018 at 12 p.m. (EST) • Roll Call • Project Planning • Finalize Speaker List for Jan 2019 Briefing • Open Comment • Adjourn Dated: November 15, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25258 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of planning meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12 p.m. (MST) on Friday, December 7, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to work on the implementation stage for the immigration naturalization project.

    DATES:

    Friday, December 7, 2018, at 12 p.m. (MST).

    Public Call-In Information: Conference call number: 1-888-395-3237 and conference call ID: 1659256.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Evelyn Bohor, [email protected] or by phone at 303-866-1040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-888-395-3237 and conference call ID: 1659256.

    Please be advised that, before being placed into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number provided.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-888-395-3237 and conference call 1659256.

    Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1040, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://gsageo.force.com/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzksAAA; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    Agenda Friday, December 7, 2018; 12 p.m. (MST) I. Roll Call II. Project Planning III. Other Business IV. Adjournment Dated: November 15, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25259 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Title: Procedures for Submitting Requests for Expedited Relief from Quantitative Limits—Existing Contract: Section 232 National Security Investigations of Steel Imports.

    Form Number(s): OMB 0694-0140.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0140.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,170.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,717.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

    Needs and Uses: In the Proclamation of August 29, President Trump directed that as soon as practicable, the Secretary of Commerce shall issue procedures for requests for exclusions described in clause 2 to allow for exclusion requests for countries subject to quantitative limitations. The U.S. Department of Commerce will create an exclusion process for clause 2 by posting the newly created form on the Commerce website. Requesters will complete this form and send the form, the required certification, and any needed attachments to the U.S. Department of Commerce at the email address [email protected] The posting of this exclusion procedure on the Commerce website will fulfill the Presidential directive included in the most recent Proclamation, as well as the earlier Proclamations that directed the Secretary of Commerce to create an exclusion process to ensure users of steel in the United States would continue to have access to the steel that they may need.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected]

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25260 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Title: License Transfer and Duplicate License Services.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0126.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 31.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 110.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 30 minutes.

    Needs and Uses: The collection is necessary under Section 750.9 of the Export Administration Regulation (EAR) which outlines the process for obtaining a duplicate license when a license is lost or destroyed. Section 750.10 of the EAR explains the procedure for transfer of ownership of validated export licenses. Both activities are services provided after the license approval process. The supporting statement will use the terms “transfer” and “duplicate” to distinguish the unique activities of each. When no distinction is made, the response supports both activities.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected].

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25261 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-508-813] Magnesium From Israel: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable November 13, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lana Nigro at (202) 482-1779 or Ethan Talbott at (202) 482-1030, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petition

    On October 24, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of magnesium from Israel, filed in proper form on behalf of US Magnesium LLC (the petitioner), a domestic producer of magnesium.1 The CVD Petition was accompanied by an antidumping (AD) Petition concerning imports of magnesium imports from Israel.

    1See the petitioner's Letter, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel,” dated October 24, 2018 (Petition).

    On October 26 and 29, 2018, and November 5 and 7, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in four separate supplemental questionnaires, two addressing Volume I of the Petition and two addressing Volume II of the Petition (i.e., the CVD allegation).2 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on October 30 and 31, 2018, and November 6 and 9, 2018.3

    2See Commerce Letters, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel: Supplemental Questions,” dated October 26, 2018, “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel: Supplemental Questions,” dated October 29, 2018, Memorandum, “RE: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel—Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,” dated November 5, 2018, and “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel: Supplemental Questions,” dated November 7, 2018.

    3See the petitioner's letters, “Magnesium from Israel/Responses to Supplemental Questions on the Countervailing Duty Volume of the Petition” dated October 30, 2018 (CVD Supplement), “Magnesium from Israel/Petitioner's Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the General Issues Volume of the Petition” dated October 31, 2018 (General Issues Supplement), “Magnesium from Israel/Petitioner's Response to the Department's November 5, 2018 Request,” dated November 6, 2018 (Second General Issues Supplement), and “Magnesium from Israel/Responses to Second Supplemental Questions on the Countervailing Duty Volume of the Petition,” dated November 9, 2018 (Second CVD Supplemental).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of Israel (GOI) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of magnesium in Israel and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing magnesium in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting their allegations.

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.4

    4See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, infra.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on October 24, 2018, the period of investigation is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is magnesium from Israel. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    During our review of the Petition, Commerce contacted the petitioner regarding the proposed scope language to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.5 As a result of the petitioner's submission, the scope of the Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petition. The description of the merchandise covered by this initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

    5See General Issues Supplement, at 1-4 and Exhibit I-S-8; see also Second General Issues Supplement at, 2 and Exhibit I-S14.

    As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).6 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,7 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on December 3, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 13, 2018.8

    6See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    7See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining “factual information”).

    8See 19 CFR 351.303(b). Rebuttal comments are normally due 10 days after the comment deadline.

    Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    9See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GOI of the receipt of the Petition and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.10 Commerce held consultations with the GOI on November 9, 2018.11

    10See Commerce letter, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Magnesium from Israel,” dated October 25, 2018.

    11See Memorandum, “Consultations with Officials from the Government of Israel Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Magnesium from Israel,” dated November 9, 2018.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,12 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.13

    12See section 771(10) of the Act.

    13See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.14 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that magnesium, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15

    14See Volume I of the Petition, at 11-17; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1 and Exhibits S-1 through S-7.

    15 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Magnesium from Israel (Israel CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Magnesium from Israel (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2017.16 The petitioner also provided letters of support from MagPro LLC and Advanced Magnesium Alloys Corporation, providing each company's 2017 production of the domestic like product and stating each company's support for the Petition.17 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support from the United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, which represents workers employed in the production of the domestic like product at the petitioner's plant in Rowley, UT (Local 8319).18 The petitioner compared the production of the supporters of the Petition to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.19 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support.20

    16See Volume I of the Petition, at 2 and Exhibits I-5 and I-6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 7-8 and Exhibit I-S13.

    17See Volume I of the Petition, at 1-2 and Exhibits I-3 and I-4.

    18Id. at 1 and Exhibit I-2.

    19Id. at 2-3 and Exhibits I-5 and I-6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 6-8 and Exhibits I-S12 and I-S13.

    20Id. For further discussion, see Israel CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, the Second General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.21 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).22 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.23 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.24

    21Id.

    22Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.

    23See Israel CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    24Id.

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in sections 732(b)(1) and 771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting that Commerce initiate.25

    25Id.

    Injury Test

    Because Israel is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Israel materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.26

    26See Volume I of the Petition, at 21 and Exhibit I-13.

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant volume and increasing market share of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; declines in capacity, production, U.S. shipments, and capacity utilization; decline in employment variables; decline in the domestic industry's financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.27 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.28

    27Id. at 18-30 and Exhibits I-5, I-6, I-10, I-12, I-14, and I-15.

    28See Israel CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Magnesium from Israel (Attachment III).

    Initiation of CVD Investigation

    Based on the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of magnesium from Israel benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOI. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on each of the subsidy programs alleged in the Petition, with certain limitations. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Israel CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    Respondent Selection

    Although Commerce normally relies on import data from using United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) import statistics to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in CVD investigations, the petitioner identified only one company in Israel, i.e., Dead Sea Magnesium, Ltd., as a producer/exporter of magnesium and provided independent, third-party information as support.29 The petitioner developed this list using ship manifest data published by CBP's Automated Manifest System and supported it with independent, third-party information.30 We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of magnesium from Israel. Accordingly, Commerce intends to examine all known producers/exporters (i.e., DSM). We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Such comments may include factual information within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). Parties wishing to comment must do so within three business days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the specified deadline.

    29See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibits I-8 and I-12, Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit III-2 (ship manifest data published by CBP's Automated Manifest System), and General Issues Supplement at 1.

    30Id.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petition have been provided to the GOI via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of magnesium from Israel are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.31 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.32 Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    31See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

    32See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 33 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.34 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    33See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    34See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.35 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).36 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

    35See section 782(b) of the Act.

    36See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: November 13, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are primary and secondary pure and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size (including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, t-bars, rounds, sows, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and any other shapes). Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing at least 50 percent by actual weight the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this investigation also includes blends of primary magnesium, scrap, and secondary magnesium.

    The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 percent magnesium, by actual weight (generally referred to as “ultra-pure” or “high purity” magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by actual weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by actual weight, whether or not conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.”

    The scope of this investigation excludes mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by actual weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nepheline syenite, feldspar, alumina (A1203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite.

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under items 8104.11.0000, 8104.19.0000, and 8104.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-25293 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-898] Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 and Notice of Amended Final Results AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 24, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) entered final judgment sustaining the final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the antidumping duty (AD) administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) from the People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final results in the AD review of chlorinated isos from China.

    DATES:

    Applicable November 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 28, 2015, Commerce published its final results in the eighth AD review of chlorinated isos from China.1 Commerce selected the two largest exporters, Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd., as the mandatory respondents, and determined that Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. (Heze Huayi), Arch Chemicals (China) Co., Ltd., and Zucheng Taisheng Chemical Co., Ltd. demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status.2 On January 28, 2015, Commerce published the Final Results and assigned Heze Huayi the separate rate of 53.15 percent from the Seventh Review3 consistent with our past practice because both mandatory respondents received zero margins and none of the separate rate companies had its own calculated rate from the segment immediately prior to the instant segment.

    1See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 4539 (January 28, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results).

    2 See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 43391 (July 25, 2014) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum, at 5-6.

    3See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China; 2011-2012; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 4875, 4876 (January 30, 2014) (Seventh Review).

    Heze Huayi appealed Commerce's decisions not to treat Heze Huayi as a mandatory or voluntary respondent and not to apply the zero rate of the mandatory respondents to Heze Huayi. While the case was pending before the CIT, in June 2016, Commerce voluntarily sought a remand 4 to consider the impact of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Albemarle Corp. v. United States. 5 On September 11, 2018, the Court held a telephone status conference and ordered that the Government “advise the court in one week from September 11, 2018, if they have any reason for anything other than a zero rate for all outstanding entries.” 6 Commerce responded within the one-week deadline that Commerce's request for a voluntary remand on this issue was still pending; however, in light of the Court's request, Commerce stated that it had identified no “reason for anything other than a zero rate” to be applied to Heze Huayi's entries.7 On September 28, 2018, the Court ordered Commerce to assign Heze Huayi the mandatory respondents' weighted-average zero rate.8 On remand, Commerce, under respectful protest, assigned Heze Huayi the mandatory respondents' weighted-average zero rate.9 On October 24, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's Final Redetermination.10

    4See Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Ltd., v. United States, Ct. No. 15-27, Defendant's Supplemental Brief and Motion for Voluntary Remand, Docket #68, June 21, 2016 (“In light of the intervening legal decision in Albemarle, we respectfully request that the Court grant a voluntary remand for Commerce to consider the application of Albemarle to the facts of this case.”)

    5 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

    6See Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. v. United States, Ct. No. 15-27, Court Order, Docket #81, Sept. 12, 2018.

    7See Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd., v. United States, Defendant's Response to Court Order, Ct. No. 15-27, Docket #82, at 1-2, Sept. 18, 2018.

    8See Remand Order at 7.

    9See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 15-00027, Slip Op. 18-130 (CIT September 28, 2010), dated October 19, 2018 (Final Redetermination).

    10 See Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 18-149, Consolidated Court No. 15-00027 (CIT 2018).

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 11 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 12 the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of 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 24, 2018, judgment constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue suspension of liquidation of subject merchandise pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

    11See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d. 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    12See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d. 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the Final Results and assigning Heze Huayi the mandatory respondents' weighted-average zero rate 13 for the period June 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate Heze Huayi's appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    13See Remand Order at 7.

    Cash Deposit Rate

    Heze Huayi has a superseding cash deposit rate (e.g., from a subsequent administrative review). Therefore, Commerce will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25298 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-508-812] Magnesium From Israel: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable November 13, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Hansen at (202) 482-3683 or Minoo Hatten (202) 482-1690; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition

    On October 24, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of magnesium from Israel, filed in proper form on behalf of US Magnesium LLC (the petitioner), a domestic producer of magnesium.1 The AD Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of magnesium from Israel.

    1See the petitioner's Letter, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties in the Matter of: Magnesium from Israel,” dated October 24, 2018 (Petition).

    On October 29, 2018, and November 5, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in three separate supplemental questionnaires, two addressing Volume I of the Petition and the other addressing Volume III of the Petition (i.e., the AD allegation).2 The petitioner filed its responses to the supplemental questionnaires on October 31, 2018, and November 2, 2018, and November 6, 2018.3

    2See Commerce Letters, “Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel: Supplemental Questions,” dated October 29, 2018, “Re: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel: Supplemental Questions,” dated October 29, 2018, and Memorandum “RE: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Magnesium from Israel—Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,” dated November 5, 2018.

    3See the petitioner's Letters, “Re: Magnesium from Israel/Petitioner's Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the General Issues Volume of the Petition,” dated October 31, 2018 (General Issues Supplement), “Re: Magnesium from Israel/Petitioner's Response to the Department's Questions Regarding the Petition Volume III (Antidumping),” dated November 2, 2018 (AD Issues Supplement), and “Re: Magnesium from Israel/Petitioner's Response to the Department's November 5, 2018 Request,” dated November 6, 2018 (Second General Issues Supplement).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of magnesium from Israel are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing magnesium in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegation.

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested AD investigation.4

    4See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, infra.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on October 24, 2018, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is magnesium from Israel. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    During our review of the Petition, Commerce contacted the petitioner regarding the proposed scope language to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.5 As a result, the scope of the Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petition. The description of the merchandise covered by this initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

    5See General Issues Supplement, at 1-4 and Exhibit I-S8; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit I-S14.

    As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).6 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,7 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on December 3, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 13, 2018, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.8

    6See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    7See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining “factual information”).

    8See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    9See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics

    Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of magnesium to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics, and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe magnesium, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 3, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.10 Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on December 13, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the AD investigation.

    10See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,11 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.12

    11See section 771(10) of the Act.

    12See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the Petition.13 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that magnesium, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.14

    13See Volume I of the Petition, at 11-17; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1 and Exhibits S-1 through S-7.

    14 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see “Enforcement and Compliance Office of AD/CVD Operations Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Magnesium from Israel” (AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, “Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Magnesium from Israel (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2017.15 The petitioner also provided letters of support from MagPro LLC and Advanced Magnesium Alloys Corporation, providing each company's 2017 production of the domestic like product and stating each company's support for the Petition.16 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support from the United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, which represents workers employed in the production of the domestic like product at the petitioner's plant in Rowley, UT (Local 8319).17 The petitioner compared the production of the supporters of the Petition to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.18 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support.19

    15See Volume I of the Petition, at 2 and Exhibits I-5 and I-6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 7-8 and Exhibit I-S13.

    16See Volume I of the Petition, at 1-2 and Exhibits I-3 and I-4.

    17Id. at 1 and Exhibit I-2.

    18Id. at 2-3 and Exhibits I-5 and I-6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 6-8 and Exhibits I-S12 and I-S13.

    19Id. For further discussion, see AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, the Second General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.20 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).21 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.22 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.23

    20See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    21See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    22See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    23Id.

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in sections 732(b)(1) and 771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting that Commerce initiate.24

    24Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.25

    25See Volume I of the Petition, at 21 and Exhibit I-13.

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant volume and increasing market share of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; declines in capacity, production, U.S. shipments, and capacity utilization; decline in employment variables; decline in the domestic industry's financial performance; and lost sales and revenues.26 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.27

    26Id. at 18-30 and Exhibits I-5, I-6, I-10, I-12, I-14, and I-15.

    27See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Magnesium from Israel (Attachment III).

    Allegations of Sales at LTFV

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of magnesium from Israel. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.

    Export Price

    The petitioner based U.S. export price (EP) on the delivered prices for actual sales and/or offers for sale of magnesium produced in Israel by Dead Sea Magnesium, Ltd. (DSM) to unaffiliated customers in the United States.28 Where appropriate, the petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for U.S. inland freight from warehouse to customer, U.S. warehousing charges, U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. brokerage and handling charges, ocean freight and insurance, Israeli brokerage and handling, and Israeli inland freight.29

    28See Volume III of the Petition at 6 and Exhibit III-8.

    29See Volume III of the Petition, at 6-7 and Exhibits III-10 through III-12; see also AD Issues Supplement, at 1-3 and Exhibits III-S2, III-S3 and III-S9.

    Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    The petitioner contends that the Israeli home market is not viable, because the domestic consumption of magnesium in Israel is estimated to be minimal due to the lack of manufacturing assets in the magnesium consuming industries, and therefore, home market prices would not be an appropriate basis for NV.30 The petitioner provided information indicating that the third-country prices were below the cost of production (COP), and therefore, the petitioner based NV on constructed value (CV).31 The petitioner based NV on the average unit values (AUVs) of Brazilian imports of magnesium from Israel.32 The petitioner made deductions for Israeli brokerage and handling and inland freight.33

    30See Volume III of the Petition, at 3; see also AD Issues Supplement, at 4.

    31See AD Initiation Checklist.

    32See Volume III of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit III-6.

    33See Volume III of the Petition, at 4 and Exhibit III-7.

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing; selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial expenses; profit; and packing expenses.

    The petitioner based its usage rates on its own production experience as a U.S. producer of magnesium, for January 2017 through December 2017, and from DSM-specific information contained in a 2013 third-party report entitled “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Magnesium in Vehicle Construction,” which was initiated by the International Magnesium Association (IMA LCA Study). The petitioner valued the material, labor, and energy inputs indicated in the IMA LCA Study based on the petitioner's experience or based on the applicable per-unit values in Israel.34

    34Id.

    The petitioner relied on the 2017 financial statements of DSM's parent, Israel Chemicals, Ltd. (ICL), to determine the per-unit factory overhead costs associated with the production of magnesium.35 The petitioner also relied on the 2017 ICL financial statements to determine the SG&A expense ratio used to calculate the per-unit SG&A expenses and the financial expense ratio 36 used to calculate the per-unit financial expenses.37 The petitioner calculated profit for CV based on the segmented financial results published in ICL's 2017 financial statements.38

    35Id.

    36See AD Initiation Checklist.

    37Id.

    38Id.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of magnesium from Israel are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for magnesium covered by this initiation range from 92.06 percent to 130.61 percent.39

    39Id.

    Initiation of LTFV Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of magnesium from Israel are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    Although Commerce normally relies on import data from using United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) import statistics to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD investigations, the petitioner identified only one company in Israel, i.e., Dead Sea Magnesium, Ltd., as a producer/exporter of magnesium and provided independent, third-party information as support.40 We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of magnesium from Israel. Accordingly, Commerce intends to examine all known producers/exporters (i.e., DSM). We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Such comments may include factual information within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21). Parties wishing to comment must do so within three business days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the specified deadline.

    40See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibits I-8 and I-12, Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit III-2 (ship manifest data published by CBP's Automated Manifest System), and General Issues Supplement at 1.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the government of Israel via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of magnesium from Israel are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.41 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.42 Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    41See section 733(a) of the Act.

    42Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 43 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.44 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    43See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    44See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Particular Market Situation Allegation

    Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value (CV) under section 773(e) of the Act.45 Section 773(e) of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.

    45See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial Section D questionnaire response.

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.46 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).47 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

    46See section 782(b) of the Act.

    47See also Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: November 13, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are primary and secondary pure and alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size (including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, t-bars, rounds, sows, billets, and other shapes, and magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and any other shapes). Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing at least 50 percent by actual weight the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this investigation also includes blends of primary magnesium, scrap, and secondary magnesium.

    The subject merchandise includes the following pure and alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 percent magnesium, by actual weight (generally referred to as “ultra-pure” or “high purity” magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent magnesium, by actual weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and (3) chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by actual weight, whether or not conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy.”

    The scope of this investigation excludes mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by actual weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nepheline syenite, feldspar, alumina (A1203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite.

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under items 8104.11.0000, 8104.19.0000, and 8104.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-25300 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-070] Rubber Bands From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of rubber bands from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of investigation (POI) January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable November 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4793.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This final determination is made in accordance with section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The petitioner in this investigation is Alliance Rubber Co. The mandatory respondents in this investigation are Graceful Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (Graceful), Moyoung Trading Co., Ltd. (Moyoung), and Ningbo Syloon Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (Ningbo). Neither the mandatory respondents nor the Government of China (GOC) responded to our requests for information in this investigation.

    We published the Preliminary Determination on July 9, 2018,1 and the Preliminary Critical Circumstances and Amended Scope on September 6, 2018.2 We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary determinations. We received scope comments from certain interested parties.

    1See Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Determination, 83 FR 31729 (July 9, 2018) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Determination Memorandum (PDM).

    2See Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, and Amendment to the Scope of the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 45217 (September 6, 2018) (Preliminary Critical Circumstances and Amended Scope).

    Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    Scope Comments

    We invited parties to comment on Commerce's Preliminary Scope Memorandum, and the changes made to the scope of the investigation therein.3 We have reviewed the briefs submitted by interested parties, considered the arguments therein, but have not made further changes to the scope of the investigation beyond those incorporated in the Preliminary Critical Circumstances and Amended Scope. For further discussion, see Commerce's Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4

    3See Memorandum, “Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Determinations,” dated August 29, 2018 (Preliminary Scope Memorandum).

    4See Memorandum, “Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Scope Decision Memorandum for the Final Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Determinations,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Final Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are rubber bands from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs—Adverse Facts Available

    For purposes of this final determination, we relied solely on facts otherwise available because neither the GOC nor any of the selected mandatory respondents participated in this investigation.5 Further, because the mandatory respondents and the GOC did not cooperate to the best of their abilities in responding to our requests for information in this investigation, we drew adverse inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, in accordance with sections 776(a)-(b) of the Act. Therefore, consistent with the Preliminary Determination, we continue to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to Graceful, Moyoung, and Ningbo Syloon. No interested party submitted comments on Commerce's preliminary determination to apply AFA. Thus, we made no changes to the subsidy rate for the mandatory respondents for this final determination. A detailed discussion of our application of AFA was provided in the Preliminary Determination. 6

    5See sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.

    6See Preliminary Determination PDM at Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.

    All-Others Rate

    As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce based the selection of the all-others rate on the countervailable subsidy rate established for the mandatory respondents, in accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act.7 We made no changes to the selection of the all-others rate for this final determination.

    7See Preliminary Determination, 83 FR at 31730.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    As noted above, the mandatory respondents did not participate in this investigation, and no interested party submitted comments on critical circumstances. Because Graceful, Moyoung, and Ningbo Syloon did not cooperate to the best of their abilities in this investigation, we continue to determine that it is appropriate to apply AFA, in accordance with sections 776(a)-(b) of the Act, with respect to critical circumstances.

    We are making the inconsistency determination with regard to the “Export Assistance Grants” program, which had the lowest rate in the Preliminary Determination among the programs alleged to be inconsistent with the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement).8 In so doing, we limit the corresponding offset to the dumping margin in the companion antidumping duty investigation, which best fulfills our statutory mandate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully,” 9 and induce future cooperation by companies in investigations where the petitioners allege the existence of programs potentially inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.

    8See Preliminary Determination PDM at 10-11 and Appendix.

    9See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870.

    Because we find that the “Export Assistance Grants” program is export contingent, we determine that the criterion under section 705(a)(2)(A) of the Act has been met. In addition, for the purposes of the “massive imports” analysis, we continue to find, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that the mandatory respondents shipped rubber bands in “massive” quantities during the comparison period, thereby fulfilling the criteria under section 705(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to section 705(a)(2) of the Act, Commerce determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of rubber bands from China for Graceful, Moyoung, and Ningbo Syloon.

    Commerce, however, determines that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to all other producers or exporters of rubber bands from China because there was not a massive increase in imports, as defined by 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2). For further information on Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Critical Circumstances and Amended Scope. 10

    10See Preliminary Critical Circumstances and Amended Scope, 83 FR at 45218-19.

    Final Determination

    Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Graceful Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 125.77 Moyoung Trading Co., Ltd 125.77 Ningbo Syloon Imp & Exp Co., Ltd 125.77 All-Others 125.77
    Disclosure

    We described the subsidy rate calculations, which were based on AFA, in the Preliminary Determination. 11 As noted above, there are no changes to the calculations. Thus, no additional disclosure is necessary for this final determination.

    11See Preliminary Determination PDM at Appendix—AFA Rate Calculation.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our affirmative Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of rubber bands from China that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after July 9, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.12 Subsequently, we issued our affirmative Preliminary Critical Circumstances and Amended Scope and, pursuant to section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we instructed CBP to suspend liquidation, with regard to Graceful, Moyoung, and Ningbo Syloon, of any unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 10, 2018, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.13

    12See Preliminary Determination, 83 FR at 31729.

    13See Preliminary Critical Circumstances and Amended Scope, 83 FR at 45219-20.

    Additionally, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 6, 2018. We also instructed CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all shipments from all other producers or exporters entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption made during the period July 9, 2018, through November 5, 2018, until the conclusion of this investigation. For Graceful, Moyoung, and Ningbo Syloon, we instructed CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all shipments entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption made during the period April 10, 2018, through November 5, 2018, until the conclusion of this investigation.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its determination. In addition, Commerce will make available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. Commerce will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in the files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or, alternatively, conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: November 13, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigation

    The products subject to this investigation are bands made of vulcanized rubber, with a flat length, as actually measured end-to-end by the band lying flat, no less than 1/2 inch and no greater than 10 inches; with a width, which measures the dimension perpendicular to the length, actually of at least 3/64 inch and no greater than 2 inches; and a wall thickness actually from 0.020 inch to 0.125 inch. Vulcanized rubber has been chemically processed into a more durable material by the addition of sulfur or other equivalent curatives or accelerators. Subject products are included regardless of color or inclusion of printed material on the rubber band's surface, including but not limited to, rubber bands with printing on them, such as a product name, advertising, or slogan, and printed material (e.g., a tag) fastened to the rubber band by an adhesive or another temporary type of connection. The scope includes vulcanized rubber bands which are contained or otherwise exist in various forms and packages, such as, without limitation, vulcanized rubber bands included within a desk accessory set or other type of set or package, and vulcanized rubber band balls. The scope excludes products that consist of an elastomer loop and durable tag all-in-one, and bands that are being used at the time of import to fasten an imported product.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are vulcanized rubber bands of various sizes with arrow shaped rubber protrusions from the outer diameter that exceeds at the anchor point a wall thickness of 0.125 inches and where the protrusion is used to loop around, secure and lock in place.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are yarn/fabric-covered vulcanized rubber hair bands, regardless of size.

    Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 4016.99.3510. Merchandise covered by the scope may also enter under HTSUS subheading 4016.99.6050. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-25296 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-084] Certain Quartz Surface Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain quartz surface products (QSP) from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Applicable November 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Medley or Whitley Herndon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987 or (202) 482-6274, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on May 16, 2018.1 On August 28, 2018, Commerce published the postponement of the preliminary determination of this investigation, and the revised deadline is now November 13, 2018.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II 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 https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Certain Quartz Surface Products from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 83 FR 22613 (May 16, 2018) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Certain Quartz Surface Products from the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 83 FR 43848 (August 28, 2018).

    3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Quartz Surface Products from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are QSP from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this investigation, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Scope Decision Memorandum.6 Commerce is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

    4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    5See Initiation Notice.

    6See Memorandum, “Certain Quartz Surface Products from the People's Republic of China: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination” (Scope Decision Memorandum), dated September 14, 2018.

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices was calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices was calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (NV) was calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    In addition, because necessary information regarding the China-wide entity is not on the administrative record, Commerce has relied on facts available under section 776(a)(1) of the Act to determine the cash deposit rates assigned to the China-wide entity. Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, because the China-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce's requests for data, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of QSP from China for the mandatory questionnaire respondents (i.e., CQ International,7 Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd. (Yixin Stone), and Guangzhou Hercules Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. (Hercules Quartz)), all non-individually-examined companies receiving a separate rate, and the China-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    7 Commerce preliminarily determines that Suzhou Colorquartzstone New Material Co., Ltd./Shanghai Meiyang Stone Co., Ltd./C Q International Limited HK are a single entity and hereafter collectively referred to as “CQ International.” See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, 8 Commerce stated that it would calculate exporter/producer combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.9 For a list of the respondents that established eligibility for their own separate rates and the exporter/producer combination rates applicable to these respondents, see Appendix III.

    8See Initiation Notice, 83 FR at 22617.

    9See Enforcement and Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, regarding, “Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,” (April 5, 2005) (Policy Bulletin 05.1), available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

    Preliminary Determination

    Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter Producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit
  • rate (adjusted
  • for subsidy
  • offset)
  • (percent)
  • Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd 341.29 314.10 Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd QingYuan Yue Feng Decoration Material Co., Ltd 341.29 314.10 Guangzhou Hercules Quartz Stone Co., Ltd Guangzhou Hercules Quartz Stone Co., Ltd 289.62 262.43 Suzhou Colorquartzstone New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Meiyang Stone Co., Ltd., CQ International Limited Suzhou Colorquartzstone New Material Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Meiyang Stone Co., Ltd 242.10 242.10 Non-Individually Examined Exporters Receiving Separate Rates (see Appendix III) Producers Supplying the Non-Individually-Examined Exporters Receiving Separate Rates (see Appendix III) 290.86 263.67 China-Wide Entity 10 China-Wide Entity 341.29 314.10
    Suspension of Liquidation

    10 Commerce preliminarily determined that Foshan Hero Stone Co., Ltd., Foshan Quartz Stone Imp & Exp Co., Ltd., Hero Stone Co., Ltd., and Vemy Quartz Surface Co., Ltd. failed to establish their eligibility for a separate rate and, therefore, preliminarily determined that these companies are part of the China-wide entity. See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, and, where appropriate, adjusted for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) For the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the combination listed in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the rate established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third-country exporters of merchandise under consideration not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese exporter/producer combination (or the China-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter.

    Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from CQ International, Yixin Stone, Hercules Quartz, all non-individually-examined companies receiving a separate rate, and the China-wide entity. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to all unliquidated entries of merchandise from the exporter/producer combinations identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

    To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion CVD proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). Any such adjusted rates may be found in the chart of estimated weighted-average dumping margins located in the section titled Preliminary Determination above.

    Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for the passed-through domestic subsidies or for export subsidies at the time the CVD provisional measures expire.

    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this investigation, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.11 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    11See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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 intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    In November 2018, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Hercules Quartz and Hero Stone requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.12 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) the preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce intends to issue its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    12See Hercules Quartz's Letter, “Certain Quartz Surface Products from the People's Republic of China: Request to Postpone the Final Determination of the Investigation,” dated November 6, 2018; and Hero Stone's Letter, “Quartz Surface Products from the People's Republic of China: Request to Postpone the Final Determination of the Investigation,” dated November 9, 2018.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: November 13, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain quartz surface products.13 Quartz surface products consist of slabs and other surfaces created from a mixture of materials that includes predominately silica (e.g., quartz, quartz powder, cristobalite) as well as a resin binder (e.g., an unsaturated polyester). The incorporation of other materials, including, but not limited to, pigments, cement, or other additives does not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation. However, the scope of the investigation only includes products where the silica content is greater than any other single material, by actual weight. Quartz surface products are typically sold as rectangular slabs with a total surface area of approximately 45 to 60 square feet and a nominal thickness of one, two, or three centimeters. However, the scope of this investigation includes surface products of all other sizes, thicknesses, and shapes. In addition to slabs, the scope of this investigation includes, but is not limited to, other surfaces such as countertops, backsplashes, vanity tops, bar tops, work tops, tabletops, flooring, wall facing, shower surrounds, fire place surrounds, mantels, and tiles. Certain quartz surface products are covered by the investigation whether polished or unpolished, cut or uncut, fabricated or not fabricated, cured or uncured, edged or not edged, finished or unfinished, thermoformed or not thermoformed, packaged or unpackaged, and regardless of the type of surface finish.

    13 Quartz surface products may also generally be referred to as engineered stone or quartz, artificial stone or quartz, agglomerated stone or quartz, synthetic stone or quartz, processed stone or quartz, manufactured stone or quartz, and Bretonstone®.

    In addition, quartz surface products are covered by the investigation whether or not they are imported attached to, or in conjunction with, non-subject merchandise such as sinks, sink bowls, vanities, cabinets, and furniture. If quartz surface products are imported attached to, or in conjunction with, such non-subject merchandise, only the quartz surface product is covered by the scope.

    Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise fabricated in a third country, including by cutting, polishing, curing, edging, thermoforming, attaching to, or packaging with another product, or any other finishing, packaging, or fabrication that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the quartz surface products.

    The scope of the investigation does not cover quarried stone surface products, such as granite, marble, soapstone, or quartzite. Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are crushed glass surface products. Crushed glass surface products are surface products in which the crushed glass content is greater than any other single material, by actual weight.

    The products subject to the scope are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheading: 6810.99.0010. Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 6810.11.0010, 6810.11.0070, 6810.19.1200, 6810.19.1400, 6810.19.5000, 6810.91.0000, 6810.99.0080, 6815.99.4070, 2506.10.0010, 2506.10.0050, 2506.20.0010, 2506.20.0080. The HTSUS subheadings set forth above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Determination Not to Select Hirsch Glass as a Voluntary Respondent IV. Period of Investigation V. Scope Comments VI. Discussion of the Methodology A. Non-Market Economy Country B. Surrogate Country C. Separate Rates D. Separate Rate Recipients E. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate F. Margin for the Separate Rate Companies G. Combination Rates H. The China-Wide Entity I. Application of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences J. Critical Circumstances K. Date of Sale L. Fair Value Comparisons M. Export Price and Constructed Export Price N. Normal Value O. Comparisons to Normal Value VII. Currency Conversion VIII. Adjustment Under Section 777(A)(F) of the Act IX. Adjustments to Cash Deposit Rates for Export Subsidies X. Verification XI. Conclusion Appendix III List of Separate Rate Companies Exporter Non-individually examined exporters receiving separate rates Producer Producers supplying the non-individually-examined exporters receiving separate rates Anhui Youlisi Quartz Building Materials Co., Ltd d.b.a. Anhui Uviistone Quartz Building Material Co., Ltd Anhui Youlisi Quartz Building Materials Co., Ltd d.b.a. Anhui Uviistone Quartz Building Material Co., Ltd. Ansen Investment And Development Co., Limited Yunfu Honghai Stone Co., Ltd. Ansen Investment And Development Co., Limited Foshan Adamant Science & Technology Co., Ltd. Ansen Investment And Development Co., Limited Heshan City Nande Stone Co., Ltd. Ansen Investment And Development Co., Limited Dongguan Lafite Quartz-Stone Co., Ltd. Ansen Investment And Development Co., Limited Foshan Shunde O'Riordan Building Materials Manufacture Co., Ltd. Aurea Stone Solutions Inc Jiangxi Fasa Industrial Corporation Limited. Best Bath & Kitchen Co., Limited Fujian Province Kaisida Quartz Co., Ltd. Best Cheer (Xiamen) Stone Works Co., Ltd Best Cheer (Xiamen) Stone Works Co., Ltd. Best Cheer (Xiamen) Stone Works Co., Ltd Quanzhou Best Cheer Industry Co., Ltd. Bestone High Tech Materials Co., Limited Bestone High Tech Materials Co., Limited. Bestone High Tech Materials Co., Limited GuangDong Bosun Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Bestone High Tech Materials Co., Limited Heshan Biyu Stone Co., Ltd. Bestview (Fuzhou) Import & Export Co. Ltd Dongguan Lafite Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Bestview (Fuzhou) Import & Export Co. Ltd Nanan Fute Stone Co., Ltd. Bestview (Fuzhou) Import & Export Co. Ltd Foshan City Lewistone New Material Co., Limited. Bestview (Fuzhou) Import & Export Co. Ltd Yifeng Industries Corporation Co., Ltd. Deyuan Panmin International Limited Fujian Panmin Co., Ltd. DH Group Co., Limited d.b.a. Xiamen DH Stone Co., Limited DH Group Co., Limited. DH Group Co., Limited d.b.a. Xiamen DH Stone Co., Limited Nan An Zheng Shun Building Material Co., Ltd. DH Group Co., Limited d.b.a. Xiamen DH Stone Co., Limited Nan An Ju Jiu Building Materials Co., Ltd. DH Group Co., Limited d.b.a. Xiamen DH Stone Co., Limited Whitley New Material Co., Ltd. East Asia Limited Heshan City Nande Co., Ltd. East Asia Limited Vemy Quartz Surface Co., Ltd. East Asia Limited Lanling Jinzhao New Material Co., Ltd. East Asia Limited Rong Hua Fu Quartz Co., Ltd. East Asia Limited Runtai Stone Co., Ltd. Elite Industry International Group Limited Heshan Biyu Stone Industry Co., Ltd. Enming Art Stone Co., Ltd Thinking Industries Corporation Limited. Ersten Surfaces Limited Huizhou Zhongbo Engineering Stone Co., Ltd. Ersten Surfaces Limited Guangdong Xiongjie Building Materials Co., Ltd. Farfield Trade Co., Ltd Ronghuafu Yunfu Stone Co., Ltd. Farfield Trade Co., Ltd Yunfu Meiao Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Adamant Science & Technology Co., Ltd Foshan Adamant Science & Technology Co., Ltd. Foshan Biyu Stone Co., Limited Foshan City Gaoming Biyustone Co., Ltd. Foshan Biyu Stone Co., Limited Foshan City Gaoming Biyu New Materials Co., Ltd. Foshan Bluesea Quartz Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Bluesea Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Heshan Nande Stone Industry Co., Ltd Heshan Nande Stone Industry Co., Ltd. Foshan Evergreen Import and Export Co., Ltd Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Leda Building Materials Co., Ltd Foshan Leda Building Materials Co., Ltd. Foshan Leda Building Materials Co., Ltd Hengyang Athena Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Monica Quartz Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Monica Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Nanhai Cuipo Artificial Quartz Co., Ltd Yunfu Stone Solutions Co., Ltd. Foshan Nanhai Cuipo Artificial Quartz Co., Ltd Qingyuan Yuefeng Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. Foshan Nanhai Cuipo Artificial Quartz Co., Ltd Yunfu Xiangyun Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Nanhai Cuipo Artificial Quartz Co., Ltd Yunfu Ronghuafu Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Nanhai Cuipo Artificial Quartz Co., Ltd Heshan City Nande Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Nanhai Cuipo Artificial Quartz Co., Ltd Yunfu Wayon Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Opalus Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Oubo Stone Co., Ltd. Foshan Opaly Composite Materials Co., Ltd Foshan Opaly Composite Materials Co., Ltd. Foshan Rongguan Glass Material For Building Co., Ltd Foshan Rongguan Glass Material For Building Co., Ltd. Foshan Sanshui Queen Ceramic Inc Foshan Sanshui Queen Ceramic Inc. Foshan Shunde O'Riordan Building Materials Manufacture Co., Ltd Foshan Shunde O'Riordan Building Materials Manufacture Co., Ltd. Free Trans International Trading Limited Foshan Xianghai Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Free Trans International Trading Limited Foshan Tianci Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Fujian Nan'an Zuci Building Material Co., Ltd Fujian Nan'an Zuci Building Material Co., Ltd. Fujian Nan'an Zuci Building Material Co., Ltd Shanghai Yijin Decorating Materials Co., Ltd. Fujian Pengxiang Industrial Co., Ltd Fujian Pengxiang Industrial Co., Ltd. Fujian Putian Wangzhong New Type Building Materials Co., Ltd Fujian Putian Wangzhong New Type Building Materials Co., Ltd. Fujian Quanzhou Risheng Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Quanzhou Risheng Stone Co., Ltd. Fuzhou CBM Imp. And Exp. Co., Ltd Fujian Nan'an Zuci Building Material Co., Ltd. Fuzhou CBM Imp. And Exp. Co., Ltd Dongguan Lafite Quartz-Stone Co., Ltd. Golden Dragon Stone Co., Limited Foshan Rongguan Glass Material For Building Co., Ltd. Golden Dragon Stone Co., Limited One Stone Quartz Co., Ltd. Guangdong Bitto New Material Technologies Co., Ltd Guangdong Bitto New Material Technologies Co., Ltd. Guangdong Bosun Quartz Stone Co., Ltd Guangdong Bosun Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Guangdong Overland Ceramics Co., Ltd Guangdong Overland Ceramics Co., Ltd. Guangdong Zhongxun New Material Co., Ltd Guangdong Zhongxun New Material Co., Ltd. Guangzhou Gelandy New Material Co., Ltd Guangzhou Gelandy New Material Co., Ltd. Guangzhou Wei Sheng Stone Building Materials Co., Ltd Huizhou Zhongbo Engineering Stone Co., Ltd. HCH Industrial Co., Ltd d.b.a., Shenzhen Hengchang hao Industrial J W Quartz Co., Ltd. HCH Industrial Co., Ltd d.b.a., Shenzhen Hengchang hao Industrial He Shan Biyu Stone Co., Ltd. HCH Industrial Co., Ltd d.b.a., Shenzhen Hengchang hao Industrial Dongguan kaisa stone Co., Ltd. HCH Industrial Co., Ltd d.b.a., Shenzhen Hengchang hao Industrial Vemy Quartz Surfaces Co., Ltd. HCH Industrial Co., Ltd d.b.a., Shenzhen Hengchang hao Industrial Heng Jia Stone. HCH Industrial Co., Ltd d.b.a., Shenzhen Hengchang hao Industrial Hubei Guantai Building Materials Co., Ltd. HCH Industrial Co., Ltd d.b.a., Shenzhen Hengchang hao Industrial Dongguan Huaxiang Stone Co., Ltd. HCH Industrial Co., Ltd d.b.a., Shenzhen Hengchang hao Industrial Guangzhou Hercules Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Heshan Biyu Stone Company Heshan Biyu Stone Company. Hirsch Glass (Dalian) Co., Ltd Hirsch Glass (Dalian) Co., Ltd. Hirsch Glass (Dalian) Co., Ltd Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd. HongKong FS Development Limited Yunfu Chuangyun New Meterail Co., Ltd. HongKong FS Development Limited RONGHUAFU Yunfu Stone Co., Ltd. Huahe Stone (Yunfu) Co., Ltd Huahe Stone (Yunfu) Co., Ltd. Huidong Hexingtai Industry Co., Ltd Huidong Hexingtai Industry Co., Ltd. Intec Stone (Xiamen) Ltd Intec Stone (Xiamen) Ltd. Jiangxi Jingwei Stone Co., Ltd, d.b.a. Jiangxi Jingwei Stone Material Ltd Jiangxi Jingwei Stone Co., Ltd, d.b.a. Jiangxi Jingwei Stone Material Ltd. Kaistar (Xiamen) Co., Ltd Fujian Best Matrix Quartz Co., Ltd. Kaistar (Xiamen) Co., Ltd Kinstone (Jieyang) Stone Co., Ltd. Kaistar (Xiamen) Co., Ltd Jieyang Bai Sheng Stone Limited. KBI Construction Materials Ltd YUNFU HongHai Stone Co., Ltd. KBI Construction Materials Ltd Guangdong Si Hui YuLong Stone Co., Ltd. KBI Construction Materials Ltd Foshan Vemy Building Material Co., Ltd. KBI Construction Materials Ltd Foshan Adamant Science & Technology Co., Ltd. KBI Construction Materials Ltd Yun Fu Xiang Yun Stone Co., Ltd. Landmark Surface Company Limited Guangdong Lai Ma Ke Environmental Building Materials Company Limited. Landmark Surface Company Limited Foshan Gaoming Dexing Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Lanling Jinzhao New Material Co., Ltd Lanling Jinzhao New Material Co., Ltd. Lindberg Stone Co., Limited Dongguan City Lafite Quartz-Stone Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Heshan City Nande Stone Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Guangdong Dexing Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Guangzhou Hercules Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Foshan Adamant Science & Technology Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Vemy Building Materials Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Yunfu Honghai Stone Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Dongguan Lefei New Stone Materials Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Dongguan Lafite Quartz-stone Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Huahe Stone (Yunfu) Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Guangdong BOSUN Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Lixin Stone Co., Limited Foshan Nanhai Yachang Building Materials Products Co., Ltd. Loyalty Enterprise Development (Xinyang) Co., Ltd Loyalty Enterprise Development (Xinyang) Co., Ltd. Lulong Ruitong Trading Co., Ltd Lulong Ruitong Trading Co., Ltd. Macostone International Industry Co., Limited Qingyuan Yuefeng Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. Macostone International Industry Co., Limited Lanling Modern Materials Co., Ltd. Monica Surfaces Company Limited Foshan Monica Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Nan'an Guangtaixiang Stone Co., Ltd Nan'an Guangtaixiang Stone Co., Ltd. Nanchang Montary Industrial Co., Ltd Yunfu Kimria Quarts Stone Co., Ltd. Nanchang Montary Industrial Co., Ltd Yunfu Montary Stone Co., Ltd. New Powerstone Industry Co., Limited Qing Yuan Yuefeng Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. New Powerstone Industry Co., Limited Shandong Whitley New Materials Co., Ltd. New Powerstone Industry Co., Limited Foshan Devialef New Materials Co., Ltd. New Powerstone Industry Co., Limited Yunan Guanglai Stone Co., Ltd. New Powerstone Industry Co., Limited Nanan Guangtaixiang Stone Co., Ltd. Newstar (Quanzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Corporation. One Stone Quartz Co., Ltd Wuzhou Yuanhong Building Materials Product Co., Ltd. Penglai Huasheng Electronic Co., Ltd Shandong Sunfull Industrial Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited Xinyun Stone (Yunfu) Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited Guangzhou Hercules Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited Ronghuafu Yunfu Stone Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited Henan Namei Quartz Stone Technology Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited Lanling Jinzhao New Material Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited Foshan Opalus Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited Zhejiang Tiancheng Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited Zhejiang Sanxing Cheng Yuan Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd. Po Nice International Trading Limited LESSO Technology Industry (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. Qinhuangdao Jingwei Stone Co., Ltd Qinhuangdao Jingwei Stone Co., Ltd. Quanzhou Franco Trade Co., Ltd Fujian Pengxiang Industrial Co., Ltd. Quanzhou Xinxing Stone Technics Co., Ltd Quanzhou Xinxing Stone Technics Co., Ltd. Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd. (AKA Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Corporation) Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd. (AKA Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Corporation). Ronghuafu Yunfu Stone Co., Ltd Ronghuafu Yunfu Stone Co., Ltd. Shanghai Rightime International Trading Co., Ltd Fujian Quanzhou Risheng Stone Co., Ltd. Shunsen Industries Corporation Shunsen Industries Corporation. Shunsen Industries Corporation Thinking Industries Corporation. Sinostone (Guangdong) Co., Ltd Sinostone (Guangdong) Co., Ltd. Stone Solutions Co., Ltd Stone Solutions Co., Ltd. Sunjoin Imp. & Exp. (Xiamen) Co., Limited Henan Namei Quartz Stone Technology Co., Ltd. Sunjoin Imp. & Exp. (Xiamen) Co., Limited Thinking Industries Cooperation Limited. Sunjoin Imp. & Exp. (Xiamen) Co., Limited Nan'an Hanwa New Building Material Co. Ltd. Sunjoin Imp. & Exp. (Xiamen) Co., Limited Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Corporation. Teltos Quartz Stone Co., Ltd Teltos Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Vquartz Stone Limited Vquartz Stone Limited. Wanfeng Compound Stone Technology Co., Ltd Wanfeng Compound Stone Technology Co., Ltd. Wanfu Building Materials Products Co., Ltd. Nanan Fujian Wanfu Building Materials Products Co., Ltd. Nanan Fujian. Wuxi Yushea Furniture Co., Ltd Yunfu Zhengfang Stone Company. Xiamen Ally Group Co., Ltd Thinking Industries Corporation Limited. Xiamen Ally Group Co., Ltd Nanan Fute Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Avanti Stone Industrial Co., Ltd Foshan Xinyixin Stone Industry Co., Ltd. Xiamen Best Cheer Industry Co., Ltd Xiamen Best Cheer Industry Co., Ltd. Xiamen Best Cheer Industry Co., Ltd Quanzhou Best Cheer Industry Co., Ltd. Xiamen City Yadilong Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd. Xiamen City Yadilong Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd Xiamen Orienti New Building Materials Ltd. Xiamen Deyuan Panmin Trading Co., Ltd Fujian Panmin Co., Ltd. Xiamen Duojia Stone Material Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Xiamen Multi-Family Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Duojia Stone Material Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Xiamen Multi-Family Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Blue Sea Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Duojia Stone Material Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Xiamen Multi-Family Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Ronguan Glass Material For Building Co., Ltd. Xiamen Duojia Stone Material Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Xiamen Multi-Family Stone Co., Ltd One Stone Quartz Co., Ltd. Xiamen Duojia Stone Material Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Xiamen Multi-Family Stone Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd. Xiamen Duojia Stone Material Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Xiamen Multi-Family Stone Co., Ltd Xiamen Orienti New Building Materials Ltd. Xiamen Duojia Stone Material Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Xiamen Multi-Family Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Panmin Xincai Ltd Co. Xiamen Duojia Stone Material Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Xiamen Multi-Family Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Nan'an Zuci Building Material Co., Ltd. Xiamen Enrich Co., Ltd Dongguan Lafite Quartz-Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Enrich Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Corporation. Xiamen Fortua (Hong Kong) Industry Co., Limited Xiamen Fortua Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. Xiamen Further Star Imp and Exp Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Corporation. Xiamen Gofor Stone Co., Ltd Huayao Stone Slab Factory. Xiamen Good Time Stone Co., Ltd One Stone Quartz Co., Ltd. Xiamen Good Time Stone Co., Ltd Lanling Jinzhao New Material Co., Ltd. Xiamen Good Time Stone Co., Ltd Thinking Industries Corporation Limited. Xiamen Good Time Stone Co., Ltd Xiamen Deyuan Panmin Trading Co., Ltd. Xiamen Good Time Stone Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Corporation. Xiamen Got Cheer Trading Co., Ltd d.b.a. Xiamen Got Cheer Co., Ltd Quanzhou Best Cheer Industry Co., Ltd. Xiamen Got Cheer Trading Co., Ltd d.b.a. Xiamen Got Cheer Co., Ltd Xiamen Best Cheer Industry Co., Ltd. Xiamen Got Cheer Trading Co., Ltd d.b.a. Xiamen Got Cheer Co., Ltd Best Cheer (Xiamen) Stone Works Co., Ltd. Xiamen Honglei Imp. &. Exp. Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Honglei (Xiamen) Stone Co., Ltd Xiamen Honglei Imp. &. Exp. Co., Ltd. d.b.a. Honglei (Xiamen) Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Injoy Import & Export Co., Ltd Thinking Industries Corporation. Xiamen Interock Stone Co., Ltd Loyalty Enterprise Development (XinYang) Co., Ltd. Xiamen Interock Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Nan'an Zuci Building Material Co., Ltd. Xiamen Jianming Rising Import & Export Co., Ltd Thinking Industries Corporation. Xiamen Jianming Rising Import & Export Co., Ltd Nan'an Hanhua New Building Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Luck Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Opaly Composites Co., Ltd. Xiamen Luck Stone Co., Ltd Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Luck Stone Co., Ltd Heshan Biyu Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Luck Stone Co., Ltd Shandong Whitley New Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Luck Stone Co., Ltd Vemy Building Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Maoshuang Stone Industry Co., Ltd Fujian Panmin Quartz Co., Ltd. Xiamen Northern Mining Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Nanan Xietai Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Northern Mining Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Nanan Mao Tong Yuan Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Northern Mining Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Nanan Run Ze Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Northern Mining Stone Co., Ltd Shandong Horizon Group Co., Ltd. Xiamen Northern Mining Stone Co., Ltd Lanling Jinzhao New Material Co., Ltd. Xiamen Northern Mining Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Panmin Quartz Co., Ltd. Xiamen Ogrand Stone Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd Nanan Branch. Xiamen Oriental Stone Products Co., Ltd Nanan City Shijing Town Stone Products Factory. Xiamen Oriental Stone Products Co., Ltd Fujian Nanan Lianhui Stone Products Co., Ltd. Xiamen Orienti New Building Materials Ltd Xiamen Orienti New Building Materials Ltd. Xiamen Qinhui Import & Export Co., Ltd Zhangzhou Qinhui Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Qinhui Import & Export Co., Ltd Fujian Quanzhou Qinhui Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Realho Stone Co., Ltd Thinking Industries Corporation. Xiamen Realho Stone Co., Ltd Shandong Whitley New Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Realho Stone Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd. Xiamen Realho Stone Co., Ltd Nan'an Fute Building Material Co., Ltd. Xiamen Shihui Stone Product Co., Ltd Guangdong Baoxin New Stone Products Co., Ltd. Xiamen Shihui Stone Product Co., Ltd Yunfu Honghai Investment Co., Ltd. Xiamen Sinocau Import & Export Co., Ltd Jinjiang Huabao Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Smarter Stone Co., Ltd Heshan Nande Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Smarter Stone Co., Ltd Fujian Quanzhou Runze Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Smarter Stone Co., Ltd Hongsheng Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Corporation. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Foshan Vemy Stone Building Material Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Foshan Rongguan Glass Material For Building Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Qingyuan Yuefeng Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Lanling Jinzhao New Material Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Foshan Yixin Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Xiamen Orienti New Building Materials, Ltd. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Dongguan Lafite Quartz-Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Forest Co., Ltd Dongguan City Hongke Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Harbour Co., Ltd Fujian PengXiang Industrial Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stone Harbour Co., Ltd Zhangzhou QinHui Quartz Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stonelink Imp & Exp Co., Ltd Fujian PengXiang Industrial Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stonelink Imp & Exp Co., Ltd Heshan Biyu Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stonevic Co., Ltd Heshan Biyu Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Stonevic Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Industries Co., Ltd. Xiamen Sun Young Corporation Yifeng Industries Corporation. Xiamen Sun Young Corporation Heshan City Nande Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Sun Young Corporation Benyi New Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Sun Young Corporation Fujian Quanzhou Risheng Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Sun Young Corporation Nanan Chunjia Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Terry Stone Co., Ltd Heshan Biyu Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Touch Stone Co., Ltd One Stone Quartz Co., Ltd. Xiamen Vatro Stone Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Xiamen Vatro Stone Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. Xiamen Vatro Stone Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Shandong Whitley New Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Vesen Imp. & Exp. Trade Co., Ltd Nanan Xingli Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Wanfu Trade Co., Ltd Xiamen Wanfu Trade Co., Ltd. Xiamen Wanfu Trade Co., Ltd Thinking Industries Corporation. Xiamen Wanfu Trade Co., Ltd Yifeng Industries Corporation. Xiamen Wanli Stone Decoration & Design Co., Ltd Xiamen Wanlistone Stock Co., Ltd. Xiamen Wanli Stone Decoration & Design Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd. Xiamen Wanli Stone Decoration & Design Co., Ltd Nan'an Fengsheng Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Wanli Stone Decoration & Design Co., Ltd Thinking Industries Corporation Limited. Xiamen Wanli Stone Decoration & Design Co., Ltd One Stone Quartz Co., Ltd. Xiamen Wanli Stone Decoration & Design Co., Ltd Taking Luck (Xiamen) Granite & Marble Co., Ltd. Xiamen Wanlistone Stock Co., Ltd Xiamen Wanlistone Stock Co., Ltd. Xiamen Winson Import and Export Co., Ltd Xiamen Oulandi New Building Materail Co., Ltd. Xiamen Yadonglong Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd. Xiamen Yadonglong Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd Xiamen Orienti New Building Materials Ltd. Xiamen Yadonglong Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd Xinmingdu Building Materials (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. Xiamen Yalitong Stone Industrial Co., Ltd Fujian Nanan Xudong Building Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Yalitong Stone Industrial Co., Ltd Zhongci Wanjia Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Yalitong Stone Industrial Co., Ltd Quanzhou Yifeng Co., Ltd. Xiamen Yeyang Import & Export Co., Ltd. (AKA Xiamen Yeyang Imp&Exp Co., Ltd.) Fujian Nanan Yuanhong Construction Materails Co., Ltd. Xiamen Yiqing Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd Fujian Nanan Yuanhong Construction Materails Co., Ltd. Xiamen Zhongguanshi Stone Industry Co., Limited Yunan Guanglai Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Zhongguanshi Stone Industry Co., Limited Foshan Devialef New Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Zhongguanshi Stone Industry Co., Limited Nan'an Guang Tai Xiang Stone Co., Ltd. Xiamen Zhongguanshi Stone Industry Co., Limited Wanfeng Compound Stone Technology. Xiamen Zhongguanshi Stone Industry Co., Limited Foshan Xinghe Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Xinyun Stone (Yunfu) Co., Ltd Xinyun Stone (Yunfu) Co., Ltd. Yekalon Industry Inc Foshan Xinyixin Stone Company Limited. Yunfu Andi Stone Co., Ltd Yunfu Andi Stone Co., Ltd. Yunfu Chuangyun New Meterail Co., Ltd Yunfu Chuangyun New Meterail Co., Ltd. Yunfu Dong Shan Stone Material Co., Ltd Yunfu Dong Shan Stone Material Co., Ltd. Yunfu Honghai Co., Ltd Yunfu Honghai Co., Ltd. Yunfu Jiuru Stone Ltd Yunfu Jiuru Stone Ltd. Yunfu Meiao Stone Co., Ltd Yunfu Meiao Stone Co., Ltd. Yunfu Wayon Stone Co., Ltd Yunfu Wayon Stone Co., Ltd. Yunfu Wayon Stone Co., Ltd Guangdong Wayon Industrial Co., Ltd. Yunfu Weibao Stone Co., Ltd Yunfu Weibao Stone Co., Ltd. Yunfu Weibao Stone Co., Ltd Guangdong Wayon Industrial Co., Ltd. Yunfu Wintop Stone Co., Ltd Yunfu Wintop Stone Co., Ltd. Yunfu Wintop Stone Co., Ltd Guangdong Bosun Quartz Stone Co., Ltd. Yunfu Wintop Stone Co., Ltd Yunfu Runtai Stone Co., Ltd. Yunfu Wintop Stone Co., Ltd RongHuaFu Yunfu Stone Co., Ltd. Zhangzhou OCA Furniture Co., Ltd Fujian Panmin Co., Ltd. Zhangzhou OCA Furniture Co., Ltd Wanfu Building Materials Products Co., Ltd. Zhaoqing Aibo New Material Technology Co., Ltd Zhaoqing Aibo New Material Technology Co., Ltd. Zhaoqing Aibo New Material Technology Co., Ltd Shanghai Meiyang Stone Co., Ltd. Zhaoqing Maxstone Co., Ltd Zhaoqing Maxstone Co., Ltd. Zhaoqing Uni Marble Co., Ltd Vemy Quartz Co., Ltd. Zhaoqing Uni Marble Co., Ltd Guangdong Bosun Quartz Stone Co., Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25299 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-069] Rubber Bands From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that rubber bands from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation (POI) July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable November 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Stolz or Stephanie Berger, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4474 or (202) 482-2483, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This final determination is made in accordance with section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On September 6, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register its preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV in the investigation of rubber bands from China.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. We received no comments from interested parties in this respect.

    1See Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 83 FR 45213 (September 6, 2018) (Preliminary Determination).

    Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the Petition, which was filed on January 30, 2018.2

    2See letter from Alliance Rubber Co., “Petition for Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Rubber Bands from Thailand, China and Sri Lanka,” dated January 30, 2018 (the Petition).

    Scope Comments

    We invited parties to comment on Commerce's Preliminary Scope Memorandum, and the changes made to the scope of the investigation therein.3 We have reviewed the briefs submitted by interested parties, considered the arguments therein, but have not made further changes to the scope of the investigation beyond those incorporated in the Preliminary Determination. For further discussion, see Commerce's Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4

    3See memorandum, “Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Determinations,” dated August 29, 2018 (Preliminary Scope Memorandum).

    4See memorandum, “Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Scope Decision Memorandum for the Final Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Determinations,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are rubber bands from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    As noted above, we received no comments in response to the Preliminary Determination. For the purposes of this final determination, Commerce has made no changes to the Preliminary Determination.

    China-Wide Entity

    As explained in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce did not receive timely responses to its quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire, nor did it receive separate rate applications, from certain exporters and/or producers of subject merchandise that were named in the Petition and to which Commerce issued Q&V questionnaires.5 As these non-responsive China companies did not demonstrate that they are eligible for separate rate status, Commerce continues to consider them to be a part of the China-wide entity. Because these companies, which comprise part of the China-wide entity, failed to submit the requested Q&V information, we determine that the China-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Consequently, we continue to find that the China-wide entity withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding by not submitting the requested information. As a result, we are continuing to find that the use of adverse facts available (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, is appropriate and are applying a rate based entirely on AFA to the China-wide entity.

    5See Preliminary Determination at the “Methodology” section, and the memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China,” dated August 29, 2018 (PDM) at 4-7.

    China-Wide Rate

    In selecting the AFA rate for the China-wide entity, Commerce's practice is to select a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated.6 Specifically, it is Commerce's practice to select, as an AFA rate, the higher of: (a) The highest dumping margin alleged in the Petition; or, (b) the highest calculated dumping margin of any respondent in the investigation.7 Because no party responded to Commerce's Q&V questionnaire, and thus no mandatory respondents could be selected, there are no calculated dumping margins on the record of this investigation. Therefore, as AFA, Commerce has assigned to the China-wide entity, the rate of 27.27 percent, which is the only dumping margin alleged in the Petition.8

    6See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) (H.R. Rep 103-316), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.A.A.N.

    7See, e.g., Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    8See Preliminary Determination at 45213-14 and the PDM at 6-7.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    In accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of rubber bands from the China-wide entity.9 As stated above, we received no comments with respect to the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, for the final determination, we continue to find that, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.206, critical circumstances exist with respect to subject merchandise exported by the China-wide entity.

    9Id. at 45213 and see the PDM at 7-10.

    Final Determination

    The final weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

    Producer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • China-Wide Entity 27.27
    Disclosure

    Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce applied AFA to the China-wide entity in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, there are no individually examined companies participating in this investigation, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the Petition. Thus, there are no calculations to disclose.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of the merchandise subject to the investigation from the China-wide entity, that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 8, 2018, 90 days prior to publication of the Preliminary Determination notice in the Federal Register, and require a cash deposit for such entries as noted below.

    Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to collect a cash deposit as follows: (1) The rate for the exporters listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this final determination; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the China-wide rate; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of rubber bands from China no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: November 13, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigation

    The products subject to this investigation are bands made of vulcanized rubber, with a flat length, as actually measured end-to-end by the band lying flat, no less than 1/2 inch and no greater than 10 inches; with a width, which measures the dimension perpendicular to the length, actually of at least 3/64 inch and no greater than 2 inches; and a wall thickness actually from 0.020 inch to 0.125 inch. Vulcanized rubber has been chemically processed into a more durable material by the addition of sulfur or other equivalent curatives or accelerators. Subject products are included regardless of color or inclusion of printed material on the rubber band's surface, including but not limited to, rubber bands with printing on them, such as a product name, advertising, or slogan, and printed material (e.g., a tag) fastened to the rubber band by an adhesive or another temporary type of connection. The scope includes vulcanized rubber bands which are contained or otherwise exist in various forms and packages, such as, without limitation, vulcanized rubber bands included within a desk accessory set or other type of set or package, and vulcanized rubber band balls. The scope excludes products that consist of an elastomer loop and durable tag all-inone, and bands that are being used at the time of import to fasten an imported product.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are vulcanized rubber bands of various sizes with arrow shaped rubber protrusions from the outer diameter that exceeds at the anchor point a wall thickness of 0.125 inches and where the protrusion is used to loop around, secure and lock in place.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are yarn/fabric-covered vulcanized rubber hair bands, regardless of size.

    Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 4016.99.3510. Merchandise covered by the scope may also enter under HTSUS subheading 4016.99.6050. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-25294 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Fisheries Participation Survey AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Karma Norman, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112-2097, by telephone: 206-302-2418 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This is a request for a revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Fishing livelihoods are both centrally dependent on marine ecosystems and part of the set of forces acting on other components of these ecosystems, including the ecosystem's resident fish and marine species. Alongside social factors like economics and management actions, biophysical dynamics within the ecosystems, including fisheries population fluctuations, shape fishing livelihoods. However, the decisions fishermen make regarding which fisheries to access and when to access them are not fully understood, particularly within the holistic food web frameworks offered up by ecosystem-based approaches to research and management. Moreover, a full understanding and predictive capacity for these movements of fishermen across fisheries in the context of ecological and social variability presents a significant gap in management-oriented knowledge. Managing fisheries in a way that enhances their social and economic value, mitigates risks to ecosystems and livelihoods, and facilitates sustainable adaptation, requires this fundamental knowledge.

    For this reason, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) seeks to conduct fisheries participation analyses which involve repeated follow-up surveys of United States (U.S.) West Coast commercial fishing participants. A U.S. mail survey will be conducted, replicating the survey administered during 2017. The survey will be voluntary, and contacted individuals may decline to participate. Respondents will be asked to answer questions about their motivations for fishing and other factors that affect participation in the suite of West Coast commercial fisheries. Demographic and employment information will be collected so that responses can be organized based on a respondent typology. This survey is essential because data on smaller scale fishing practices, values, participation decisions and beliefs about fishing livelihoods are sparse; yet, they are critical to the development of usable fishery ecosystem models that account for non-pecuniary benefits of fishing, as well as the ways in which fishing practices shape individual and community well-being.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents will be contacted via mail for administration of the survey.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0749.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,000.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25276 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG535 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application for exempted fishing permit.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the receipt of an application and the public comment period for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from the Aleut Corporation. If granted, this permit would allow the applicant to test methods to minimize bycatch of Pacific ocean perch (POP) in the Aleutian Islands (AI) pollock fishery. The objective of the EFP is to develop an economically viable AI pollock fishery under current POP abundance levels. Testing will be conducted in the fishery's winter “A” season in 2019 and 2020. This experiment has the potential to promote the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

    DATES:

    Comments on this EFP application must be submitted to NMFS on or before December 11, 2018. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will consider the application at its meeting from December 3, 2018, through December 11, 2018, in Anchorage, AK.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Council meeting will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 W 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. The agenda for the Council meeting is available at http://www.npfmc.org. In addition to submitting public comments at the Council meeting, you may submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0117, by either of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0117, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Electronic copies of the EFP application and the basis for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act are available from the Alaska Region, NMFS website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) management area under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the BSAI Management Area (FMP), which the Council prepared under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing the BSAI groundfish fisheries appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the implementing regulations at § 600.745(b) and § 679.6 allow the NMFS Regional Administrator to authorize, for limited experimental purposes, fishing that would otherwise be prohibited. Procedures for issuing EFPs are contained in the implementing regulations.

    Background

    Section 803(a-d) of Public Law 108-199 allocated the directed AI pollock fishery's total allowable catch (TAC) to the Aleut Corporation. The allocation was implemented under Amendment 82 to the FMP and became effective in 2005 (70 FR 9856, March 1, 2005). Since 2005, the AI pollock TAC has been set at 19,000 metric tons (mt) annually; however, AI pollock harvest since 2005 has been less than 2,000 mt.

    An obstacle to maintaining an economically viable AI pollock fishery has been high levels of POP bycatch due to a resurgence of POP in the AI and a lack of flexibility in the current management system to allow the fishery to adapt to this large increase. Currently the fishery is limited to a 5 percent maximum retainable amount (MRA) limit on POP per landing. POP biomass in the AI has more than tripled between 1981 and 2011, going from 235,000 mt to 845,000 mt, and has remained above 750,000 mt through the last full stock assessment in 2016. During the same period, AI pollock biomass has decreased more than four times from 847,000 mt in 1981 to 191,000 mt in 2011, and has averaged 200,000 mt since 2011.

    In the 1990s when the AI POP population was approximately 60 percent of what it is now, the proportion of POP bycatch in the AI pollock fishery was consistently less than 1 percent of the total catch. In contrast, during a 2006 through 2008 AI cooperative acoustic survey study (AICASS) conducted by NOAA's Alaska Fisheries Science Center, intended to estimate groundfish biomass in order to set acceptable biological catch levels inside Steller sea lion critical habitat, the proportion of POP bycatch in the pollock fishery was highly variable, with a low of 7 percent in 2006 to a high of 21 percent in 2008. The AICASS surveys also showed a high degree of overlap between pollock and POP populations. The limited amount of fishing under the Aleut Corporation's allocation since 2008 has similarly demonstrated the high overlap of pollock and POP observed during the AICASS surveys with bycatch rates often exceeding the 5 percent MRA, thereby constraining the pollock fishery and leading to POP mortality and waste. The 5 percent MRA was also exceeded in 2018.

    An additional issue is crew safety. Catcher vessels (CVs) that are allowed to deliver pollock in the AI are small with limited deck space. This fishery is conducted primarily from February through April when weather conditions in the AI are often hazardous with rapidly developing storms and high winds. The only practical means of sorting POP from a large mixed trawl catch in order to comply with the 5 percent MRA is to dump the codend on deck in sections as the remainder of the codend hangs off the stern. Crew then manually sort and discard POP from the catch as the pollock flow into the holding tanks. During this time, vessel maneuverability is substantially hindered, and crew are exposed to the elements and a shifting codend on deck for an extended period. In good weather, the 5 percent MRA may constrict the full utilization of the AI pollock TAC. During the winter, the MRA management measure adds substantial safety risks to the vessel and the crew.

    Need for Exempted Fishing Permit

    One potential regulatory means to address the burden to harvesting AI pollock while decreasing POP bycatch mortality would be to manage a quantity up to a cap of POP in the pollock fishery. Experience with constraining POP caps in the west coast whiting fishery cooperatives has shown that setting a cap and allowing self-management of the catch rates in a risk pool maximizes incentives to optimize the use of the cap by reducing POP bycatch to harvest as much of the whiting allocation as possible. If the acceptable bycatch rate of AI POP in the AI pollock fishery was 5 percent (the MRA), this would require an additional incidental catch amount of roughly 500 mt from the AI POP TAC of 26,381 mt (2 percent) to support a 2019 “A” season AI pollock directed fishing allowance of 10,361 mt.

    However, there are several regulatory obstacles to managing the AI pollock fishery as a mixed target fishery. Legislation mandates that the Aleut Corporation's pollock allocation be harvested either by vessels designated as BSAI pollock fishing vessels under the American Fisheries Act (AFA) or vessels less than 60 feet (ft) length overall (LOA). There is a targeted POP fishery in the AI; however, AFA vessels are subject to sideboards that prevent them from directed fishing for POP. The POP fishery for the non-Amendment 80 vessels (including CVs less than 60 ft LOA) does not open for directed fishing until April 15 to limit halibut bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery.

    Current regulatory constraints limit the ability of the Aleut Corporation to achieve an economically viable AI pollock fishery, and current POP abundance levels put fishermen at risk when POP rates in excess of the 5 percent MRA are encountered and POP must be sorted and discarded with limited deck space. Fishing under this EFP will provide data about alternative fishing methods for limiting POP bycatch in the AI pollock fishery, which could potentially provide an opportunity for the Aleut Corporation to develop an economically viable AI pollock fishery while improving safety at sea and reducing the overall POP bycatch mortality.

    Exempted Fishing Permit

    On September 21, 2018, Mr. Dave Fraser and Ms. Kay Larson-Blair of the Aleut Corporation submitted an application for an EFP for 2019 through 2020 to test alternative management frameworks for limiting POP bycatch in the AI pollock fishery. The goals of the proposed 2018 EFP are as follows:

    • To the level practicable, fully prosecute the Aleut Corporation's AI pollock allocation as intended by Section 803(ad) of Public Law 108-199 while testing methods to minimize POP bycatch.

    • To limit POP bycatch mortality and waste in a fully prosecuted AI pollock fishery through full retention and accounting of POP bycatch and limiting of overall POP catch to 500 mt for this fishery by AFA CVs and non-AFA CVs less than 60 ft LOA.

    • To improve safety at sea by eliminating the need to sort POP from catch on the deck.

    • To evaluate timing and location of POP during the EFP AI pollock fishery to determine means of reducing bycatch rates.

    The experiment would be conducted on vessels selected from trawl CVs on the NMFS-approved list of vessels eligible to fish the Aleut Corporation's pollock allocation. It is anticipated that three AFA CVs and two non-AFA CVs less than 60 ft LOA would be selected to operate under the EFP in 2019. Preference would be given to vessels with additional fish location equipment, such as those equipped with a Simrad ES60 or ES70 echosounder with a 38kHz split beam transducer. Both AFA CVs and non-AFA CVs less than 60 ft LOA would carry an observer, as they are currently required to do. Fishing would be conducted with pelagic trawl gear, appropriate to each vessel's horsepower.

    No more than 500 mt of POP would be harvested under this EFP by the selected AFA CVs and non-AFA CVs less than 60 ft LOA. The 500-mt POP cap would be allocated between management areas 541 (450 mt) and 542 (50 mt). A maximum of 10,361 mt of pollock would be harvested by the participating vessels under this EFP. Fishing for pollock under this EFP would be required to cease should the pollock or POP limits be attained.

    Any salmon bycatch will be counted against the prohibited species catch (PSC) cap for the AI pollock fishery. Any incidental catch of non-pollock species will be counted against the optimum yield for that species. All catch will be retained for weighing and secondary sampling at the processing plant.

    Exemptions

    Two exemptions are necessary to conduct this experiment. First, an exemption would be necessary from MRA requirements at § 679.20(e)(ii). The participating AFA CVs and non-AFA CVs less than 60 ft LOA fishing for AI pollock under the Aleut Corporation's permit would be exempted from the 5 percent MRA limit for POP in the pollock fishery. This exemption would apply from the date the 2019 final harvest specifications are effective until April 15, 2019 and again during the same time period in 2020. Harvest specifications may be found at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/.

    Second would be an exemption from § 679.21(b)(1)(ii)(B)(4) that applies to halibut PSC bycatch management and PSC limits for rockfish trawl fisheries in the BSAI. POP is a type of rockfish. While this EFP is not targeting POP directly, allowing participating vessels to retain POP above the 5 percent MRA may put them into the range of POP in the directed POP fishery. The directed POP fishery in the AI for vessels less than 60 ft LOA does not open until April 15 to limit halibut bycatch. Because vessels fishing under this EFP would be operating before that April 15 date, those vessels would be exempt from the halibut PSC limit applicable to directed fishing for POP in the BSAI.

    Permit Conditions, Review, and Effects

    The applicant would be required to submit to NMFS an interim report of the EFP results by November 30, 2019, and a final report by November 30, 2020. The report would include all data from this experimental fishery, including the catch and position data.

    The activities that would be conducted under this EFP are not expected to have a significant impact on the human environment, as detailed in the categorical exclusion prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).

    In accordance with § 679.6, NMFS has determined that the application warrants further consideration and has forwarded the application to the Council to initiate consultation. The Council is scheduled to consider the EFP application during its December 2018 meeting, which will be held at the Hilton Hotel, Anchorage, AK. The EFP application will also be provided to the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee for review at the December Council meeting. The applicant has been invited to appear in support of the application.

    Public Comments

    Interested persons may comment on the application at the December 2018 Council meeting during public testimony or until December 11, 2018 when the 15-day comment period ends. Information regarding the meeting is available at the Council's website at http://www.npfmc.org. Copies of the application and categorical exclusion are available for review from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). Comments also may be submitted directly to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) by the end of the comment period (see DATES).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25327 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG634 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 4, 2018 through Thursday, December 6, 2018, beginning at 9 a.m. on December 4 and 8:30 a.m. on December 5 and 6.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at Hotel Viking, One Bellevue Avenue, Newport, RI 02840; telephone: (508) 747-4900; online at www.hotel1620.com.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone: (978) 465-0492; www.nefmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Tuesday, December 4, 2018

    After introductions and brief announcements, the meeting will begin with reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, NMFS's Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), liaisons from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, representatives from NOAA General Counsel and NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement, and staff from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The Council then will hear a report summarizing the mid-October meeting of the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. This will be followed by a brief update on the Council's Research Set-Aside Program Review, which is ongoing. The Small-Mesh Multispecies (Whiting) Committee Report will be next. The Council will take final action on Amendment 22 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), also known as the “Whiting Amendment.” The Council first will review public hearing comments on the amendment and then decide whether or not to adopt a limited access program and related measures for small-mesh multispecies.

    Following the lunch break, the Council will hear from its Enforcement Committee, which will provide recommendations and enforcement concerns related to: (1) The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan; (2) Atlantic cod discards; (3) the Codend Compliance Assistance Program; (4) the OMEGA Mesh Gauge; and (5) other issues. The Coast Guard will provide a short demonstration on use of the OMEGA gauge as part of this report. The Habitat Committee will be up next. During this segment, the Council will take final action on its Clam Dredge Framework, which contains alternatives to consider continued surfclam fishery access and potential mussel dredge access to the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area. As part of this report, the Enforcement Committee will present its recommendations on the framework alternatives. Following the framework action, the Council will receive an update on offshore energy activities and consult on any timely issues. The Council then will adjourn for the day. Shortly following the conclusion of Council business, NMFS staff will hold a feedback session in the Council's meeting room to solicit suggestions for improving communication and utilization of results achieved by the Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Grant Program.

    Wednesday, December 5, 2018

    The Council will begin the day with a NMFS presentation on the S-K Grant Program, which will include: An overview of the program; information on priority setting, funding, and proposal reviews; and an explanation of the decision-making process for issuing awards. The Council will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the S-K program. Next, the Council will receive a presentation on a project to measure the ecological, social, economic, and governance effects of catch shares in the groundfish fishery. The presentation will include a short demonstration on the use of 14 neutral, scientific indicators that can be used to measure the effects of catch shares. Then, the Council will receive a report on the November 19, 2018 meeting of the Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel Working Group. The Groundfish Committee Report will follow. The Council will take final action on Framework Adjustment 58 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, which includes: (1) 2019 total allowable catches for shared U.S./Canada stocks of Eastern Georges Bank cod, Eastern Georges Bank haddock, and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder; (2) rebuilding plans for Georges Bank winter flounder, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank northern windowpane flounder, and ocean pout; (3) minimum size exemptions for vessels fishing in waters regulated by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO); and (4) extension of a scallop fishery provision for triggering Georges Bank yellowtail flounder accountability measures. The Groundfish Committee Report also will include: An update on Groundfish Monitoring Amendment 23; and an update on work being conducted by the Fishery Data for Stock Assessment Working Group. Next, the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will provide the Council with 2019-2020 overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for Atlantic sea scallops and 2019-2021 OFL and ABC recommendations for Atlantic herring.

    After the lunch break, members of the public will have the opportunity to speak during an open comment period on issues that relate to Council business but are not included on the published agenda for this meeting. The Council asks the public to limit remarks to 3-5 minutes. Next, the Council will hear from its Scallop Committee and take final action on Framework Adjustment 30 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP. The framework includes specifications for fishing year 2019, default specifications for 2020, and several standard default measures. Then, if available, the Council will review, discuss, and comment on NMFS's proposed rule to set Atlantic herring catch limits and other specifications for the 2019 fishing year. After that, the Council will receive a report on the Northeast Regional Coordinating Council's decisions for revising the stock assessment process and assessment scheduling. The Council then will adjourn for the day. Following the conclusion of Council business, NMFS staff will hold a second feedback session to solicit suggestions for improving communication and utilization of results achieved by the S-K Grant Program.

    Thursday, December 6, 2018

    The third day of the meeting will begin with a presentation on the Council's work on Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM). This will include two components: (1) A progress report on efforts to develop an example Fishery Ecosystem Plan (eFEP) framework for Georges Bank; and (2) a brief introduction into how Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) may be used for EBFM. Next, the Council will take final action on 2019-2021 fishing year specifications for spiny dogfish. Then, the Council will receive a report on the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology three-year review. Following this discussion, the Council will receive two whale-related reports, which will cover: (a) The October meeting of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team; and (b) the November meeting of the Ropeless Consortium. Next, the Council will receive a presentation on GARFO's Fishery Dependent Data Initiative. NMFS annually reports to the Council on efforts by GARFO and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to modernize fishery dependent data collection.

    After the lunch break, the Council will discuss and take final action on 2019 priorities for all committees and Council responsibilities. After that, the Council will discuss and make a decision on the future of its Research Steering Committee. The Council will close out the meeting with “other business.”

    Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25307 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG631 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Whiting Advisory Panel and Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hotel Viking, One Bellevue Avenue, Newport, RI 02840; telephone: (401) 847-3300.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Whiting Advisory Panel and Committee will evaluate Amendment 22 (limited access alternatives) public hearing comments and impact analyses to recommend final action to the Council at its December meeting. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25306 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; North Pacific Observer Safety and Security Survey AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Special Agent Jaclyn Smith, NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, 222 W 7th Ave., #10, Anchorage, AK 99513, 907-271-1869, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for revision of a currently approved information collection.

    NMFS certified observers are a vital part of fisheries management. Observers are deployed to collect fisheries data in the field; observers often deploy to vessels and work alongside fishers for weeks and months at a time. The work environment observers find themselves in can be challenging, especially if the observer finds themselves a target for victim type violations such as sexual harassment, intimidation, or even assault. NOAA Fisheries' Office of Law Enforcement prioritizes investigations into allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, assault and other complaints which may affect observers individually. However, it is difficult for a person to disclose if they have been a victim of a crime, and law enforcement cannot respond if no complaint is submitted. The true number of observers who have experienced victim type crimes is unknown, and the reasons why they do not report is also unclear. More information is needed to understand how many observers per year experience victim type crimes, and why they chose not to report to law enforcement.

    The Office of Law Enforcement, Alaska Division, is conducting a survey of North Pacific Observers to determine the number of observers who experienced victimizing behavior during deployments in 2018. This survey is a repeat of a voluntary survey previously conducted, and will be launched on an annual basis. The survey will also investigate the reasons that prevented observers from reporting these violations. The results of the survey will provide the Office of Law Enforcement a better understanding of how often observers are victimized, which will enable them to reallocate resources as needed, conduct more training for observers to ensure they know how to report, conduct training to ensure people understand what constitutes a victim crime, and to increase awareness of potential victimizations. Additionally, the survey results will help law enforcement understand the barriers to disclosure, so enforcement may begin to address these impediments so they no longer prevent observers from disclosure.

    II. Method of Collection

    Data will be collected on a voluntary basis, via an electronic survey to ensure anonymity. The survey will be offered to all observers who deployed in 2018 in the North Pacific Observer Program. Individual data will not be released for public use.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0759.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular (request for a revised information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25277 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG626 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 6, 2018, from 9 a.m. through 12 p.m. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for agenda details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place over webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on how to connect to the webinar by computer and by telephone will be available at: http://www.mafmc.org/ssc.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; website: www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is to review the SSC's previous overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for Atlantic surfclam for the 2019 and 2020 fishing years based on analyses and recommendations from an SSC and Northeast Fishery Science Center (NEFSC) surfclam working group. In addition, the SSC may take up any other business as necessary.

    A detailed agenda and background documents will be made available on the Council's website (www.mafmc.org) prior to the meeting.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25297 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Defense Health Board (“the Board”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Board's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., App) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The Board's charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/apex/FACAPublicAgencyNavigation.

    The Board provides the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to: A. DoD healthcare policy and program management; b. health research programs; c. requirements for the treatment and prevention of disease and injury by the DoD; d. promotion of health and wellness within the DoD and the effective and efficient delivery of high-quality health care services to DoD beneficiaries; and e. other health-related matters of special interest to the DoD, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P&R).

    The Board will be composed of no more than 19 members, who are eminent authorities in one or more of the following disciplines: Health care research/academia, infectious disease, occupational/environmental health, public health, health care policy, trauma medicine/systems, clinical health care, strategic decision making, bioethics or ethics, beneficiary representative, neuroscience, and behavioral health. Except for reimbursement of official Board-related travel and per diem, Board members serve without compensation.

    The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25252 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0096] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; High School and Beyond 2020 (HS&B:20) Base-Year Field Test Sampling and Recruitment AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0096. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, PCP, Room 9089, Washington, DC 20202-0023.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of Collection: High School and Beyond 2020 (HS&B:20) Base-Year Field Test Sampling and Recruitment.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 4,836.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,721.

    Abstract: The High School and Beyond 2020 study (HS&B:20) will be the sixth in a series of longitudinal studies at the high school level conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education. HS&B:20 will follow a nationally-representative sample of ninth grade students from the start of high school in the fall of 2020 to the spring of 2024 when most will be in twelfth grade. The study sample will be freshened in 2024 to create a nationally representative sample of twelfth-graders. A high school transcript collection and additional follow-up data collections beyond high school are also planned. The NCES secondary longitudinal studies examine issues such as students' readiness for high school; the risk factors associated with dropping out of high school; high school completion; the transition into postsecondary education and access/choice of institution; the shift from school to work; and the pipeline into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). They inform education policy by tracking long-term trends and elucidating relationships among student, family, and school characteristics and experiences. HS&B:20 will follow the Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017/18 (MGLS:2017) which followed the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort of 2011 (ECLS-K:2011), thereby allowing for the study of all transitions from elementary school through high school and into higher education and/or the workforce. HS&B:20 will include surveys of students, parents, students' math teachers, counselors, and administrators. Students will also receive assessments in mathematics and reading, and be given a 2-minute vision test and a 10-minute hearing test. This request is to conduct, beginning in January 2019, state, school district, school, and parent recruitment activities, including collection of student rosters and selection of the base-year field test sample in preparation for the HS&B:20 base-year field test, scheduled to take place in the fall of 2019. Approval for the base-year field test data collection and base-year full-scale sampling and recruitment activities will be requested in a separate submission in early 2019.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25264 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL19-8-000] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 29, 2018, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), pursuant to sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, filed proposed revisions to the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM (Operating Agreement) to amend the provisions relating to the recovery of major maintenance, inspection, and overhaul costs in the wholesale markets administered by PJM.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 19, 2018.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25287 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC19-5-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-500); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-500 (Application for License/Relicense and Exemption for Water Projects with More than 5 Megawatt Capacity).

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC19-5-000) by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-500, Application for License/Relicense and Exemption for Water Projects with More than 5 Megawatt Capacity. 1

    1 There is a pending Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket No. RM18-14-000 which proposes to make some changes to FERC-500. This notice does not reflect the proposed changes to FERC-500 due to Docket No. RM18-14.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0058

    Abstract: Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to issue licenses and exemptions to citizens of the United States, or to any corporation organized under the laws of United States or any State thereof, or to any State or municipality for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any of the streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, or upon any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States.

    FERC-500 is an application (for water projects with more than 5 megawatt capacity) for a hydropower license or exemption. FERC-500 includes certain reporting requirements in 18 CFR 4, 5, 8, 16, 141, 154.15, and 292. Depending on the type of application, it may include project description, schedule, resource allocation, project operation, construction schedule, cost, and financing; and an environmental report. After an application is filed, the Federal agencies with responsibilities under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other statutes,2 the States, Indian tribes, and other participants have opportunities to request additional studies and provide comments and recommendations.

    2 Statutes include the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (the Clean Water Act), and the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    Submittal of the FERC-500 application is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the FPA in order for the Commission to make the required finding that the proposal is economically, technically, and environmentally sound, and is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving/developing a waterway or waterways.

    Type of Respondent: Applicants for major hydropower licenses or exemptions greater than 5 MW

    Estimate of Annual Burden  3 : Applicants for licenses are required to include an estimate of their cost to prepare the license application, which would include nearly all of the reporting requirements in FERC-500. 4 Because the requirements for an exemption application are largely the same as that of a license application, the license application costs are a good estimate of the exemption application costs and of the overall burden of preparing license and exemption applications for projects greater than 5 MW.

    3 “Burden” is the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    4 Exceptions would be 18 CFR 2.19, 4.201, 4.202, 4.303, 4.35, 8.1, 8.2, 16.19, 141.15, and 292.208, none of which directly relate to preparation of a license or exemption application for a project greater than 5 MW.

    To estimate the burden, we used actual data reported by applicants for proposed projects greater than 5 MW filed in fiscal years (FY) 2016 through 2018, and averaged the reported license application costs. The results are presented in the table below.

    Fiscal year FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Number of applications (Responses) 14 8 6 Average Cost per Response $3,571,786 $3,735,714 $2,293,413 Total Burden Cost for All Applications (Responses) 50,005,004 29,885,712 13,760,478

    The average burden cost per application over the period FY 2016 through FY 2018 was approximately $3,344,686 5 . We estimate a cost (salary plus benefits) of $79/hour.6 Using this hourly cost estimate, the average burden for each application filed from FY 2016 to FY 2018 is 42,338 hours.

    5 $93,651,194 (Total burden cost from FY 2016-2018) ÷ 28 (total number of applications received from FY 2016-2018) = $3,344,686.

    6 FERC staff estimates that industry is similarly situated in terms of the hourly cost for salary plus benefits. Therefore, we are using the FERC FY 2018 hourly cost (salary plus benefits) of $79/hour.

    FERC-500 Number of respondents Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total number of responses Average burden hours & cost ($) per response Total annual burden hours & total annual cos ($)t Cost per respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 9 1 9 42,337.79 hrs.; $3,344,685.50 381,040.11 hrs.; $30,102,169.50 $3,344,685.50

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost 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 collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25288 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP17-66-000; CP17-67-000] Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline Project, proposed by Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC (collectively called Venture Global) in the above-referenced dockets. Venture Global requests authorization to construct and operate a new LNG export terminal and associated facilities along the west bank of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (LNG Terminal) and to construct and operate two new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline laterals that would connect to the LNG Terminal. The new liquefaction facilities would have a design production capacity of 20 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per annum.

    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the draft EIS, would have some adverse environmental impacts. These impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Venture Global's proposed mitigation measures and the additional measures recommended in the draft EIS.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Transportation participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.

    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following project facilities:

    LNG Terminal: Construction and operation of various liquefaction, LNG distribution, and appurtenant facilities within the boundaries of the site leased by Venture Global on the Mississippi River, including:

    ○ Six pretreatment facilities (three in each phase);

    ○ a liquefaction plant with 18 integrated single-mixed refrigerant blocks and support facilities (otherwise referred to as liquefaction blocks or blocks) to be constructed in two phases (nine blocks in each phase);

    ○ four 200,000-cubic-meter aboveground LNG storage tanks;

    ○ three LNG loading docks within a common LNG berthing area; and

    ○ air-cooled electric power generation facilities.

    • Pipeline System: Construction and operation of two parallel 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipelines that share one right-of-way corridor for the majority of their respective routes and appurtenant aboveground facilities, including the following:

    ○ 15.1-mile-long Southwest Lateral Tennessee Gas Pipeline, LLC (TGP) Pipeline;

    ○ 11.7-mile-long Southwest Lateral Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (TETCO) Pipeline;

    ○ TGP metering and regulation station; and

    ○ TETCO metering and regulation station.

    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General Search, and enter the docket number in the “Docket Number” field, excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP17-66 or CP17-67). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. Your comments should focus on draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 7, 2019.

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket numbers (CP17-66-000 and CP17-67-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public comment session its staff will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the draft EIS, scheduled as follows:

    Date and time Location Tuesday, December 11, 2018 (4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. CST) Belle Chasse Library, 8442 Hwy 23, Belle Chasse, Louisiana 70037, (504) 394-3570.

    The primary goal of these comment sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft EIS. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.

    The comment session is scheduled from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. CST. You may arrive at any time after 4:00 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 7:00 p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session at 6:30 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to page 2 of this notice.

    Your verbal comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.

    It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    Questions?

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: November 13, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25308 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-332-000] El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South Mainline Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the South Mainline Expansion Project, proposed by El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) in the above-referenced docket. El Paso requests authorization to construct two new natural gas compressor stations on its existing South Mainline pipeline system in Luna County, New Mexico and Cochise County, Arizona and a 17-mile, 30-inch-diameter loop line in El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, Texas.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the South Mainline Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The proposed South Mainline Expansion Project includes the following facilities:

    • A new 13,220 horsepower compressor station in Luna County, New Mexico (“Red Mountain Compressor Station”);

    • a new 13,220 horsepower compressor station in Cochise County, Arizona (“Dragoon Compressor Station”);

    • approximately 17-miles of 30-inch-outside diameter loop line extension of existing Line 1110 between milepost (MP) 174.5 and MP 191.5 in Hudspeth and El Paso counties, Texas.

    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the EA may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General Search, and enter the docket number in the “Docket Number” field, excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP18-332). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 14, 2018.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP18-332-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission may grant affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25285 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP19-1-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Palmyra to Ogden A-Line Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Palmyra to Ogden A-Line Project involving abandonment by sale of facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) to DKM Enterprises, LLC (DKM) in Otoe and Cass counties in Nebraska, and Mills, Pottawattamie, Cass, Audubon, Guthrie, Greene, and Boone counties in Iowa. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 14, 2018.

    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 3, 2018, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP19-1-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    Northern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

    Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP19-1-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    Northern proposes to isolate and abandon by sale to DKM approximately 146.6 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline on Northern's M580A and M530A system (collectively referred to as the “A-line”) from Palmyra, Nebraska, to Ogden, Iowa. Northern indicates that DKM intends to salvage the abandoned pipeline.

    To abandon the pipeline, Northern would disconnect and cap the A-line at five interconnections where it is linked to other system facilities. Ground disturbances would be limited to one location in Otoe County, Nebraska, and four locations in Mills, Guthrie, and Boone (two locations) counties, Iowa, where the A-line would be disconnected from Northern's existing pipeline system.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    In total, the Project would affect approximately 28.8 acres of land, which includes 7.1 acres of temporary workspace, 21.6 acres of additional temporary workspace, and 0.1 acre for one access road. Generally, Northern would use 100-foot-wide workspaces centered over the existing A-line right-of-way at each interconnect.

    The EA Process

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the abandonment of project facilities under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • water resources and wetlands;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • threatened and endangered species;

    • cultural resources;

    • land use;

    • air quality and noise;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts

    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary 2 and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    2 For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.4 Commission staff will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). The EA for this project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number in the “Docket Number” field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP19-1). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25286 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-214-001.

    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Erata Compliance Tariff Filing RP19-214 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/1/18.

    Accession Number: 20181101-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-283-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Expired Agreements from Tariff eff 11-13-2018 to be effective 11/13/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20181113-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-284-000.

    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Supply Shortage OFO Filing to be effective 11/27/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20181113-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-285-000.

    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing MNUS IT Refund Report.

    Filed Date: 11/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20181113-5303.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25269 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-132-001.

    Applicants: Linde Energy Services, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Change in Circumstances of Linde Energy Services, Inc.

    Filed Date: 11/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20181109-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-164-000.

    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.

    Description: Supplement to September 27, 2018 Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et. al. of Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.

    Filed Date: 11/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20181113-5306.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1946-011; ER10-1333-011; ER13-2387-005; ER15-190-008; ER17-543-005; ER18-1343-002.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Beckjord, LLC, Duke Energy Commercial Enterprises, Inc., Duke Energy Renewable Services, LLC, Duke Energy SAM, LLC, Carolina Solar Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Duke MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 11/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20181113-5326.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1442-002.

    Applicants: Axiall, LLC.

    Description: Second Supplement to June 28, 2018 Updated Market Power Analysis for Central Region of Axiall, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20181113-5316.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-333-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, SA No. 4737; Queue No. AC1-025 (consent) to be effective 5/31/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20181113-5302.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-334-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised and Restated Prescott PSA to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/13/18.

    Accession Number: 20181113-5304.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-335-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE and NEPOOL; Consolidation of FCM Parameter Review to be effective 1/14/2019.

    Filed Date: 11/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20181114-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-336-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1977R12 Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative NITSA NOA to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20181114-5041.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-337-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation: SA 782, Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Bozeman to be effective 11/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20181114-5043.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-338-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits Interconnection Agreement SA No. 4562 to be effective 10/26/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20181114-5060.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-339-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-11-14_SA 3204 Pine River Wind-Wolverine Power FCA (J589) to be effective 10/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 11/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20181114-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-340-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: LVE Const Agmt for Threemile Knoll-Hooper Springs to be effective 1/14/2019.

    Filed Date: 11/14/18.

    Accession Number: 20181114-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25270 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AC19-22-000] Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 13, 2018, Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. filed a request for approval to use Account 439, authorized by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comments: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 4, 2018.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25289 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1218] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before January 22, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1218.

    Title: Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's Rules.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 11 respondents and 11 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours (15 minutes).

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 3 hours.

    Total Annual Cost Burden: None.

    Obligation to Respond: Required in order to monitor regulatory compliance. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 4, 303, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

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

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The information collection imposes a notification requirement on certain small cable systems that become ineligible for exemption from the requirement to carry high definition broadcast signals in HD (adopted in FCC 15-65). In particular, the information collection requires that, beginning December 12, 2016, at the time a small cable system utilizing the HD carriage exemption offers any programming in HD, the system must give notice that it is offering HD programming to all broadcast stations in its market that are carried on its system. Cable operators also must keep records of such notification. This information collection requirement allows affected broadcast stations to monitor compliance with the requirement that cable operators transmit high definition broadcast signals in HD.

    Federal Communications Commission. Cecilia Sigmund, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25321 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0937] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before January 22, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0937.

    Title: Establishment of a Class A Television Service, MM Docket No. 00-10.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion and quarterly reporting requirements.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 380 respondents; 9,850 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.017 hours-52 hours.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 307, 308, 309 and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 172,087 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,851,000.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: On November 29, 1999, the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA), Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. Appendix I at pp. 1501A-594-1501A-598 (1999), codified at 47 U.S.C. 336(f), was enacted. That legislation provided that a low power television (LPTV) licensee should be permitted to convert the secondary status of its station to the new Class A status, provided it can satisfy certain statutorily-established criteria by January 28, 2000. The CBPA directs that Class A licensees be subject to the same license terms and renewal standards as full-power television licenses and that Class A licensees be accorded primary status as television broadcasters as long as they continue to meet the requirements set forth in the statute for a qualifying low power station.

    For those stations that met the certification deadline, the CBPA sets out certain certification procedures, prescribes the criteria to maintain a Class A license, and outlines the interference protection Class A stations must provide to analog, digital, LPTV and TV translator stations.

    The CBPA directs that Class A stations must comply with the operating requirements for full-service television broadcast stations in order to maintain Class A status. Therefore, beginning on the date of its application for a Class A license and thereafter, a station must be “in compliance” with the Commission's operating rules for full-service television stations, contained in 47 CFR part 73.

    Federal Communications Commission. Cecilia Sigmund, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25322 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1044] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 22, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1044.

    Title: Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 01-338 and WC Docket No. 04-313, Order on Remand.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

    Number of Respondents and Reponses: 645 respondents; 645 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,160 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit or disclose confidential information. However, in certain circumstances, respondents may voluntarily choose to submit confidential information pursuant to applicable confidentiality rules.

    Needs and Uses: In the Order on Remand, the Commission imposed unbundling obligations in a more targeted manner where requesting carriers have undertaken their own facilities-based investments and will be using UNEs (unbundled network elements) in conjunction with self-provisioned facilities. The Commission also eliminated the subdelegation of authority to state commissions adopted in the previous order. Prior to the issuance of the Order, the Commission sought comment on issues relating to combinations of UNEs, called “enhanced extended links” (EELs), in order to effectively tailor access to EELs to those carriers seeking to provide significant local usage to end users. In the Order, the Commission adopted three specific service eligibility criteria for access to EELs in accordance with Commission rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Cecilia Sigmund, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25319 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1050] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before January 22, 2019. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email: [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1050.

    Title: Section 97.303, Frequency Sharing Requirements.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000 respondents; 5,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes (.33 hours).

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 302(a) and 303(c), and (f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,650 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: The Commission established a recordkeeping procedure in section 97.303(s) that required that amateur operator licensees using other antennas must maintain in their station records either manufacturer data on the antenna gain or calculations of the antenna gain.

    The amateur radio service governed by 47 CFR part 97 of the Commission's rules, provides spectrum for amateur radio service licensees to participate in a voluntary noncommercial communication service which provides emergency communications and allows experimentation with various radio techniques and technologies to further the understanding of radio use and the development of technologies. The information collection is used to calculate the effective radiated power (ERP) that the station is transmitting to ensure that ERP does not exceed 100 W PEP.

    Federal Communications Commission.

    Cecilia Sigmund, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25320 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION RIN 3064-ZA04 Request for Information on Small-Dollar Lending AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for Information.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC is seeking comments and information from interested parties on small-dollar lending, including steps that can be taken to encourage FDIC-supervised financial institutions (banks) to offer small-dollar credit products that are responsive to customers' needs and that are underwritten and structured prudently and responsibly.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-ZA04, by any of the following methods:

    Agency website: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency website.

    Email: [email protected] Include the RIN 3064-ZA04 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street NW, building (located on F Street) on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    Public Inspection: All comments received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/—including any personal information provided—for public inspection. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226 by telephone at (877) 275-3342 or (703) 562-2200.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Robin, Section Chief, (202) 898-6818, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FDIC is responsible for maintaining stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system by insuring deposits, examining and supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection, making large and complex financial institutions resolvable, and managing receiverships. As discussed further below, the FDIC is soliciting public comments on issues related to small-dollar lending by banks. Specifically, we are requesting information on the consumer demand for small-dollar credit products, the supply of small-dollar credit products currently offered by banks, and whether there are steps the FDIC could take to better enable banks to provide such products to consumers to meet demand.

    Overview of Request for Information

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is issuing this request for information (RFI) to seek public input on steps the FDIC could take to encourage FDIC-supervised institutions to offer responsible, prudently underwritten small-dollar credit products that are economically viable and address the credit needs of bank customers. This effort is consistent with the FDIC's commitment to increase transparency, improve efficiency, support innovation, and provide opportunities for public feedback on issues affecting FDIC-supervised institutions and their customers.

    The FDIC recognizes the important role small-dollar credit products can play, as part of the spectrum of credit and savings products offered by banks, in helping consumers meet the need for credit for purposes such as addressing cash-flow imbalances, unexpected expenses, or income volatility. Recent research from the FDIC indicates that 20 percent of U.S. households reported that their income varied “somewhat” or “a lot” from month-to-month.1 Moreover, according to research from the Federal Reserve, if faced with a hypothetical $400 expense, 4 in 10 U.S. adults in 2017 would borrow, sell something, or not be able to pay.2

    1 “2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, October 2018.

    2 “Report on the Economic Well Being of U.S. Households in 2017,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 2018.

    Given the unique role banks play in the communities they serve and the benefits to consumers of having a relationship with an insured financial institution, banks are well-positioned to address the credit needs of their customers in a responsible manner. While some banks currently offer small-dollar credit products, there may be additional opportunities for banks to address unmet demand for consumer credit in their communities. For example, research from the FDIC suggests that in 2017, 14.8 million or nearly 13 percent of U.S. households may have had unmet demand for small-dollar credit from banks. A majority of these households reported staying current on bills in the prior year. Although the vast majority (nearly 9 in 10) of these households had a bank account, fewer than one in three applied for credit from a bank.3 Some of these households may present opportunities for banks to extend credit in the form of small-dollar loans.

    3 “2017 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households,” Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, October 2018.

    Accordingly, the FDIC invites public comments on the full spectrum of issues related to the role banks can play in offering small-dollar credit, obstacles—regulatory and non-regulatory—that banks currently encounter in offering such credit, and whether there are steps the FDIC could take to enable banks to better serve this market.

    Suggested Topics for Commenters

    The FDIC encourages comments from all interested members of the public, including but not limited to insured depository institutions, other financial institutions or companies, individual depositors and consumers, consumer groups, trade associations, and other members of the financial services industry. Please be as specific as possible to allow the FDIC to evaluate comments more effectively. In particular, the FDIC requests input on the following more specific topics and questions:

    Consumer Demand

    1. To what extent is there an unmet consumer demand for small-dollar credit products offered by banks?

    2. To what extent do banks currently offer small-dollar credit products to meet consumer demand?

    3. To what extent and in what ways do entities outside the banking sector currently satisfy the consumer demand for small-dollar credit products?

    4. What data, information, or other factors should the FDIC consider in assessing the consumer demand for small-dollar credit products?

    Benefits and Risks

    5. What are the potential benefits and risks to banks associated with offering responsible, prudently underwritten small-dollar credit products?

    6. What are the potential benefits and risks to consumers associated with bank-offered small-dollar credit products?

    7. What are the key ways that banks offering small-dollar loan products should manage or mitigate risks for banks and risks for consumers?

    8. What are the potential benefits and risks related to banks partnering with third parties to offer small-dollar credit?

    9. What steps could the FDIC take, consistent with its statutory authority, to encourage banks to develop and offer responsible, prudently underwritten small-dollar credit products?

    Challenges

    10. Are there any legal, regulatory, or supervisory factors that prevent, restrict, discourage, or disincentivize banks from offering small-dollar credit products? If so, please explain.

    11. Are there any operational, economic, marketplace, or other factors that prevent, restrict, discourage, or disincentivize banks from offering small-dollar credit products? If so, please explain.

    12. What factors may discourage consumers from seeking responsible, prudently underwritten small-dollar credit products offered by banks?

    Product Features

    13. Are there specific product features or characteristics of small-dollar loan products that are key to meeting the credit needs of consumers while maintaining prudent underwriting?

    14. Are there specific product features or characteristics that are key to ensuring the economic viability to a bank of responsible, prudently underwritten small-dollar credit products?

    Innovation

    15. How can technology improve the ability of banks to offer responsible, prudently underwritten small-dollar loan products in a sustainable and cost-effective manner? Please specify the technology or technologies and the use case(s).

    16. Are there innovations that might enable banks to better assess the creditworthiness of potential small-dollar loan borrowers with limited or no credit records with a nationwide credit reporting agency?

    17. What role should the FDIC play, if any, in supporting innovations that enhance banks' abilities to offer responsible, prudently underwritten small-dollar loans? Are there specific barriers that prevent banks from implementing such technologies or innovations?

    18. How can technology be leveraged to improve consumers' experiences and reduce potential risks to consumers associated with small-dollar credit products?

    Alternatives

    19. What other products and services that supplement or complement small-dollar credit offerings should banks consider? Are there other ways that banks can help consumers address cash-flow imbalances, unexpected expenses, or income volatility besides small-dollar credit products?

    Other

    20. Are there any distinguishing characteristics of particular institutions, such as a bank's size, complexity, or business model, that the FDIC should consider, and if so how?

    21. Please provide any other comments or information that would be useful for the FDIC to consider.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on November 15, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25257 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 5, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Vicki Berkley, Brian Berkley, and Johnathan Berkley, all of Stockton, Kansas, individually, and as trustees of various family trusts; each to acquire voting shares of Stockton Bancshares, Inc. and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Solutions North Bank, both of Stockton, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 15, 2018. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25302 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 14, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Mark A. Rauzi, Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota; to become a savings and loan holding company as a result of the proposed conversion of its subsidiary, Ameriprise National Trust Bank, Minneapolis, Minnesota, into a full-service federal savings bank to be named Ameriprise Bank, FSB.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 15, 2018. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25301 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File Nos. 172 3066 and 172 3067] Creaxion Corp. and Inside Publications, LLC; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreements.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreements in these matters settle alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreements—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file comments online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write: “Creaxion Corp. and Inside Publications, LLC; File Nos. 1723066 and 1723067” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/creaxionconsent or https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/insidepublicationssettlement by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Creaxion Corp. and Inside Publications, LLC; File Nos. 1723066 and 1723067” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Mandel (202-326-2491), Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreements containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, have 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 agreements, 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 November 13, 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 December 13, 2018. Write “Creaxion Corp. and Inside Publications, LLC; File Nos. 1723066 and 1723067” 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/creaxionconsent or https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/insidepublicationssettlement 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 “Creaxion Corp. and Inside Publications, LLC; File Nos. 1723066 and 1723067” 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 December 13, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order as to Creaxion Corp. and Mark Pettit, and an agreement containing a consent order as to Inside Publications, LLC of Georgia and Christopher Korotky (“respondents”).

    The proposed consent orders (“orders”) have been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the orders and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw the orders or make them final.

    This matter involves the respondents' endorsement and advertising format practices with respect to the advertising and promotional campaign they created and implemented for FIT Organic Mosquito Repellent. The complaint alleges that the respondents violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by misrepresenting that certain endorsements reflected the independent experiences or opinions of impartial users, and by deceptively failing to disclose that certain endorsers had material connections with the endorsed product, namely that they were paid spokespersons, they were reimbursed for the cost of the product, or they owned or were employed by Creaxion, the public relations firm hired to promote the product. The complaint also alleges that the respondents violated Section 5(a) by misrepresenting that certain advertisements were independent statements and opinions of impartial publications when they actually were paid commercial advertising.

    The orders include injunctive relief that prohibits these alleged violations and fences in similar and related conduct. The provisions apply to any product or service.

    Part I prohibits misrepresenting the status of any endorser or person reviewing the product or service, including that he or she is an independent user or ordinary consumer of the product or service.

    Part II prohibits any representation about any consumer or other endorser of such product or service without disclosing, clearly and conspicuously, and in close proximity to that representation, any unexpected material connection between such endorser and any respondent, or other individual or entity affiliated with the product or service. Each order defines the terms “clearly and conspicuously” and “unexpected material connection.”

    Part III prohibits misrepresenting that paid commercial advertising is a statement or opinion from an independent or objective publisher or source.

    Part IV requires the respondents, when they use endorsers to advertise or sell a product or service, to take certain steps to make sure the endorsements comply with Parts I and II of the orders. Such steps include clearly notifying endorsers of their representation and disclosure responsibilities, creating a monitoring system to review endorsements and disclosures, and terminating any endorser who fails to comply with Parts I and II. Part V requires the respondents to distribute the orders to certain persons and submit signed acknowledgments of order receipt.

    Part VI requires the respondents to file compliance reports with the Commission, and to notify the Commission of bankruptcy filings or changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations. Part VII contains recordkeeping requirements for personnel records, advertising and marketing materials, and all records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the orders. Part VIII contains other requirements related to the Commission's monitoring of the respondents' order compliance.

    Part IX provides the effective dates of the orders, including that, with exceptions, the orders will terminate in 20 years.

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

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25255 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-19-18AG] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Assessment of the Cancer Survivorship Demonstration Project to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on November 13, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.

    CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    (a) 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;

    (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and

    (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected]. Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of notice publication.

    Proposed Project

    Assessment of the Cancer Survivorship Demonstration Project—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Under CDC's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) Request for Applications DP5-1501, the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC) funded six grantees to implement evidence-based and promising strategies to increase knowledge of cancer survivor needs, increase survivor knowledge of treatment and follow-up care, and increase provider knowledge of guidelines pertaining to treatment of cancer. Specifically, this initiative employs strategies that relate to increasing surveillance and community-clinical linkages. Through this initiative DCPC intends to help address the public health needs of cancer survivors. To facilitate evidence-informed policy making and quality improvement of federal programs, a comprehensive assessment is needed to characterize survivorship interventions and document outcomes.

    CDC is requesting a three year OMB approval to collect information needed for this assessment. The proposed information collection will focus on how each grantee has expanded their knowledge of cancer survivor needs, increased utilization of surveillance data to inform program planning by providers and coalition members, and enhanced partnerships to facilitate and broaden program reach. Data will also be collected on challenges encountered and addressed, factors that facilitated implementation, and lessons learned along the way. The information to be collected does not currently exist for organizations and entities working to improve cancer survivorship needs. The insights to be gained from this data collection will be critical to improving immediate efforts and achieving the goals of spreading and replicating strategies to improve the public health needs of cancer survivors.

    CDC plans to collect information during two cycles of the program (09/2018 and 05/2020) using a web-based Grantee survey of NCCCP DP15-1501 grantee program directors and program managers, a web-based Partner Survey of grantees' self-identified key partners (e.g., coalition members, providers, patient navigators), and semi-structured telephone interviews with NCCCP DP15-1501 grantee program directors and program managers. The data from the survey and semi-structured interviews will provide additional insight into program efforts.

    CDC is requesting OMB approval to conduct a web-based Grantee survey using Survey Gizmo to a purposive sample of one program director and one program manager in each of six grantees for a total of 12 respondents, and to conduct a web-based Partner Survey of 10 self-identified key partners in each of six grantees for a total of 60 respondents. The web-based surveys will be administered to the same respondents at two time points for a total estimated burden of eight hours for the web-based Grantee Survey and 40 hours for the web-based Partner Survey. Respondents will be asked to provide information regarding the type of respondent; their use of surveillance data to inform survivorship interventions; communication, education, and training activities to support the implementation of survivorship interventions; partnership engagement; challenges and facilitators regarding the implementation of evidence-based cancer survivorship strategies; reach of cancer survivorship interventions; and respondent background information.

    CDC is also requesting OMB approval to conduct semi-structured interviews by telephone with a purposive sample of one program director and one program manager in each of six grantees for a total of 12 respondents. The semi-structured interviews will be conducted with the same respondents at two time points for a total estimated burden of 30 hours. Respondents will be asked to provide information regarding administration of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Cancer Survivorship Module; communication, education, and training activities to support the implementation of cancer survivorship interventions; community-clinical linkage strategies to support cancer survivors, knowledge regarding best practices for survivorship care; partnership engagement; dissemination of evidence-based survivorship interventions; and recommendations for improving the implementation of evidence-based survivorship interventions.

    Information collected will be analyzed and used in aggregate to inform future efforts to support cancer survivors and to initiate evidence-informed program decisions when rolling this initiative out to all NCCCP grantees. Without this data collection, CDC will not be able to provide tailored technical assistance to its grantees and communicate program efforts. The estimated annual burden hours requested are 28.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs)
  • NCCCP Grantee Program Director Web-based Grantee survey 8 1 20/60 Semi-structured telephone interview 8 1 90/60 NCCCP Grantee Partner Web-based Partner survey 40 1 20/60
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Lead, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25275 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-19-18AFX] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Traumatic Brain Injury Disparities in Rural Areas (TBIDRA) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 7, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received two comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.

    CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    (a) 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;

    (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and

    (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected]. Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of notice publication.

    Proposed Project

    Traumatic Brain Injury Disparities in Rural Areas (TBIDRA)—New — National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a significant public health concern in the United States. Research indicates that residents of rural areas have both higher incidence and higher mortality rates from TBI than do residents of urban areas, and that the prevalence of TBI-related disability in rural geographical areas is higher than in urban and suburban areas. The obstacles healthcare providers and patients face in rural areas are vastly different from those in urban areas. There is little published research specifically related to the challenges rural providers face in TBI diagnosis and treatment, and even less examination into effective ways to address gaps in service and improve TBI outcomes. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, in a 2015 “Report to Congress on TBI in the United States,” determined that certain population groups, including residents of rural geographic areas, require special consideration when it comes to researching TBI.

    This is a New Information Collection Request for two years to collect information on challenges that rural healthcare providers face in diagnosing, treating, and managing TBI of all severities and developing a knowledge base upon which we can begin to address gaps in services to improve clinical care and TBI outcomes in rural communities. The target population for the data collection effort includes physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) in selected specialties (general or family practice, emergency medicine, pediatrics) working in direct patient care in rural and urban areas. The focus of the study is rural healthcare providers; urban healthcare providers will be included in this study to allow for comparison in identifying the distinct challenges and opportunities for rural healthcare providers. This study has two data collection methods. A web survey to gather quantitative data on the unique challenges faced by rural clinicians, and focus groups to gain deeper insight into the context supporting and/or inhibiting access to comprehensive TBI evaluation and treatment, the study will collect qualitative data through focus groups with rural clinicians.

    The total estimated annualized burden hours are 200. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs)
  • Health care providers (Primary Care Physician, Emergency Physician, Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant) TBI Provider Survey 600 1 15/60 Focus group screener 36 1 5/60 Focus group consent and questionnaire 31 1 5/60 Focus group discussion guide 31 1 85/60
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Lead, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25274 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10511, CMS-10575, and CMS-2552-10] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number __, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' website address at website address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10511 Medicare Coverage of Items and Services in FDA Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Studies-Revision of Medicare Coverage CMS-10575 Generic Clearance for the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network CMS-2552-10 Hospitals and Health Care Complex Cost Report

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Coverage of Items and Services in FDA Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Studies—Revision of Medicare Coverage; Use: Section 1862(m) of the Social Security Act (and regulations at 42 CFR Subpart B (sections 405.201-405.215) allows for payment of the routine costs of care furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in a Category A investigational device exemption (IDE) study and authorizes the Secretary to establish criteria to ensure that Category A IDE trials conform to appropriate scientific and ethical standards. Medicare does not cover the Category A device itself because Category A (Experimental) devices do not satisfy the statutory requirement that Medicare pay for devices determined to be reasonable and necessary. Medicare may cover Category B (Non-experimental) devices, and associated routine costs of care, if they are considered reasonable and necessary and if all other applicable Medicare coverage requirements are met.

    Under the current centralized review process, interested parties (such as study sponsors) that wish to seek Medicare coverage related to Category A or B IDE studies have a centralized point of contact for submission, review and determination of Medicare coverage IDE study requests. In order for CMS (or its designated entity) to determine if the Medicare coverage criteria are met, as described in our regulations, CMS (or its designated entity) must review documents submitted by interested parties or study sponsors. Such information submitted will be a FDA IDE approval letter, IDE study protocol, IRB approval letter, National Clinical Trials (NCT) number, and Supporting materials as needed. Form Number: CMS-10511 (OMB control number: 0938-1250); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profits, Not-for-Profit Institutions); Number of Respondents: 100; Total Annual Responses: 100; Total Annual Hours: 200. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Cheryl Gilbreath at 410-786-5919.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension without change of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Generic Clearance for the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network; Use: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, develops and tests innovative new payment and service delivery models in accordance with the requirements of section 1115A and in consideration of the opportunities and factors set forth in section 1115A(b)(2) of the Act. To date, CMS has built a portfolio of models (in operation or already announced) that have attracted participation from a broad array of health care providers, states, payers, and other stakeholders. During the development of models, CMS builds on ideas received from stakeholders—consulting with clinical and analytical experts, as well as with representatives of relevant federal and state agencies.

    CMS will continue to partner with stakeholders across the health care system to catalyze transformation through the use of alternative payment models. To this end, CMS launched the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network, an effort to accelerate the transition to alternative payment models, identify best practices in their implementation, collaborate with payers, providers, consumers, purchasers, and other stakeholders, and monitor the adoption of value-based alternative payment models across the health care system. A system wide transition to alternative payment models will strengthen the ability of CMS to implement existing models and design new models that improve quality and decrease costs for CMS beneficiaries.

    The information collected from LAN participants will be used by the CMS Innovation Center to potentially inform the design, selection, testing, modification, and expansion of innovative payment and service delivery models in accordance with the requirements of section 1115A, while monitoring the percentage of payments tied to alternative payment models across the U.S. health care system. In addition, the requested information will be made publically available so that LAN participants (payers, providers, consumers, employers, state agencies, and patients) can use the information to inform decision making and better understand market dynamics in relation to alternative payment models. Form Number: CMS-10575 (OMB control number: 0938-1297); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individuals; Private Sector (Business or other For-profit and Not-for-profit institutions), State, Local and Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 30,110; Total Annual Responses: 23,110; Total Annual Hours: 25,917. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Dustin Allison at 410-786-8830.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Hospitals and Health Care Complex Cost Report; Use: Under the authority of sections 1815(a) and 1833(e) of the Act, CMS requires that providers of services participating in the Medicare program submit information to determine costs for health care services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. CMS requires that providers follow reasonable cost principles under 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Act when completing the Medicare cost report. Under the regulations at 42 CFR 413.20 and 413.24, CMS defines adequate cost data and requires cost reports from providers on an annual basis. The Form CMS-2552-10 cost report is needed to determine a provider's reasonable cost incurred in furnishing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries and calculate the hospital settlement amounts. These providers, paid under the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and the outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS), may receive reimbursement outside of the PPS for hospital-specific adjustments such as Medicare reimbursable bad debts, disproportionate share, uncompensated care, direct and indirect medical education costs, and organ acquisition costs. The Form CMS-2552-10 cost report is also used for rate setting and payment refinement activities, including developing a hospital market basket. Additionally, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) uses the hospital cost report data to calculate Medicare margins, to formulate recommendations to Congress regarding the IPPS and OPPS, and to conduct additional analysis of the IPPS and OPPS. Form Number: CMS-2552-10 (OMB control number: 0938-0050); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other For-profit and Not-for-profit institutions), State, Local and Tribal Governments, Federal Government; Number of Respondents: 6,088; Total Annual Responses: 6,088; Total Annual Hours: 4,097,224. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Gail Duncan at 410-786-7278.)

    Dated: November 15, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25312 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Quarterly Performance Reporting Form.

    OMB No.: New Collection.

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Child Care, in collaboration with the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau, administers the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program, as authorized by Title V, Section 511 of the Social Security Act. The Administration for Children and Families administers the Tribal MIECHV Program while HRSA administers the State/Territory MIECHV Program. Tribal MIECHV discretionary grants support cooperative agreements to conduct community needs assessments; plan for and implement high-quality, culturally-relevant, evidence-based home visiting programs in at-risk tribal communities; establish, measure, and report on progress toward meeting performance measures in six legislatively-mandated benchmark areas; and conduct rigorous evaluation activities to build the knowledge base on home visiting among Native populations.

    The proposed data collection form is as follows: In order to continuously monitor, provide grant oversight, quality improvement guidance, and technical assistance to Tribal MIECHV grantees, ACF is seeking to collect services utilization data on a quarterly basis. The Tribal MIECHV Quarterly Data Performance Reporting Form, is made up of five categories of data—program capacity, place-based services, family engagement, staff recruitment and retention and staff vacancies. This form will be used by Tribal MIECHV grantees that receive grants under the Tribal MIECHV Program to collect data in order to determine the caseload capacity grantees are achieving, where services are being delivered, the retention and attrition of enrolled families, and the retention and attrition of program staff on a quarterly basis.

    Respondents: Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Managers. The information collection does not include direct interaction with individuals or families that receive the services.

    Annual Burden Estimates Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Tribal MIECHV Grantees Tribal MIECHV Quarterly Reporting Form 25 4 24 2,400 Total 2,400

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,400.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert A. Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25214 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3017] Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the establishment of a docket to solicit public comment on a proposed framework for regulating software applications disseminated by or on behalf of drug sponsors for use with one or more of their prescription drug products. Recognizing the opportunities for increased use of digital technology with prescription drugs, the Agency is proposing a framework that would provide prescription drug sponsors the flexibility to develop and disseminate innovative software, while maintaining appropriate Agency oversight over the sponsors' communications about their products. The framework proposed in this notice focuses not on prescription drug-use-related software itself, but rather on the output of such software that is presented to the end user. For purposes of the notice, prescription drug-use-related software refers to software disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor that accompanies one or more of the sponsor's prescription drugs (including biological drug products). Software that is developed for use with prescription drugs but is not disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor is not addressed in this proposal. The proposed framework is being issued for discussion purposes only and is not a draft guidance. This document is not intended to communicate FDA's proposed (or final) regulatory expectations but is instead meant to seek early input from groups and individuals outside the Agency prior to development of a draft guidance.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments by January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of January 22, 2019. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3017 for “Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Wheeler, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-0151, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA recognizes that digital health has the potential to offer new opportunities to improve patient care, and is working to promote responsible development in digital health.1 There are currently many mobile applications (apps) available to consumers for a variety of health-related uses—such as tracking drug ingestion, monitoring certain medical conditions that require prescription drug medication, or providing information on how to use a drug—with more under development. Drug sponsors developing or obtaining rights to market software for use with one or more of their prescription drug products have approached FDA seeking clarity regarding the regulatory status of such software, referred to herein as prescription drug-use-related software. In considering digital health and its application to the use of prescription drugs, the Agency is evaluating how FDA authorities apply when such software is disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor for use with one or more of that sponsor's prescription drugs.2

    1 For more information on medical devices and digital health, see the FDA Medical Devices Digital Health web page available at: https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/default.htm.

    2 For the purposes of this notice, all references to drugs or drug products include human drug products, including biological products, regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), unless otherwise specified.

    The proposed framework described in this notice is intended to align with ongoing Agency initiatives and foster innovation while ensuring sponsors' communications are consistent with applicable prescription drug labeling requirements. For purposes of this notice, “prescription drug-use-related software” refers to software disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor that accompanies one or more of the sponsor's prescription drugs, including biological drug products. The material presented to the end user of the prescription drug-use-related software (including a patient, caregiver, or healthcare professional) constitutes the output. This includes, for example, screen displays created by the software, whether static or dynamic, as well as sounds or audio messages. For purposes of this notice, FDA is focused on the output of prescription drug-use-related software. Because, as used in this notice, “prescription drug-use-related software” refers to software disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor, this proposed framework would not apply to third-party software developers who independently develop or disseminate software for use with prescription drugs.

    The proposed framework is designed to take a risk-based approach to prescription drug-use-related software. Under this approach, it is anticipated that in most cases, the output of such software will not require review by FDA prior to dissemination. This proposed framework is being issued for discussion purposes only and is not a draft guidance. This document is not intended to communicate FDA's proposed (or final) regulatory expectations but is instead meant to seek early input from groups and individuals outside the Agency (21 CFR 10.115(g)(1)). FDA expects to issue a draft guidance after considering the comments submitted in response to this notice that will convey FDA's proposed approach and recommendations regarding prescription drug use related software and output.

    Software used in digital health products may have distinct functions. Whether software is a device is determined by Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and may depend upon the software's functions.3 The focus of this proposed framework is not on whether the software is a device. While FDA anticipates that some prescription drug-use-related software will meet the definition of a device, other prescription drug-use-related software will not meet this definition. This proposed framework does not alter the regulatory framework for devices, but focuses on the output of software disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor for use with one or more of its prescription drug(s).

    3 The term “software function” is a distinct purpose of the product, which could be the intended use or a subset of the intended use of the product. For example, a software product with an intended use to analyze data has one function: analysis. A product with an intended use to store, transfer, and analyze data has three functions: (1) Storage, (2) transfer, and (3) analysis. A software function may be its visual output (e.g., the software function is intended to graphically display blood pressure values) or a software function may not have a visual output (e.g., the software function is intended to transfer blood pressure values from one device to another).

    Regardless of whether a software function meets the definition of a device, or is a device that falls within an FDA enforcement discretion policy related to software as a device,4 under this proposed framework, only the output of the software disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor for use with one or more of the drug sponsor's prescription drugs would be treated as drug labeling.

    4 See “Changes to Existing Medical Software Policies Resulting from Section 3060 of the 21st Century Cures Act: Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff,” available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM587820.pdf and “Clinical and Patient Decision Support Software: Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff,” available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM587819.pdf.

    A. Drug Labeling

    Under the proposed framework, prescription drug-use-related software output would be regulated as labeling because it “accompanies” a specific drug. Software output that does not accompany a specific drug would not be regulated as labeling unless its categorization changes, such as if a drug sponsor licenses software originally disseminated by an independent third party and then disseminates the software for use in conjunction with the sponsor's drug.

    Section 201(m) (21 U.S.C. 321(m)) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) defines “labeling” as all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers or accompanying such article. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the language “accompanying such article” in the labeling definition is interpreted broadly to include materials that supplement or explain an article. No physical attachment between the materials and the article is necessary; rather, “it is the textual relationship between the items that is significant” (Kordel v. United States, 355 U.S. 345, 350 (1948)). In evaluating whether materials accompany a product, Kordel also considered whether the drug product and the materials relating to the drug product had a “common origin and common destination” and whether they were part of an integrated distribution program (Id. at 348).

    FDA generally recognizes two broad categories of labeling for drugs: (1) FDA-required labeling and (2) promotional labeling. For prescription drugs and biological products, FDA-required labeling is the labeling, drafted by the manufacturer, that is reviewed and approved by FDA as part of a new drug application (NDA), an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), or a biologics license application (BLA), including supplemental applications (21 CFR 314.50(c)(2), 314.94(a)(8), and 601.2(a)). It includes the information that is essential for a provider to make an informed decision about the risks and benefits of prescribing the drug for a patient and the information needed to safely and effectively use the drug. Most changes to such drug labeling require review and approval by FDA.

    In contrast, promotional labeling is generally any labeling other than FDA-required labeling that is devised for promotion of the product. Promotional labeling may have other functions in addition to promotion. Promotional labeling can include printed, audio, or visual matter descriptive of a drug that is disseminated by or on behalf of a drug's manufacturer, packer, or distributor (21 CFR 202.1(l)(2)).

    Promotional labeling is not approved by FDA in advance of dissemination. Rather, applicants must submit to FDA's Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) or Advertising and Promotional Labeling Branch (APLB), as appropriate, “labeling or advertising devised for promotion” of a drug product at the time of initial dissemination or publication of such promotional labeling or advertisement (21 CFR 314.81(b)(3)(i) and 601.12(f))). FDA anticipates that under this proposed framework, most forms of prescription drug-use-related software output would be considered promotional labeling and thus would only be required to be submitted at the time of initial dissemination pursuant to these existing regulations. The submission of promotional materials to OPDP or APLB at time of initial dissemination by drug sponsors is a longstanding requirement applicable to all communications that are considered promotional labeling, regardless of the content of those communications or the medium used for distribution. Therefore, such prescription drug-use-related software output would be subject to the same regulations as other promotional materials disseminated by or on behalf of the drug sponsor, such as patient brochures and detail pieces.

    Last year, drug sponsors submitted over 100,000 promotional pieces to OPDP at the time of initial dissemination. FDA employs a risk-based approach to review these materials. For the vast majority of sponsors, there are no further interactions with FDA about a piece after it is submitted. Sponsors can also avail themselves of the voluntary advisory comment process and receive FDA comments before disseminating a proposed promotional labeling piece.5 As discussed herein, for certain prescription drug use-related software output, the Agency will recommend under the proposed framework that a sponsor use the voluntary advisory comment process prior to dissemination.

    5 See 21 CFR 202.1(j)(4). For drug products being considered for accelerated approval, unless otherwise informed by the Agency, applicants must submit to the Agency for consideration during the preapproval review period copies of all promotional materials, including promotional labeling as well as advertisements, intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval. After 120 days following marketing approval, unless otherwise informed by the Agency, the applicant must submit promotional materials at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination of the labeling or initial publication of the advertisement (21 CFR 314.550; 21 CFR 601.45).

    B. Software as a Medical Device

    Following enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-146), which amended the FD&C Act by excluding certain software functions from the statutory device definition in newly added section 520(o) (21 U.S.C. 360j(o)), FDA continues to develop its digital health device policies.6 For example, FDA has issued draft guidance to explain its proposed interpretation of section 520(o)(1)(E) of the FD&C Act, which excludes certain clinical decision support software functions from the device definition in section 201(h) of the FD&C Act.7 Clinical decision support software is intended for use by healthcare providers. In that guidance, FDA also proposes to adopt an enforcement discretion policy for applicable device requirements for certain patient decision support software functions intended for patients and caregivers who are not healthcare professionals.8

    6 FDA has issued several software-related draft guidances in this effort. These guidance documents can be found at Guidances with Digital Health Content, https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/ucm562577.htm.

    7 See “Clinical and Patient Decision Support Software: Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff,” available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM587819.pdf. When finalized, this guidance will represent FDA's current thinking on the topics it addresses.

    8 Patient decision support software is not excluded from the device definition by section 520(o) of the FD&C Act.

    The proposed framework for prescription drug-use-related software outlined in this notice, if adopted, would not impact FDA's regulation of a stand-alone software function that does not accompany a prescription drug (e.g., a software function that uses complex algorithms to analyze a skin lesion to determine whether it contains cancerous cells or blood establishment computer software and accessories used in the manufacture of blood and blood components). If, however, software that is a device is disseminated by or on behalf of a sponsor of a prescription drug for use with that drug, it may be subject to regulation under drug, biologic, and device authorities, as appropriate. For example, when prescription drug-use-related software meets the definition of a device because of its function, it would be subject to regulation as a device and its output may also constitute drug labeling. Additionally, such prescription drug-use-related software would constitute a combination product if use of the software and drug together meet the definition of combination product under 21 CFR 3.2(e) (§ 3.2(e)). The proposed framework takes into consideration existing Agency policy for the regulation of software to ensure efficient, coordinated review in instances when prescription drug-use-related software is reviewed by the Agency as a device. As noted above, this proposed framework does not apply to software developed by companies or individuals who are unaffiliated with the drug sponsor, even if the developer's intention is for the software to be used with one or more prescription drugs. This proposed framework only applies to the output of such software when the software is disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor specifically for use with one or more of the sponsor's prescription drugs.

    II. FDA's Proposed Framework for Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software Output

    This section outlines FDA's proposed framework for oversight of prescription drug-use-related software output, including distinguishing when information about the output may be included in FDA-required labeling and when the output would be considered promotional labeling, as well as the Agency's expectations for submissions of each type of labeling. FDA is establishing this docket to solicit input from stakeholders on this proposed framework, as well as on the list of specific questions in section III. FDA solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed framework described in this notice, including the examples used to illustrate the proposal.

    A. Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software Output as Labeling for a Prescription Drug

    Prescription drug-use-related software may be developed by or on behalf of a sponsor for use with the sponsor's prescription drug or drugs, or could be software widely available from a third party that a sponsor adapts for use with the sponsor's prescription drug or drugs. Although software with similar properties may be available from other sources, it is only when a sponsor disseminates such software for use with its prescription drug or drugs that the sponsor would be subject to this proposed framework. For example, if software to measure physical activity is branded with the name of a drug indicated to alleviate pain from osteoarthritis and is disseminated by or on behalf of the drug sponsor to patients to allow them to record their degree of physical functioning while taking the drug, the software output may be considered prescription drug use-related software and be regulated as drug labeling, even if its functionality does not meet the definition of a device. Other examples of software that could be prescription drug-use-related software, if disseminated by or on behalf of a prescription drug sponsor, might include the following:

    • Software branded with a drug name that a sponsor intends for patients to use to record and track their use of the sponsor's drug with a mobile application (app). Such an app may allow a patient to share these data with a caregiver or healthcare provider.

    • Software that is designed by a drug sponsor for its specific drug and enables a healthcare provider to enter dosing instructions for a sponsor's prescription drug product for a patient that the patient can retrieve through this software. For example, an interactive app that could be programmed by the provider to give the patient information on how to adjust the insulin doses for a specific type of insulin based on blood glucose levels (i.e., an electronic sliding scale).

    • Software designed by a drug sponsor to communicate with a device in a drug-led, drug-device combination product. For example, an app that communicates with a device that is embedded in an oral tablet of a specific drug to automatically record when the tablet has been ingested by the patient.

    As stated above, the material presented to the end user of the prescription drug-use-related software (including a patient, caregiver, or healthcare professional) constitutes the output. This includes, for example, screen displays created by the software, whether static or dynamic, as well as sounds or audio messages. Examples of prescription drug-use-related software output might include the following:

    • For software that a sponsor disseminates to patients to record and track their prescription drug use with an app, the prescription drug-use-related software output would include the screen display where patients can enter a record of their ingestion of the drug and see the records of their ingestion over time.

    • For software that a sponsor disseminates to patients taking its drug to record not only when they took the drug but also activity levels or symptoms related to their disease, the prescription drug-use-related software output would include the screen display where patients can enter their symptoms or view a summary of their activity or symptoms (e.g., a graphic representation of steps per day). If the software receives input directly from a separate device (e.g., a step counter or blood pressure monitor), the prescription drug-use-related software output would also include the display of such information (e.g., step count or blood pressure measurements).

    • For software that a sponsor disseminates to healthcare providers to enter dosing instructions for a sponsor'[s drug that can be viewed through an app, the prescription drug-use-related software output would include the screen display of dosing instructions that the patient can retrieve through the app.

    • For software that is branded with a cholesterol-lowering drug name and provides a risk calculator to assist healthcare providers in deciding when to prescribe that medication and how to calculate the appropriate dose, the prescription drug-use-related software output would include the screen display of the risk calculator. While such an app would likely not be a device, the communication by the sponsor of information about its drug would make the software's output drug labeling under this proposed framework.

    • For software a sponsor disseminates to patients to communicate information from an embedded device that tracks drug ingestion to an app, the prescription drug-use-related software output would include screen displays that show the information on drug ingestion. In addition, if the app provides alerts (e.g., a dose is registered as ingested) or reminders (e.g., it reminds the patient to take their medication), these messages would also be considered prescription drug-use-related software output. If the alert or reminder includes sounds, vibrations, or an audio message, these would also be considered prescription drug-use-related software output.

    Under the proposed framework, the output of prescription drug-use-related software constitutes drug labeling because it accompanies a drug, for example by explaining how to use the drug (e.g., by reminding patients when it is time for them to take the drug), or by supplementing the use of the drug (e.g., by enabling a physician to provide dosing modification instructions to a patient). Prescription drug-use-related software output also shares a common origin and destination with the drug with which the software is to be used—it is disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor to the ultimate end user—and the drug and software are part of an integrated distribution program.

    As discussed below, information about prescription drug-use-related software output may be included in FDA-required labeling or constitute promotional labeling, depending on how the output is used with the sponsor's prescription drug.

    B. Information About Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software Output That May Be Included in FDA-Required Labeling

    FDA expects that, generally, information about prescription drug-use-related software output may be included in FDA-required labeling in two situations: (1) Where the drug sponsor demonstrates to FDA that there is substantial evidence of an effect on a clinically meaningful outcome as a result of the use of the prescription drug-use-related software or (2) where the prescription drug-use-related software provides a function or information that is essential to one or more intended uses of a drug-led, drug-device combination product of which such software is a device constituent part or an element of a device constituent part.

    In the first situation, where a sponsor demonstrates through substantial evidence (from one or more adequate and well-controlled investigations, as necessary) that the use of software with a drug results in a clinically meaningful improvement compared to using the drug alone, and the sponsor chooses to submit such evidence as part of a drug application, information about the prescription drug-use-related software output would be included in FDA-required labeling (e.g., prescribing information, medication guide, or instructions for use). In this scenario, evidence might consist of a demonstration of improvement in a clinical outcome or a validated surrogate endpoint that predicts a change in a clinical outcome. For example, evidence might be developed that shows that use of prescription drug-use-related software with a drug improves patient compliance and thus improves blood levels of the validated endpoint 9 hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) compared to drug use alone. Reductions in HbA1c directly reflect improvement in glycemic control. Therefore, if there is substantial evidence that the use of a dose-tracking or reminder app with an antidiabetic drug results in a reduction in HbA1c compared to taking the drug without using the app, such evidence would be sufficient to support a labeling claim and the prescription drug-use-related software and its output would be described in the FDA-required drug labeling, if the sponsor chooses to submit such evidence as part of a drug application.10

    9https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK453484/?report=reader.

    10 If the prescription drug-use-related software meets the device definition and, according to its labeling, is intended for use with an approved individually specified drug, where both the software and drug are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect, then the software and drug together may constitute a “cross-labeled” combination product (see § CFR 3.2(e)(3) and (4)).

    When a sponsor develops clinical evidence from adequate and well-controlled investigations regarding the use of prescription drug-use-related software with a previously approved drug and the sponsor would like to include this information in FDA-required labeling, under this proposed framework, we would expect the sponsor to submit the information to the Agency as a new original application for review. The sponsor should work with the appropriate review division within FDA in developing the submission.

    Under the second situation described above, the prescription drug-use-related software is software that is part of a system comprising a device constituent part or is itself a device constituent part of a prescription drug-led, drug-device combination product, and such software provides a function or information that is essential to one or more intended uses of that drug-led, drug-device combination product. In that case, if such software meets the device definition, the software would be considered part of the device that is a constituent part of the combination product and would be regulated as such.11 For example, CDRH has cleared an ingestible event marker (IEM) designed to communicate a time-stamped confirmation of IEM device ingestion via volume conduction communication, also known as intrabody communication, with an external patch (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/K113070.pdf). Software can be used to interact with the external patch to organize and display the information about ingestion for a patient, provider, or both. CDER recently approved Abilify MyCite, which is a drug-led, drug-device combination product comprised of aripiprazole tablets embedded with this IEM. The IEM is intended to track drug ingestion, and patients can opt to share these data with their healthcare providers. The software program that communicates with the patch, which gathers the information from the IEM, is essential to allow the patient (or, at the patient's election, the healthcare provider) to review the data collected by the IEM about ingestion. In this example, information about that function of the software was included in the FDA-required drug labeling because that function is essential for the combination product to achieve one of its intended uses—tracking ingestion of the drug.

    11 If the software being used as prescription drug-use-related software does not meet the definition of a device (for example, because it is clinical decision support software that is excluded from the device definition by section 520(o) of the FD&C Act) and is not an element of a system that comprises a device, then the regulated product may not be a “combination product” under § 3.2(e), because there is no “device” constituent part. In such a case, the regulated product would be a drug product, but information about such software could still be included in the FDA-required labeling if there is substantial evidence of an effect on a clinically meaningful outcome as a result of the use of the software with the drug product.

    In both cases, the software that will be used with the prescription drug will be developed prior to the marketing of the drug or combination product with the software. During the software development phase, the software could be regulated as a device, but under the proposed framework, FDA-required drug labeling regulations (which apply to the sponsor of the drug or combination product) would not apply until the drug or combination product was approved for distribution and disseminated by or on behalf of the drug sponsor.

    C. Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software Output That Constitutes Promotional Labeling

    Under this proposed framework, when information about prescription drug-use-related software output is not included in FDA-required labeling, the output would be considered promotional labeling for the sponsor's prescription drug when the software is disseminated by or on behalf of the drug's sponsor. Under FDA's postmarket reporting regulations, drug sponsors must submit to FDA “labeling or advertising devised for promotion” of a drug at the time of initial dissemination or publication of such promotional labeling or advertisement (§ 314.81(b)(3)(i)). Prescription drug-use-related software output that is not included in FDA-required labeling is devised, at least in part, to promote use of a sponsor's prescription drug. For example, such output would likely display the name of the drug and may be marketed as part of an integrated system to encourage use of the drug over a competing product. While prescription drug-use-related software output that promotes a prescription drug may also serve additional purposes, such as providing electronic reminders or other information about the prescription drug or the disease it is intended to treat, it is nonetheless devised, at least in part, to promote the use of the sponsor's prescription drug.

    Under this proposed framework, prescription drug-use-related software output that constitutes promotional labeling would be submitted to FDA by drug sponsors at the time of initial dissemination using Form FDA 2253 (“Transmittal of Advertisements and Promotional Labeling for Drugs for Human Use”), in the same way that drug sponsors currently submit their other promotional materials. Each submission of prescription drug-use-related software output would include screenshots or other appropriate representations of what the user will experience, and must be accompanied by a completed Form FDA 2253 and a copy of the drug's current professional labeling (§§ 314.81(b)(3)(i) and 601.12(f)(4)).12 Updates should be submitted to FDA at the time of initial dissemination only when an update to such software results in changes to the output experienced by the user. Software updates, such as security patches and other software updates that do not alter the output, would not need to be resubmitted. This approach will provide drug sponsors the flexibility to innovate and to disseminate prescription drug-use-related software without prior FDA approval.

    12 See draft guidance entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic and Non-Electronic Format-Promotional Labeling and Advertising Materials for Human Prescription Drugs,” available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM443702.pdf. When final, this guidance will represent FDA's current thinking on this topic. Form FDA 2253 is available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM083570.pdf. The Instructions for Form FDA 2253 is available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM375154.pdf.

    In some cases, there may be uncertainty regarding whether the output of prescription drug-use-related software is consistent with FDA-required labeling. In order to help evaluate whether a sponsor's communication is consistent with FDA-required labeling, FDA recently published a guidance entitled “Medical Product Communications That Are Consistent With the FDA-Required Labeling—Questions and Answers.” 13 That guidance explains that, in evaluating whether a product communication is consistent with the FDA-required labeling for that product, among other factors, FDA will evaluate whether product communications “increase the potential for harm to health relative to the information reflected in the FDA-required labeling.”

    13 See “Medical Product Communications That Are Consistent With the FDA-Required Labeling—Questions and Answers, Guidance for Industry,” available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM537130.pdf.

    FDA anticipates that, in general, most uses of prescription drug-use-related software output would not lead to an increase in the potential for harm to health for the user. For example, an app that a sponsor makes available that allows patients to track signs and symptoms or reminds patients to take an upcoming dose, but does not instruct them to alter their dose or intake of a drug, would not be expected to increase risks associated with use of the drug provided it functions as intended. FDA believes use of such prescription drug-use-related software output poses a comparable risk to other promotional labeling currently in use that are intended to help patients take their drugs as prescribed (e.g., drug branded pill boxes, paper calendars, patient diaries). FDA recognizes, however, that the user interface is also an important component and expects sponsors to consider how the design of the user interface could affect the use of the prescription drug-use-related software output with their drugs. Similarly, prescription drug-use-related software output directed to healthcare providers is generally not expected to pose additional risk (e.g., an app made available by a sponsor that gives healthcare providers information on when dosing adjustments consistent with the labeling for that sponsor's drug might be warranted based on clinical data) because of the healthcare providers' training and expertise in properly evaluating treatment options.

    The following are examples of prescription drug-use-related software output that, under the proposed framework, drug sponsors would only be required to submit at time of initial dissemination to CDER pursuant to § 314.81(b)(3)(i) or to CBER pursuant to § 601.12(f): 14

    14 Under § 202.1(j)(4), promotional materials may be voluntarily submitted for advisory comment prior to first dissemination. This policy would not alter a sponsor's ability to seek such advisory comment on any such material.

    • Prescription drug-use-related software output that reminds providers of interventions or tests, consistent with the FDA-required labeling, needed before prescribing a drug product. For example, an app that reminds providers to obtain a blood test before prescribing or renewing a drug prescription as recommended in the FDA-required labeling.

    • Prescription drug-use-related software output that provides patients with information about their prescribed drug that is also found in the FDA-required labeling directed to patients (i.e., instructions for use or patient labeling or both).

    • Prescription drug-use-related software output that provides patients with simple tools to track their health information related to the condition for which they were prescribed the drug. For example, an app that allows a patient to record the incidence or severity of symptoms of their condition.

    • Prescription drug-use-related software output that allows prescribers to provide dosing instructions to a patient that are consistent with the FDA-required labeling (e.g., increase short-acting insulin based on pre-meal glucose level).

    • Prescription drug-use-related software output that allows a patient to enter a regimen for a drug and then reminds the patient to take a dose if the patient fails to record taking a dose at the scheduled time of administration.

    • Prescription drug-use-related software output that allows a healthcare provider to program a patient-adjusted weight-based dosing schedule for an immunosuppressant medication and then reminds patients to take their doses at the correct time.

    However, FDA anticipates that it is possible that certain prescription drug-use-related software output may increase the potential for harm to health where it provides recommendations that may direct patients to make decisions about their drug or disease that would normally be made in consultation with a healthcare provider. In certain cases, such software might be considered a device if it provides recommendations to patients to prevent, diagnose, or treat a disease or condition.15 If such software is a device and subsequently is disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor to be used with its prescription drug, the output would be submitted at the time of dissemination and the appropriate centers (e.g., CDER or CBER, and CDRH) would coordinate review (See section II.E below). Software that is not a device may still make recommendations to patients on how to manage their disease; for example, when it is necessary to contact a healthcare provider. If that software is subsequently disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor to be used with its prescription drug, then under the proposed framework, FDA would recommend that sponsors avail themselves of the opportunity for pre-dissemination review of such prescription drug-use-related software output through the voluntary advisory comment process for promotional materials. This would enable sponsors to obtain the benefit of FDA's thinking about whether the proposed prescription drug-use-related software output is consistent with the FDA-required labeling, including whether the output increases the potential for harm to health and whether it is truthful and non-misleading. In evaluating whether the prescription drug-use-related software output is consistent with FDA-required labeling, FDA would evaluate the output using the factors outlined in the guidance entitled “Medical Product Communications That Are Consistent With the FDA-Required Labeling—Questions and Answers.”

    15 See “Clinical and Patient Decision Support Software: Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff,” available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM587819.pdf.

    The following are categories of prescription drug-use-related software output that, under the proposed framework, FDA would recommend be submitted to the Agency by the drug sponsor in advance of dissemination, using the existing voluntary process for requesting advisory comment, because the use of the prescription drug-use-related software output may increase the potential for harm to health of patients compared to the use of the drug without such output (in which case the prescription drug-use-related software output would not be consistent with the FDA-required labeling):

    • Prescription drug-use-related software output that instructs patients on when to adjust their dose based on symptoms without first consulting a healthcare provider. For example, an app that allows patients to calculate an insulin dose based on blood glucose levels based on published treatment guidelines and recommends an insulin dose different than that prescribed by the patients' physician could pose a risk to the patient.

    • Prescription drug-use-related software output that provides recommendations on when a patient should contact a healthcare provider based on symptom-related information. Use of such software may or may not increase the potential for harm to the health, relative to the use of the drug without the software, depending on the context and content of the recommendation. For example, if the FDA-required labeling states that patients should contact a healthcare provider if they experience a rash and when the patient enters the word “rash” into the app, the app recommends contacting their provider, this output would be consistent with the labeling and its use would not increase the potential for harm to health relative to the information contained in the FDA-required labeling. However, where an app processes symptom-related information and provides recommendations on when the patient should or should not contact a healthcare provider, the use of such recommendations could increase potential for harm to health by making implicit recommendations on when it is not necessary to seek medical attention. For example, prescription drug-use-related software that communicates with a scale in a patient's home to allow the tracking of weight in patients with heart failure and uses the information to generate output with a recommendation of when to contact a healthcare provider is implicitly making a recommendation that it is not necessary to contact the provider if weight gain has not reached a certain threshold. The potential for harm to health stems from the use of any recommendation, explicit or implicit, that the patient's signs and symptoms, as entered into the app, do not require attention from a healthcare provider.

    FDA's proposed approach applies existing regulations and policies in a risk-based manner that fosters innovation and use of digital technologies with prescription drugs, and leverages FDA's existing mechanisms, such as postmarketing reporting requirements, to provide oversight that is commensurate with other communications by sponsors about their prescription drugs.

    It is also important to recognize that whether prescription drug-use-related software output is consistent with the FDA-required labeling may be dependent upon reliability of the underlying software to produce its output as intended. Unlike other types of promotional labeling, such as patient brochures and booklets, prescription drug-use-related software output could change if, for example, the software does not function as intended. Therefore, under this proposed framework, it would be expected that prescription drug-use-related software output submitted by a drug sponsor to the Agency, including prescription drug-use-related software output that is considered promotional labeling, would be reliably produced by the software. It is the responsibility of the drug sponsor to ensure the reliability of the prescription drug-use-related software it disseminates; FDA's labeling oversight described in this proposed framework focuses only on the output, not the software.

    Under this proposed framework, FDA would ask that drug sponsors who voluntarily submit their prescription drug-use-related software output (e.g., screenshots) to OPDP or APLB before initial dissemination under the voluntary advisory comment process review the guidance entitled, “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic and Non-Electronic Format—Promotional Labeling and Advertising Materials for Human Prescription Drugs.” 16 This guidance provides standard recommendations regarding content, format, and references for sponsors to consider when voluntarily requesting comments on promotional labeling materials. FDA does not expect sponsors to submit materials pertaining to software coding or programming.

    16 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM443702.pdf.

    D. Output of Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software That Contains Multiple Functions

    As noted above in section II (Background), prescription drug-use-related software may contain multiple functions, some of which may be considered a device. Those functions that meet the device definition may be regulated as device constituent parts of a combination product, or as elements of a system comprising a device constituent part of a combination product, if use of the functions together with the prescription drug meets the definition of combination product under § 3.2(e). Also as discussed above, information about prescription drug-use-related software output may be included in FDA-required labeling for a combination product of which the prescription drug-use-related software is a device constituent part or element thereof, if such software provides a function or information that is essential to one or more intended uses of that drug-led, drug-device combination product. If the output of a function is not essential to an indication for the combination product, that output would be considered promotional labeling.

    For example, some prescription drug-led, drug-device combination products may have prescription drug-use-related software that includes within a single app a function that is required for use of the combination product and functions that are not required for use of the product. For example, one software function may track drug ingestion through communication with data from an IEM, whereas other software functions may allow the patient to record symptoms like pain or fatigue, which are not required to achieve the intended effect of the combination product and may not be considered a device constituent of a drug-led, drug-device combination product. In such situations, FDA may require a drug sponsor to provide users of prescription drug-use-related software with adequate disclosure(s) within the prescription drug-use-related software output (and, if appropriate, in FDA-required labeling) that certain functions have not been evaluated by FDA.

    Another example of prescription drug-use-related software that may contain multiple functions is where clinical studies are done to show an effect on a clinical endpoint. For example, if the use of a dose-tracking app with an antidiabetic medication led to an improvement in serum HbA1c, and information about that prescription drug-use-related software output is included in FDA-required labeling, the sponsor might add additional software functions, such as an electronic carbohydrate counter. If there are no clinical studies to show the electronic carbohydrate counter software function improves HbA1c, the prescription drug-use-related software output from this function would be treated as promotional labeling under this proposed framework.

    E. Output of Prescription-Drug-Use-Related Software That Has Been Cleared or Approved by CDRH

    If prescription drug-use-related software is cleared or approved by CDRH as a device and is not a constituent of an approved prescription drug-device combination product, drug sponsors would only need to submit the prescription drug-use-related software output to CDER or CBER (as appropriate) at the time of first dissemination. Because such software was reviewed by CDRH, and CDRH would have consulted with CDER or CBER during the premarket review, FDA would not expect that the use of such software would result in an increased potential for harm to patients. Therefore, FDA would not recommend that a drug sponsor submit the prescription drug-use-related software output for voluntary advisory comment prior to first use, but would still expect such output to be promotional labeling and must submit on Form FDA 2253 at the time of first use.

    III. Additional Issues for Consideration

    FDA is soliciting public input from a broad group of stakeholders regarding this proposed framework for prescription drug-use-related software and the output of such software. In addition to general comments, FDA is interested in responses to the following questions:

    1. FDA is seeking to foster innovation in the use of digital technology with prescription drugs while maintaining a consistent approach to communications by sponsors about their drugs. Does the proposed approach to prescription drug-use-related software adequately foster innovation by drug sponsors?

    2. What alternative regulatory approaches could the Agency consider?

    3. What should FDA take into consideration with respect to applying prescription drug labeling requirements in this context (e.g., the requirement that labeling bear adequate directions for use)? Does the proposed approach adequately preserve FDA's ability to ensure that existing prescription drug labeling requirements are met?

    4. In a situation where the output of prescription drug-use-related software includes a benefit claim about the drug, what should FDA consider when providing recommendations on how to appropriately address the balancing of benefit information and risk information?

    5. Does the proposed framework appropriately characterize the types of prescription drug-use-related software output that should be submitted for advisory comment? (See Section II.C., Prescription Drug-Use-Related Software Output That Constitutes Promotional Labeling) Are there other examples for which advisory comment should be recommended because there is a strong potential that the prescription drug-use-related software output will increase the potential for harm to health if used with a drug?

    6. Does the proposed framework appropriately identify the materials and information that should be submitted by drug sponsors as part of a voluntary request for comment under § 202.1(j)(4)? Are there other materials or information FDA should consider in its evaluation of whether prescription drug-use-related software output submitted by drug sponsors is consistent with FDA-required labeling and is truthful and not misleading (e.g., human factors study results)?

    7. Regarding software functions, FDA's proposed expectation is that sponsors are responsible for ensuring that prescription drug-use-related software reliably produces its output as intended. Is this approach sufficient to ensure patient safety?

    8. FDA recognizes that software will have frequent updates, many of which will not alter prescription drug-use-related software functionality. FDA proposes that for prescription drug-use-software output that is considered promotional, if changes in the software do not alter the output experienced by the user, FDA would not need to be notified of those changes. Does this approach strike an appropriate balance between allowing for software innovation while providing adequate oversight of sponsor communications about their prescription drugs?

    9. What can be done to ensure that the end user has access to the prescription drug-use-related software that is appropriate to the specific drug dispensed at the pharmacy (e.g., in cases of generic substitution)?

    10. What issues should the Agency consider as it develops this proposed framework in order to facilitate timely generic competition for prescription drugs that are approved with prescription drug-use-related software output included in the FDA-required labeling?

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25206 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2027] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Survey of Current Manufacturing Practices for the Cosmetics Industry AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910—New and title “Survey of Current Manufacturing Practices for the Cosmetics Industry.” Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Survey of Current Manufacturing Practices for the Cosmetics Industry OMB Control Number 0910—NEW

    FDA has the responsibility to protect public health and, as part of this broad mandate, oversees the safety of the nation's cosmetic products. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of any cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded; cosmetics are also to be safe and properly labeled.

    The FD&C Act defines cosmetics as articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance. Among the products included in this definition are skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup, cleansing shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, deodorants, and tattoo inks, as well as any substance intended for use as a component of a cosmetic product. Some cosmetic products are also regulated as drugs.

    As with other commodities FDA regulates, the safety of cosmetic products can be ensured in part through a manufacturer's approach to the management of cosmetic quality. To date, FDA has not identified in the published literature any systematic, detailed study of the diversity of the practices and standards employed across the cosmetic industry. This study is intended to fill this gap. FDA proposes to conduct a voluntary survey of cosmetics establishments to identify the current manufacturing practices in the cosmetic industry.

    The survey instrument will collect data, on a voluntary basis, from cosmetic product manufacturers on the following topics:

    • Written Procedures and Documentation—including written procedures and records for manufacturing involving personnel, raw materials, processing, cleaning, maintenance, finished products, and training.

    • Buildings and Equipment—including facility space, pest control, practices ensuring the cleanliness and sanitation, water usage and treatment, and the proper functioning and operation of equipment.

    • Materials and Manufacturing—including practices for inventory management, labeling and storage of raw materials, closures, and in process materials, and in process standard operating procedures.

    • Quality Control/Product Testing—including the scope of the quality control unit, laboratory testing, dealing with rejected or returned products and complaints, and corrective actions.

    In addition, FDA will obtain the characteristics of surveyed establishments such as the types of cosmetics produced, published standards and guidelines followed, the number of employees, the volume of production, and the approximate revenue. The survey will be administered by web or by mail (respondent choice) and it will be directed to the Plant Manager of the cosmetics establishment.

    This is a new, one-time data collection. FDA does not plan to collect this data from the cosmetics industry on an ongoing basis.

    In the Federal Register of July 2, 2018 (83 FR 30940), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received three comments. FDA thanks the commenters for their comments and provides our responses below.

    The first comment expressed concern that the collection was voluntary, and a number of manufacturers may not participate, which will not inform FDA of manufacturers who are not observing good manufacturing practices. They also indicated that they feel the survey could help set future standards for the industry. In response to this comment, FDA notes that this survey is being conducted to inform FDA with updated information about the practices and standards employed across the cosmetics industry. With regard to identifying manufacturers who are not observing good manufacturing practices, the survey is structured to provide FDA with anonymized, updated cosmetic industry information, not individual response information about any of its participants.

    The second comment addressed specific PRA issues of necessity, burden estimate, quality and utility of the survey, and method of collection. The commenter feels that the survey is not necessary for proper FDA oversight of the industry because this information is already available to FDA through its facility inspections. They also indicated that they had not seen the actual questions on the survey, and therefore felt the burden estimate was not feasible. They suggested that FDA partner with outside sources to assist FDA in gathering information about the industry and thought that web or mail collection was reasonable.

    In response to the second comment, FDA noted in the Federal Register of July 2, 2018 that FDA has “not identified in the published literature any systematic, detailed study of the diversity of the practices and standards employed across the cosmetic industry to ensure product quality and safety.” FDA is conducting this survey to fill this gap in knowledge, and this survey is necessary to achieve this goal. With regard to the survey itself, it is (and has been) available at the FDA Docket assigned to this collection (FDA-2018-N-2027). We agree that the burden is likely greater than 30 minutes, and based on results of our pretest with six individuals, we have increased the burden estimate to 60 minutes. FDA's contractor did consult with industry stakeholders in the development of the survey instrument. Finally, FDA thanks the commenter for their comments and thoughts that our suggested method of web or collection method was reasonable.

    The third comment was not related to the PRA and will not be addressed at this time.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average burden
  • per response
  • Total hours
    Survey Invitation 898 1 898 0.08 (5 minutes) 71.84 Survey 564 1 564 1 564 Total 635.84 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We will select a sample of 898 establishments. After adjusting for ineligibility (i.e., firms that do not produce cosmetic products and those no longer in operation) and a response rate of 70 percent, we expect 564 completed surveys.

    We expect each individual survey invitation to take 5 minutes (0.08 hour) to complete. Multiplying by the 898 establishments that will receive the survey invitation, we estimate the time burden of the survey invitation to be 71.84 hours. Previously, we estimated that the survey would take 30 minutes to complete. However, based on our pretest with six individuals, we now expect each individual survey to take, on average, 60 minutes (1 hour) to complete. Multiplying by the estimated 564 establishments that will complete the survey, we estimate the time burden of the survey to be 564 hours. We estimate the total hourly reporting burden for this collection of information to be 635.84 hours.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25231 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA 2012-N-0129] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0719. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications OMB Control Number 0910-0719—Extension

    The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and other statutes to create an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference product. Section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)), added by the BPCI Act, sets forth the requirements for an application for a proposed biosimilar product and an application or a supplement for a proposed interchangeable product. Section 351(k) defines biosimilarity to mean that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that “there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product” (see section 351(i)(2) of the PHS Act). A 351(k) application must contain, among other things, information demonstrating that the biological product is biosimilar to a reference product based upon data derived from analytical studies, animal studies, and clinical studies, unless FDA determines, in its discretion, that certain studies are unnecessary in a 351(k) application (see section 351(k)(2) of the PHS Act). To meet the standard for interchangeability, an applicant must provide sufficient information to demonstrate biosimilarity and also to demonstrate that the biological product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, if the biological product is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch (see section 351(k)(4) of the PHS Act).

    Interchangeable products may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the prescribing healthcare provider (see section 351(i)(3) of the PHS Act) In estimating the information collection burden for 351(k) biosimilar product applications and interchangeable product applications or supplements, we reviewed the number of 351(k) applications FDA has received in fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, considered responses to a survey of biosimilar sponsors and applicants regarding projected future 351(k) submission volumes, as well as the collection of information regarding the general licensing provisions for biologics license applications under section 351(a) of the PHS Act submitted to OMB (approved under OMB control number 0910-0338).

    To submit an application seeking licensure of a proposed biosimilar product under sections 351(k)(2)(A)(i) and (iii) of the PHS Act, the estimated burden hours (FDA believes) would be approximately the same as noted under OMB control number 0910-0338 for a 351(a) application—860 hours. The burden estimates for seeking licensure of a proposed biosimilar product that meets the standards for interchangeability under sections 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4) would also be 860 hours per application. FDA believes these estimates are appropriate for 351(k) applications because the paperwork burden for a 351(k) application is expected to be comparable to the paperwork burden for a 351(a) application.

    In addition to the collection of information regarding the submission of a 351(k) application for a proposed biosimilar or interchangeable biological product, section 351(l) of the BPCI Act establishes procedures for identifying and resolving patent disputes involving applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act. The burden estimate for the patent notification provisions under section 351(l)(6)(C) of the BPCI Act are included in table 1 and are based on the estimated number of 351(k) applicants. Based on similar reporting requirements, FDA estimates this notification will take 2 hours.

    In the Federal Register of July 3, 2018 (83 FR 31152), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 351(k) Applications (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    351(k)(2)(A)(i) and 351(k)(2)(A)(iii) Biosimilar Product Applications 4 2.25 9 860 7,740 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4) Interchangeable Product Applications or Supplements 2 1 2 860 1,720 351(l)(6)(C) Patent Infringement Notifications 4 2.25 9 2 18 Total 9,478 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, the estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase in total hours and responses. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of submissions received over the last few years and additional interest in the biosimilars program.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25232 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Notice of Meeting for the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC) AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) announces a meeting of the Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee (ISMICC).

    The ISMICC is open to the public and members of the public can attend the meeting via telephone or webcast only, and not in person. Call-in information will be posted on the ISMICC website prior to the meeting, under the agenda section.

    The meeting will include information on federal efforts related to serious mental illness (SMI) and serious emotional disturbance (SED), including federal coordination, strategies, data evaluation, and recommendations for action. Committee members will also discuss federal implementation of ISMICC recommendations.

    The ISMICC will conduct five breakout sessions on the following focus areas: Data, Access, Treatment and Recovery, Justice, and Finance.

    Committee name: Interdepartmental Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee.

    Date/Time/Type: December 11, 2018/9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (EDT)/OPEN.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at SAMHSA Headquarters, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    The meeting can be accessed via webcast at https://2020archive.1capapp.com/event/ismicc/or by joining the teleconference at the toll-free, dial-in number at 1-800-369-3143; passcode 4784259.

    The public comment section is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and individuals interested in submitting a comment, must notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Pamela Foote, on or before November 26, 2018 via email to: [email protected]

    Two minutes will be allotted for each approved public comment as time permits. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting.

    Substantive meeting information and a roster of Committee members is available at the Committee's website https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/smi-committee.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Authority

    The ISMICC was established on March 15, 2017, in accordance with section 6031 of the 21st Century Cures Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, to report to the Secretary, Congress, and any other relevant federal department or agency on advances in serious mental illness (SMI) and serious emotional disturbance (SED), research related to the prevention of, diagnosis of, intervention in, and treatment and recovery of SMIs, SEDs, and advances in access to services and support for adults with SMI or children with SED. In addition, the ISMICC will evaluate the effect federal programs related to serious mental illness have on public health, including public health outcomes such as (A) rates of suicide, suicide attempts, incidence and prevalence of SMIs, SEDs, and substance use disorders, overdose, overdose deaths, emergency hospitalizations, emergency room boarding, preventable emergency room visits, interaction with the criminal justice system, homelessness, and unemployment; (B) increased rates of employment and enrollment in educational and vocational programs; (C) quality of mental and substance use disorders treatment services; or (D) any other criteria as may be determined by the Secretary. Finally, the ISMICC will make specific recommendations for actions that agencies can take to better coordinate the administration of mental health services for adults with SMI or children with SED. Not later than 1 (one) year after the date of enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, and 5 (five) years after such date of enactment, the ISMICC shall submit a report to Congress and any other relevant federal department or agency.

    II. Membership

    This ISMICC consists of federal members listed below or their designees, and non-federal public members.

    Federal Membership: Members include, The Secretary of Health and Human Services; The Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use; The Attorney General; The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs; The Secretary of the Department of Defense; The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; The Secretary of the Department of Education; The Secretary of the Department of Labor; The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

    Non-federal Membership: Members include, 14 non-federal public members appointed by the Secretary, representing psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, peer support specialists, and other providers, patients, family of patients, law enforcement, the judiciary, and leading research, advocacy, or service organizations. The ISMICC is required to meet at least twice per year.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Foote, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 14E53C, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone: 240-276-1279; email: [email protected].

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Carlos Castillo, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25310 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2018-1044] Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0103 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0103, Mandatory Ship Reporting System for the Northeast and Southeast Coasts of the United States; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-1044] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public participation and request for comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), ATTN: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-1044], and must be received by January 22, 2019.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Information Collection Request

    Title: Mandatory Ship Reporting System for the Northeast and Southeast Coasts of the United States.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0103.

    Summary: The information is needed to reduce the number of ship collisions with endangered northern right whales. Coast Guard rules at 33 CFR part 169 establish two mandatory ship-reporting systems off the northeast and southeast coasts of the United States.

    Need: The collection involves ships' reporting by radio to a shore-based authority when entering the area covered by the reporting system. The ship will receive, in return, information to reduce the likelihood of collisions between themselves and northern right whales—an endangered species—in the areas established with critical-habitat designation.

    Forms: None.

    Respondents: Operators of certain vessels.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 188 hours to 137 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: November 8, 2018. James D. Roppel, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25213 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2018-0050] Towing Safety Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Teleconference meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Towing Safety Advisory Committee will meet, via teleconference, to discuss the three current tasks assigned to the Committee. The Committee is expected to receive the final reports from the Subcommittee on Load Line Exemption for River Barges on Lakes Erie and Ontario. The Subcommittees on Implementation of Subchapter M and Towing of Liquefied Natural Gas Barges are expected to provide an update on their work. This teleconference will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    Meeting. The full Committee will meet via teleconference on Wednesday, December 5, 2018, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please note that this meeting may close early if the Committee has completed its business. To be able to join the teleconference, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 1 p.m. on November 28, 2018. To be able to physically attend the meeting at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, pre-register no later than 5 p.m. on November 28, 2018, with the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Comments and supporting documentation. To ensure your comments are reviewed by the Committee members before the teleconference, submit your written comments no later than November 28, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via teleconference. To join the teleconference, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 1 p.m. on November 28, 2018, to obtain the needed information. The number of teleconference lines is limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. If you prefer to join in person at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, it will be hosted in Room 6K15-15, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20593.

    Pre-registration Information. To pre-register contact Mr. Douglas W. Scheffler at [email protected], with TSAC in the subject line and provide your name, company and telephone number; if a foreign national, also provide your country of citizenship, and passport number and expiration date. All attendees will be required to provide a REAL ID Act-compliant, government-issued picture identification card in order to gain admittance to the building. For details about identification required, visit https://www.dhs.gov/real-id.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as possible.

    Written comments must be submitted using Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical difficulties when trying to submit a comment, contact the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time, including orally at the teleconference, but if you want Committee members to review your comments before the teleconference, please submit your comments no later than November 28, 2018. We are particularly interested in comments on the issues in the “Agenda” section below. To facilitate public participation, written comments on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. You must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number [USCG-2018-0050]. For more information about the privacy and the docket, review the Privacy and Security Notice for the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0050 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on the item you wish to view.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Douglas W. Scheffler, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1087, fax 202-372-8382 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, U.S.C. Appendix). As stated in 33 U.S.C. 1231a, the Towing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety.

    Agenda

    The agenda for the December 5, 2018, teleconference is as follows:

    (1) Final report from the Load Line Exemption Review Subcommittee, “Recommendations on Load Line Exemption for River Barges on Lakes Erie and Ontario (Task 17-02)”

    (2) Additional tasking for the Subcommittee working on “Recommendations on the Implementation of 46 Code of Federal Regulations Subchapter M—Inspection of Towing Vessels (Task 16-01)”

    (3) Progress reports from the other active Subcommittee, the one working on “Recommendations on the Towing of Liquefied Natural Gas Barges (Task 16-03)”

    (4) Discussion of manning levels as a new task.

    (5) Public Comment period.

    A copy of the task statements, draft final reports, and the agenda will be available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Commercial-Regulations-standards-CG-5PS/Office-of-Operating-and-Environmental-Standards/vfos/TSAC/.

    During the December 5, 2018 teleconference, a public comment period will be held from approximately 2:45 p.m. to 3 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that this public comment period may start before 2:45 p.m. if all other agenda items have been covered and may end before 3 p.m. if all of those wishing to comment have done so.

    Please contact Mr. Douglas W. Scheffler, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to register as a speaker.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. Jeffrey G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25243 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2018-0789] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0069 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0069, Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks Entering U.S. Waters; without change. Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before December 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0789] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), ATTN: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0789], and must be received by December 20, 2018.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0069.

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (83 FR 45266, September 6, 2018) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

    Information Collection Request

    Title: Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks Entering U.S. Waters.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0069.

    Summary: This collection requires the master of a vessel to provide information that details the vessel operator's ballast water management efforts.

    Need: The information is needed to ensure compliance with 16 U.S.C. 4711 and the requirements in 33 CFR part 151, subparts C and D regarding the management of ballast water, to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species into U.S. waters. The information is also used for research and periodic reporting to Congress.

    Forms: Ballast Water Management Report; and Ballast Water Management (BWM) Equivalent Reporting Program Application.

    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain vessels.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 61,819 hours to 83,337 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. James D. Roppel, U.S. Coast Guard,Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25215 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2018-0881] Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0003 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0003, Boating Accident Report; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 22, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2018-0881] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public participation and request for comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2018-0881], and must be received by January 22, 2019.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Information Collection Request

    Title: Boating Accident Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0003.

    Summary: The Coast Guard Boating Accident Report form (CG-3865, OMB Control Number 1625-0003) is the data collection instrument that ensures compliance with the implementing regulations and Title 46 U.S.C. 6102 (b) that requires the Secretary to collect, analyze and publish reports, information, and statistics on marine casualties.

    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 6102 (a) requires a uniform marine casualty reporting system, with regulations prescribing casualties to be reported and the manner of reporting. The statute requires a State to compile and submit to the Secretary (delegated to the Coast Guard) reports, information, and statistics on casualties reported to the State. Implementing regulations are contained in Title 33 CFR Subchapter S—Boating Safety, Part 173—Vessel Numbering and Casualty and Accident Reporting, Subpart C—Casualty and Accident Reporting and Part 174—State Numbering and Casualty Reporting Systems, Subpart C—Casualty Reporting System Requirements, and Subpart D—State reports.

    States are required to forward copies of the reports or electronically transmit accident report data to the Coast Guard within 30 days of their receipt of the report as prescribed by 33 CFR 174.121 (Forwarding of casualty or accident reports). The accident report data and statistical information obtained from the reports submitted by the State reporting authorities are used by the Coast Guard in the compilation of national recreational boating accident statistics.

    Forms: CG-3865, Recreational Boating Accident Report.

    Respondents: Federal regulations (33 CFR 173.55) require the operator or any uninspected vessel that is numbered or used for recreational purposes to submit an accident report to the State authority when:

    (1) A person dies; or

    (2) A person is injured and requires medical treatment beyond first aid; or

    (3) Damage to the vessel and other property totals $2,000 or more, or there is a complete loss of the vessel; or

    (4) A person disappears from the vessel under circumstances that indicate death or injury.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 2,500 hours a year.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: November 14, 2018. James D. Roppel, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25212 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0019] Agency Information Collection Activities: Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than January 22, 2019) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0019 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP website at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) 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) 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) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement.

    OMB Number: 1651-0019.

    Form Number: CBP Form 1300.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information being collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Abstract: CBP Form 1300, Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement, is used to collect essential commercial vessel data at time of formal entrance and clearance in U.S. ports. The form allows the master to attest to the truthfulness of all CBP forms associated with the manifest package, and collects information about the vessel, cargo, purpose of entrance, certificate numbers, and expiration for various certificates. It also serves as a record of fees and tonnage tax payments in order to prevent overpayments. CBP Form 1300 was developed through agreement by the United Nations Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) in conjunction with the United States and various other countries. This form is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1431, 1433, and 1434, and provided for by 19 CFR part 4, and accessible at http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms?title=1300.

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,000.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 22.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 264,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 132,000.

    Dated: November 15, 2018. Seth D. Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25263 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2018-N096; FXES11140800000-189-FF08EVEN00] Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Categorical Exclusion for the Seascape Place Single-Family Residence; Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, California AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Drs. Matthew Lotysch and Claire Amurao for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The permit would authorize take of the federally endangered Morro shoulderband snail incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the construction of a single-family residence addressed in the draft habitat conservation plan prepared for the project. We invite public comment.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before December 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To obtain documents: You may download a copy of the draft habitat conservation plan and draft low-effect screening form and environmental action statement at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/, or you may request copies of the documents by sending U.S. mail to our Ventura office, or by phone (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    To submit written comments: Please send us your written comments using one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail: Send your comments to Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.

    Facsimile: Fax your comments to 805-644-3958.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie M. Vanderwier, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 805-677-3400 (phone), or at the Ventura address in ADDRESSES.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The applicants have developed a draft habitat conservation plan for the project that includes measures to mitigate and avoid/minimize impacts to the federally endangered Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana). The permit would authorize take of the Morro shoulderband snail incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the Seascape Place Single-Family Residence Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). We invite public comment on the application, the draft HCP, draft low-effect screening form, and environmental action statement.

    Background

    The Morro shoulderband snail was listed as endangered on December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64613). Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the ESA to include the following activities: “[T]o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. Under the ESA, protections for federally listed plants differ from the protections afforded to federally listed animals. Issuance of an incidental take permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. The permittees would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations ((50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)) regarding conservation activities for the Morro shoulderband snail.

    Applicants' Proposed Activities

    The applicants have applied for a permit for incidental take of the Morro shoulderband snail. Take is likely to occur in association with activities necessary to construct a single-family residence. The site contains 2.79 acres of suitable upland habitat for the Morro shoulderband snail, all of which is in critical habitat designated for the species. The HCP includes measures to minimize take of Morro shoulderband snail in the form of injury and mortality. Mitigation for unavoidable take of the species consists of the permanent protection of 1.37 acres of suitable and occupied onsite habitat as a conservation easement to be dedicated to the County of San Luis Obispo.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    The Service made a preliminary determination that issuance of the incidental take permit is neither a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), nor will it individually or cumulatively have more than a negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. The Service considers the effects of the taking of the Morro shoulderband snail to be minor as the affected area is small (approximately 1.42 acres) and includes the permanent protection of 1.37 acres of suitable, occupied habitat in a conservation easement. Therefore, based on this preliminary determination, the permit qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NEPA.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit application, draft HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

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

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: November 9, 2018. Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25222 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [178D0102DM, DS6OS00000, DLSN00000.000000, DX6CS25] Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission; Notification of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice of this meeting is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice provides the schedule and agenda for the December 7, 2018, meeting of the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission (Commission).

    DATES:

    Meeting date: The meeting will be held on Friday, December 7, 2018, beginning at 9 a.m., and ending no later than 5 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument, 144 Constitution Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002; in the Allender Gallery on the 2nd floor.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Oliver, Designated Federal Officer, Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission, 1849 C Street, NW, Room 7313, Washington, DC 20240; phone: (202) 912-7510; fax: (202) 219-2100; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Congress passed legislation to create the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission Act, a bill, “to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States providing for women's suffrage.”

    The duties of the Commission, as written in the law, include: (1) To encourage, plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment; (2) To encourage private organizations and State and local Governments to organize and participate in activities commemorating the centennial of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment; (3) To facilitate and coordinate activities throughout the United States relating to the centennial of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment; (4) To serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about events and plans for the centennial of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment; and (5) To develop recommendations for Congress and the President for commemorating the centennial of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment.

    Meeting Agenda Welcome and Introductions Ethics briefing FACA Briefing FACA Records Briefing Summary of NPS 19th Amendment Commemoration Planning Overview of Women's Suffrage Movement Establish Vision/Mission Discuss informative speakers/research/articles Establish subcommittees Public Comment Period 2019 Meeting Schedule Adjourn

    The meeting is open to the public, but preregistration is required. Any individual who wishes to attend the meeting should register via email at [email protected] or telephone (202) 912-7510. Interested persons may choose to make a public comment at the meeting during the designated time for this purpose. Members of the public may also choose to submit written comments by mailing them to Kim Oliver, Designated Federal Officer, 1849 C Street NW, Room 7313, Washington, DC 20240, or via email at [email protected] Please contact Ms. Oliver at the email address above to obtain meeting materials. All written comments received will be provided to the Commission.

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Oliver no later than December 3, 2018, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Public Disclosure of Comments

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

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2

    Margaret Triebsch, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25331 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1203 (Review)] Xanthan Gum From China Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on June 1, 2018 (83 FR 25485) and determined on September 4, 2018 that it would conduct an expedited review (83 FR 48653, September 26, 2018).

    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on November 15, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4839 (November 2018), entitled Xanthan Gum from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1203 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 15, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-25290 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P